Most overrated president

[Beet]

I was merely arguing that he was a terrible man, who deserved to be killed, someone asked why did we hated him.

And I was merely arguing, that all your reasons except the last are minor and insignificant, and for them alone, no one would know or care about this man named Lincoln. So hence, your view of him of him should be judged on the Civil War and its outcomes alone, but if you still hate him and feel he deserved to be killed, so be it.

[J-Mann]

Bono, your arguments are like saying Thomas Jefferson was a slaveowner, thus he is overrated.

Lincoln will be remembered primarily for his prosecuting the federal side of the civil war and for the emancipation proclamation. All of those other things had no or negligible impact on the nation's history. These two things had a massive impact and are what create the name of Lincoln. Depending on your view of these two events, your view of Lincoln will be shaped.

I was merely arguing that he was a terrible man, who deserved to be killed, someone asked why did we hated him.

I also find it unfair to apply today's politically correct standards to someone who lived even 145 years ago.  Lives have to be judged within the context of the time period in which they lived.

[Huckleberry Finn]

john ford you know that is just as incorrect as the 'missle gap' was.

In 500 years, I'll be dead. I guess it really wouldn't matter. I just find Reagan's ignorance about things like that overwhelming. The same as I found Jimmy Carter to be utterly unfit to be President. I think though, by the time Reagn was President, the people were kidding themselves if they thought the Soviets wouldn't collapse soon.

On January 20th, 1981, the USSR was more powerful than the US.

Hah!

john ford you know that is just as incorrect as the 'missle gap' was.

Actually, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a serious military analysis that shows that had the US and USSR come to blows in W. Europe that we'd have won.  The Soviets had vastly superior armor and in far greater numbers to their NATO counterparts.  The Soviets were closer to the field of battle that their US counterparts.  NATO did not have nearly as compatible of weapon systems as the USSR.

I also think you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that the US had superior nuclear capabilities in 1981.  The Soviets had more warheads and, unlike the US, their missiles were usually mobile negating any possible counterforce capability the US might have otherwise had.

America had an advantage in the air, but wars aren't won by airpower.  There is an old joke that one Soviet general met another Soviet general in Paris and asked him, "By the way, who won the air war?"  Ultimately, US air superiority against Soviet fighters would not have been sufficient to stem the superior Soviet armored and artillery forces, and since stealth technology was not in service yet, US aircraft would have their operations hindered by Soviet SAMs and AAA even if they did achieve victory against the Soviet air force.

At sea, we'd have a draw.  Soviet aircraft and tactics for attacking American carriers were sufficiently advanced that the US would not have been able to effectively deploy or re-supply forces.  Soviet submarines would not make this effort any easier.

The Soviet military was already proving its superiority in subduing Afghan militias.  This contrasted greatly with America's disaster in Vietnam.  It was not until later when the USSR was strained by the US arms buildup and CIA activity that they faltered in central Asia.

Economically, the USSR was behind the US, but there is no doubt that our lead wasn't growing, but was staying constant.  During the decade of the 1970s, the USSR managed to keep pace with the USA.

A good analysis. However I think NATO's weapons were more advanced technically. Hard to say who would have won. But in the Persian Gulf War Western weapon technology was superior against Soviet's one. But that was 1991 not 1981, though.

[ATFFL]

One correction to John Ford: in 1981 the US had a noticable advantage at sea.  The location of Soviet naval bases allowed NATO, specifically the US, to know the coming and goings of the Soviet navy, including submarines.  It was not unheard of for a Soviet sub to go out on patrol and be followed by a US attack submarine for its entire patrol without ever knowing it.  Under Reagan this would become more and more common.

NATO weapons were generally a little better than their Soviet counterparts, but the Soviets had lots and lots more of them.

The only reasonable NATO wins sceanrios involved trading land for time while the US, UK and Canada built up forces in Spain and possibly Italy.  When the Soviets reached the natural borders of the Alps and Pyrannes NATO would counterattack, with a possible US landing near Valdivostok to put the Soviets in a two front war.

[??????????]

Bono, your arguments are like saying Thomas Jefferson was a slaveowner, thus he is overrated.

