|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: Doug M.Doug M.
Date: Jun 8, 2010 11:47
On Jun 7, 3:33 pm, ccc31807 gmail.com> wrote:
> Question: can you name other candidates for the unfamiliar Best
> Generals off the top of your head?
Google 'Father Bem' on this NG.
"With less than 40,000 men, in just 90 days he conquered a mountainous
province the size of Ohio. During that time his army marched over
1000 km and fought five battles, winning every
one. The forces against him had more than double his strength; he
marched around them, took them by surprise in flank or rear, and
defeated them piecemeal. By the time he was done, 90%% of the province
was in Hungarian hands, the Saxons were handing over sackfuls of gold
and silver, the Romanian National Council had fled into Wallachia, and
the native Romanian resistance had been reduced to guerrilla bands in
the mountains.
|
| Show full article (2.23Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Daniel TitleyDaniel Titley
Date: Jun 8, 2010 02:47
In early October 1066, while the Anglo-Saxon English army marched
south from Stamford Bridge to meet the invading Norman army, there was
apparently some discussion about their strategy. In OTL King Harold
himself commanded the army and engaged the Normans ASAP, but there
were other options.
What if someone else (probably Harold’s brother Gyrth) commanded the
army while Harold stayed in reserve to raise re-enforcements and to
prevent a power-vacuum if the English lost the battle?
Would different English commander have fought the Normans at another
time or place? Would he have used different tactics? Could a different
English commander win the Battle of Hastings?
What about Harold? If the English win; he’s faced with a successful
general who’s just saved the kingdom while he sat on his arse, not a
good position for a king. If the Normans win at Hastings, what can
Harold do? Were there enough Anglo-Saxon troops around to form another
army?
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: BradipusBradipus
Date: Jun 8, 2010 00:20
karl, 20:08, lunedì 7 giugno 2010:
> Scott Eiler schrieb:
>> On Jun 6, 1:18 pm, rays...@ webtv.net (Raymond Speer) wrote: >>> The top of the Eiffel Tower is the copper plated Big Boy's
>>> statue, holding a shake and a fry, and is nowadays regarded
>>> as the finishing touch that old building always needed.
>>
>> Actually, wouldn't they be putting on a statue of Tintin as a
>> response to American cultural imperialism?
>
> Tintin is *belgian*.
Asterix is French.
--
o o
L
___
|
| |
|
4 Comments |
|
|
Author: Rich RostromRich Rostrom
Date: Jun 7, 2010 23:00
tankfixer wrote:
>> But in December 1941, the third Reich was in a State of War with
>> the United States of America. SO sinking American shipping was not a
>> "casus belli" - but SOP.
>
> Ruben James....
REUBEN JAMES was sunk while the
U.S. was not at war at all. Since most
Americans still wanted to avoid going
to war, it was not taken as a casus belli.
If the U.S. is _at_ _war_, this obstacle
drops out.
German attacks on U.S. warships and
freighters while the U.S. is at war with
Japan would not be overlooked.
|
| Show full article (0.94Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Rich RostromRich Rostrom
Date: Jun 7, 2010 22:15
David Tenner wrote:
> Rich Rostrom rcn.com> wrote in>>
>> Delegation control in the 80th Congress:
>>
>> R 29, D 17, 2 split.
>>
>> Delegation control in the 81st Congress (OTL):
>>
>> R 21, D 24, 3 split.
>>
>> So the OTL 81st House couldn't elect Truman
>> without Republican consent!
>
> By my count, the Democrats controlled twenty-five delegations ...
>
> The GOP controlled twenty delegations...
Oh, you're no fun anymore!
(I miscounted.)
|
| Show full article (1.67Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Rich RostromRich Rostrom
Date: Jun 7, 2010 21:41
David Tenner wrote:
>... even wartime prohibition had used 2.75%% as the standard:
"The monk, though warned and fortified,
was deeply shocked and mortified,
To find on his arrival
wild debauchery in sway.
While some lay in a stupor sent
by booze of more that two per cent,
The others were behaving
in a most immoral way."
> "Light wines and beers are now, and always have been, intoxicating liquors".
It's quite possible to get roaring drunk
on beer or wine, even "light" wine or
beer.
|
| Show full article (1.96Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Rich RostromRich Rostrom
Date: Jun 7, 2010 21:15
Naraht wrote:
> I'm having problem coming up with a reasonable POD, because the PM of
> Thailand, Plaek Pibulsonggram, came to power in a coup and his
> leadership cult would have done Mussolini proud.
>
> the Thai
> agreed to help with invasions of Burma and Malaysia. The Japanese
> invaded Thailand on 7 Dec 1941, and as per the Agreement, the Thai
> surrendered within 12 hours...
According to Wikipedia, Thai forces at
some locations resisted fiercely, and
killed several hundred Japanese first.
However the Japanese force marching
on Bangkok was not opposed by
Pibulsonggram's connivance.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: NarahtNaraht
Date: Jun 7, 2010 20:36
It would seem that it might be more likely to have an 18th amendment
which would give half a loaf rather than none. If the first proposal
which makes it through congress is one that simply bans distilled
liquors then a more complete ban, like in OTL, might not pass
immediately.
The problem is how to make them take half a loaf. We might need to
move the amendment earlier, perhaps before American participation in
WWI.
|
| |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
