Either invisible or wishes she was probably.Calix wrote:Get them, although i'm concerned as to her appearance considering that story..
Would you not attribute the Soviet army being designed that way due mainly to incompetance and bad planning? I'm not a military history fanatic (why study the tools of history above those who use them), but I've picked up enough because it's obviously impossible to fully grasp diplomatic or economic history without knowing about it. I do know, as I should think you do, that Russia built far more tanks than any other nation in her five year plans in the 1930s. But, as it was a period of rapid technological change, they mostly became obsolete before the war started. It's exactly the same kind of incompetance and poor planning.
Not trying harder to seize the French fleet was strange. I would speculate that she prioritised using U-boats to fight a naval battle, and most of the ships were in N. Africa, near the Mediterranean where Italy had a good chance to gain supremacy.
I think Britain's army was pretty poor in 1939, agreed, but as you have pointed out the French army was actually the envy of the world. With some back up and Britain's naval support (or even use of the ridiculous amount of long range bombers we had built) victory would have been possible.
About Poland - just look at a map. It's kinda in the way of any conquest of Russian territory don't you think? Hardly the same as Romania and Hungary. Hitler wanted to drive towards the Urals, not the Black Sea.
I never suggested that St Petersburg could be attacked from the sea. If I seemed to convey that then I must not have phrased my point clearly enough. My point was that ports, obviously, could be used for moving large amounts of men, supplies, artillery or whatever else the Russian's probably don't want to be amassed 32km from their 2nd city.
I wouldn't say it was sheer luck the Americans joined the war. This really is my domain now I'm afraid. I have read nearly every important document regarding American foreign policy during WWII. Churchill was shrewd in his communication with Roosevelt and seemed daring and confident to cross the Atlantic to meet him by ship. His oratory that so lifted the British public also touched nerves with public opinion in the states. I won't say Churchill was the main reason the US entered the war. It's far too complicated and Roosevelt was obviously the man who relentlessly worked to bring public opinion behind it. Also, the blitz and the occupation of France really stirred up American sentiment against Hitler's barbarity.