Lincoln will be remembered primarily for his prosecuting the federal side of the civil war and for the emancipation proclamation. All of those other things had no or negligible impact on the nation's history. These two things had a massive impact and are what create the name of Lincoln. Depending on your view of these two events, your view of Lincoln will be shaped.

I was merely arguing that he was a terrible man, who deserved to be killed, someone asked why did we hated him.

I also find it unfair to apply today's politically correct standards to someone who lived even 145 years ago.  Lives have to be judged within the context of the time period in which they lived.

I've tried to do that before here on the forum, yet no one understands and I get labeled "racist" or "bigot".

[Bono]

Bono, your arguments are like saying Thomas Jefferson was a slaveowner, thus he is overrated.

Lincoln will be remembered primarily for his prosecuting the federal side of the civil war and for the emancipation proclamation. All of those other things had no or negligible impact on the nation's history. These two things had a massive impact and are what create the name of Lincoln. Depending on your view of these two events, your view of Lincoln will be shaped.

I was merely arguing that he was a terrible man, who deserved to be killed, someone asked why did we hated him.

I also find it unfair to apply today's politically correct standards to someone who lived even 145 years ago.  Lives have to be judged within the context of the time period in which they lived.

When you are able to apply the time's standart's to the Confederates, then we'll talk.

[Huckleberry Finn]

One correction to John Ford: in 1981 the US had a noticable advantage at sea.  The location of Soviet naval bases allowed NATO, specifically the US, to know the coming and goings of the Soviet navy, including submarines.  It was not unheard of for a Soviet sub to go out on patrol and be followed by a US attack submarine for its entire patrol without ever knowing it.  Under Reagan this would become more and more common.

NATO weapons were generally a little better than their Soviet counterparts, but the Soviets had lots and lots more of them.

The only reasonable NATO wins sceanrios involved trading land for time while the US, UK and Canada built up forces in Spain and possibly Italy.  When the Soviets reached the natural borders of the Alps and Pyrannes NATO would counterattack, with a possible US landing near Valdivostok to put the Soviets in a two front war.

The Third World War scenarios are interesting, but the truth is that the conventional warfare would have been impossible in the conditions of Cold War. Fighting would have been ended shortly by cease fire or more likely by nuclear attacks.

But as I said scenarios are fun so....

I don't believe that the USA landing operation in Russian Far East would have been effective, especially because North Korea would have joined in the war. Also USA would have needed a lot of troops in Cuba. Other  inevitable minor battlefields would have been Vietnam and South China Sea (over 20 000 Soviet troops there) Angola (50 000 Cubans) Yemen (Soviet troops and bases) A big question marks are radical Arab states like Syria and Libya. In 1981 Iraq was in war against Iran that I don't think that they would have interfered.

Finland would have been occupied by Soviets in two weeks. Our military was insignificant during the Cold War years.

[ATFFL]

One correction to John Ford: in 1981 the US had a noticable advantage at sea.  The location of Soviet naval bases allowed NATO, specifically the US, to know the coming and goings of the Soviet navy, including submarines.  It was not unheard of for a Soviet sub to go out on patrol and be followed by a US attack submarine for its entire patrol without ever knowing it.  Under Reagan this would become more and more common.

NATO weapons were generally a little better than their Soviet counterparts, but the Soviets had lots and lots more of them.

The only reasonable NATO wins sceanrios involved trading land for time while the US, UK and Canada built up forces in Spain and possibly Italy.  When the Soviets reached the natural borders of the Alps and Pyrannes NATO would counterattack, with a possible US landing near Valdivostok to put the Soviets in a two front war.

The Third World War scenarios are interesting, but the truth is that the conventional warfare would have been impossible in the conditions of Cold War. Fighting would have been ended shortly by cease fire or more likely by nuclear attacks.

But as I said scenarios are fun so....

I don't believe that the USA landing operation in Russian Far East would have been effective, especially because North Korea would have joined in the war. Also USA would have needed a lot of troops in Cuba. Other  inevitable minor battlefields would have been Vietnam and South China Sea (over 20 000 Soviet troops there) Angola (50 000 Cubans) Yemen (Soviet troops and bases) A big question marks are radical Arab states like Syria and Libya. In 1981 Iraq was in war against Iran that I don't think that they would have interfered.

