Bush presses for economic sanctions

[Hardliner 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 18 2002,18:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Germany didnt have the assests to maintain a beachhead in britain. Sealion was an illusion.

by the way, as i said somewhere before. if the USA wouldnt enter the war whole wurope would be red now. germany wouldnt win the USSR any way.<span id='postcolor'>

Wining in USSR was possible. Hitler maintained over 70% or 75% of his force there I believe. Its foolish mistakes like losing the 6th army in Stalingrad in 1943, diverting his panzers north and south instead of sending them right into Moscow in 1941 while RED defences were weak and other little errors like demanding too much from the German people. And then blaming them because they can't keep up with his wishes. Losing troops in North Africa was a mistake too that cost them. Just commanding them to "hold and fight to the death" such leadership was bound to cause it to lose the war.

I'm sure someone who knows more about this will correct me about it but some people believed that Britain had hardly an army there and that Churchill was sending British troops to Africa instead of keeping them on home soil (some time after Battle of Britain actually) The problem was of course the RAF.

But the war in the East was not simply a one sided fight were USSR was destinded to win. USSR was almost on the verge of collaps. Perhaps if Hitler had invaded a few months early they would have been better off before the winter came.

And I saw in a few documentries that after Germany was defeated USSR had troops and hardware that was ready to attack into western Europe. Also paratroops and more forces in the far East near Alaska and that Soviet generals were urging Stalin to attack the Americans immediatly. This might not sound right but I have seen it in documentries.

So sorry about all this. What was the topic suppost to be? on Bush or something?