So - I don’t have nearly the ability to create not one but two lengthy coherent pieces of such incisiveness without working on it for literally weeks I will keep the following short and sweet. It would be interesting if you paralleled Soviet expansionism in this time period in Asia. In particular its decision to renege on its non-Aggression pact with Japan. Obviously one needs to account for China and communism’s spread there. The interesting thing to me is how absolutely dominate a military the USA developed by the end of World War II. The Pacific Fleet (known as the 3rd fleet when commanded by Halsey and the 5th when commanded by Spruance) comprised of Essex Class Fast Carriers and Iowa Class Fast Battleships among many other ships (carriers, battleships destroyers etc.) could span the globe and dominate any foe at all. Coupled with being the only nuclear power at the time the US very well could have taken Patton’s advice and driven on to Moscow from both sides. But the US did not. In fact we drew down so much that the our combat power was nearly not sufficient to repulse North Koreans.
Please note that I very much do have the “ability” to write something and inexplicably lose it through iPad or internet incompetence. I am very very good at that.
Oh, I hate writing about the time of the tsars, because they were such fools. It was always easy for me to see why Lenin acted as he did. And you have to go back to the tsars to write about Russia's forlorn strategy in the Pacific.
But you're right that I should write about the Pacific theater, except that the driver there was ALWAYS Japan. China really was the "sick man of Asia", in the same way that the Ottoman Empire was the "sick man of Europe" back then. The European powers were simply predators . . . The coyotes of the Pacific? And the ethnic hostilities may dwarf Europe's . . . although we native-born Yanks usually ignore that in the narratives we tell about Asia, because we don't have the same background regarding it that we do regarding Europe.
Wait ... what ... France “gets” huffy? This implies that there was a period of time when France wasn’t huffy. To paraphrase Bruce Banner’s line during the climatic battle against the Chitari at the end the Avengers ... France is always huffy.
So - I don’t have nearly the ability to create not one but two lengthy coherent pieces of such incisiveness without working on it for literally weeks I will keep the following short and sweet. It would be interesting if you paralleled Soviet expansionism in this time period in Asia. In particular its decision to renege on its non-Aggression pact with Japan. Obviously one needs to account for China and communism’s spread there. The interesting thing to me is how absolutely dominate a military the USA developed by the end of World War II. The Pacific Fleet (known as the 3rd fleet when commanded by Halsey and the 5th when commanded by Spruance) comprised of Essex Class Fast Carriers and Iowa Class Fast Battleships among many other ships (carriers, battleships destroyers etc.) could span the globe and dominate any foe at all. Coupled with being the only nuclear power at the time the US very well could have taken Patton’s advice and driven on to Moscow from both sides. But the US did not. In fact we drew down so much that the our combat power was nearly not sufficient to repulse North Koreans.
Please note that I very much do have the “ability” to write something and inexplicably lose it through iPad or internet incompetence. I am very very good at that.
Oh, I hate writing about the time of the tsars, because they were such fools. It was always easy for me to see why Lenin acted as he did. And you have to go back to the tsars to write about Russia's forlorn strategy in the Pacific.
But you're right that I should write about the Pacific theater, except that the driver there was ALWAYS Japan. China really was the "sick man of Asia", in the same way that the Ottoman Empire was the "sick man of Europe" back then. The European powers were simply predators . . . The coyotes of the Pacific? And the ethnic hostilities may dwarf Europe's . . . although we native-born Yanks usually ignore that in the narratives we tell about Asia, because we don't have the same background regarding it that we do regarding Europe.
Remind me about this when I end the NATO series.
I will!
Wait ... what ... France “gets” huffy? This implies that there was a period of time when France wasn’t huffy. To paraphrase Bruce Banner’s line during the climatic battle against the Chitari at the end the Avengers ... France is always huffy.
A more accurate heading might be ... “France Focuses its Huffiness on NATO”