Finland would have been occupied by Soviets in two weeks. Our military was insignificant during the Cold War years.

It was estimated there was a 25% or so chance that China would join the war, and, if they did, a 90% chance they attacked the Soviet Union.

The US plan for Cuba was to kill Castro and let chaos ensue.  Castro, like many dictators, did not set up any plns for his demise.  The military would likely begin fighting to replace him.  At least, that was the US hope. 

The Middle East would have broken into a series of confused and chaotic wars.  The Saudis and Kuwait would be on the US side, theo ther arab states would likely try anothe rstupid move on Israel hoping for either Soviet backing or for Israel to someho falter this time.  Soviet troops in Yemen woudl find themselves in an untenable position really.  Long way from home, no chance of resupply and an unreliable population.

Vietnam was at this point, I believe, beginning the reforms that would begin the moderniztion.  Not sure how they would play out.  Even if they did side with the Soviets, what could they contribute?  The best they could do is open a second front if China got involved.

I would bet against a Soviet move on Finland.  All it would do is eat up troops without any benefit.

All of the second fronts can be safely ignored while the big battle plays out with the possible exception of Korea.  At this point though the RoK was a credible and ready force.  While the south would suffer terribly in a war, they would not do nearly so poorly as they did in the first war.  The US landing on the Soviet east was dependenant on the situation in Korea.  If the troops were needed their to stabilize the front, they would go there.  Otherwise they land in Russia.

One thing everyone agreed on was that the war would not alst more than a year under any but the most strange circumstances.  The US goes nuclear if they get pushed out of Europe, the Soviets do if they get pushed past the Eastern European satellites.

[Nym90]

Ronald Reagan.

[J-Mann]

Bono, your arguments are like saying Thomas Jefferson was a slaveowner, thus he is overrated.

Lincoln will be remembered primarily for his prosecuting the federal side of the civil war and for the emancipation proclamation. All of those other things had no or negligible impact on the nation's history. These two things had a massive impact and are what create the name of Lincoln. Depending on your view of these two events, your view of Lincoln will be shaped.

I was merely arguing that he was a terrible man, who deserved to be killed, someone asked why did we hated him.

I also find it unfair to apply today's politically correct standards to someone who lived even 145 years ago.  Lives have to be judged within the context of the time period in which they lived.

I've tried to do that before here on the forum, yet no one understands and I get labeled "racist" or "bigot".

I find that people are just looking for an argument when they try to apply today's standards.  It's like Columbus hatred...it's ridiculous.  I actually had a class in college about human evolution, and the professor asked whether or not it was right for Cro Magnon man to wipe out Neanderthal man.  Some girl actually started answering (saying, of course, that it was insensitive and wrong of the Cro Magnons to destroy a lesser peoples) when I interrupted and told everyone how stupid they were!

[The Duke]

Got your Personal Message, Huck.  I honestly thought the US-USSR debate had been dropped in this thread.

Anyway, the only thing I could argue with either you or Tredrick is that I think Tredrick overestimates the ability of the US Navy to withstand the attacks of Russian bombers like the Tu-22 "Backfire".  They were a very deadly weapon, and the backbone of our Navy is its carriers.  Lose those, and we might have, and you probably lose the war.

Also, as to the Gulf War comparison, most of the weapons we had in 1991, especially on the Army side, were not in service in 1981.  Most notable on that list is the M-1 Abrams Tank.

[Huckleberry Finn]

One correction to John Ford: in 1981 the US had a noticable advantage at sea.  The location of Soviet naval bases allowed NATO, specifically the US, to know the coming and goings of the Soviet navy, including submarines.  It was not unheard of for a Soviet sub to go out on patrol and be followed by a US attack submarine for its entire patrol without ever knowing it.  Under Reagan this would become more and more common.

NATO weapons were generally a little better than their Soviet counterparts, but the Soviets had lots and lots more of them.

The only reasonable NATO wins sceanrios involved trading land for time while the US, UK and Canada built up forces in Spain and possibly Italy.  When the Soviets reached the natural borders of the Alps and Pyrannes NATO would counterattack, with a possible US landing near Valdivostok to put the Soviets in a two front war.

The Third World War scenarios are interesting, but the truth is that the conventional warfare would have been impossible in the conditions of Cold War. Fighting would have been ended shortly by cease fire or more likely by nuclear attacks.

But as I said scenarios are fun so....

I don't believe that the USA landing operation in Russian Far East would have been effective, especially because North Korea would have joined in the war. Also USA would have needed a lot of troops in Cuba. Other  inevitable minor battlefields would have been Vietnam and South China Sea (over 20 000 Soviet troops there) Angola (50 000 Cubans) Yemen (Soviet troops and bases) A big question marks are radical Arab states like Syria and Libya. In 1981 Iraq was in war against Iran that I don't think that they would have interfered.

Finland would have been occupied by Soviets in two weeks. Our military was insignificant during the Cold War years.

It was estimated there was a 25% or so chance that China would join the war, and, if they did, a 90% chance they attacked the Soviet Union.

The US plan for Cuba was to kill Castro and let chaos ensue.  Castro, like many dictators, did not set up any plns for his demise.  The military would likely begin fighting to replace him.  At least, that was the US hope. 

The Middle East would have broken into a series of confused and chaotic wars.  The Saudis and Kuwait would be on the US side, theo ther arab states would likely try anothe rstupid move on Israel hoping for either Soviet backing or for Israel to someho falter this time.  Soviet troops in Yemen woudl find themselves in an untenable position really.  Long way from home, no chance of resupply and an unreliable population.

Vietnam was at this point, I believe, beginning the reforms that would begin the moderniztion.  Not sure how they would play out.  Even if they did side with the Soviets, what could they contribute?  The best they could do is open a second front if China got involved.

I would bet against a Soviet move on Finland.  All it would do is eat up troops without any benefit.

All of the second fronts can be safely ignored while the big battle plays out with the possible exception of Korea.  At this point though the RoK was a credible and ready force.  While the south would suffer terribly in a war, they would not do nearly so poorly as they did in the first war.  The US landing on the Soviet east was dependenant on the situation in Korea.  If the troops were needed their to stabilize the front, they would go there.  Otherwise they land in Russia.

One thing everyone agreed on was that the war would not alst more than a year under any but the most strange circumstances.  The US goes nuclear if they get pushed out of Europe, the Soviets do if they get pushed past the Eastern European satellites.

There were Soviet bombers based in Cuba during the Cold War so I consider that it would have been necessary to occupy Cuba. I don't think Castro's assassination plan would have worked.

There was a big Soviet naval base in Vietnam. I think that USA should have eliminated at least those forces. Vietnam forces wouldn't have a significant role though. Angola and other pro-Soviet African countries would have been easier to ignore. Probably ally in Africa could have been South Africa. The enemy of your enemy is your friend....

About Finland. Russians have always thought that Finland is a jump gate to St. Petersburg.  That was one reason why we had two separate wars against Soviets during the WWII: The Winter War (1939-1940) and the Continuation War (1941-1944) We saved our independence mainly because of our hard resistance and Stalin's willingness to reach Berlin before your troops. Soviet never occupied our country.

However after the war we had so-called Friendship-Cooperation-Assistance Pact with Soviet Union, what de facto would have allowed to Soviets to bring their troops to Finland in case of World War. This was a cost that we paid for maintaining our democratic system and market economy.

I think that Soviets would have occupied our country for just to make sure that their Northern borders were safe. There were their major naval bases in Kola Peninsula just few dozens miles from our borders. Despite that damn Pact it would have been possible that Finland would have resisted to occupation or at least I hope so....

The Winter War is very interesting war, if you are interested about military history.

http://www.winterwar.com/mainpage.htm

"History" is under construction , but most of other articles seem to be ready.

[ATFFL]

One correction to John Ford: in 1981 the US had a noticable advantage at sea.  The location of Soviet naval bases allowed NATO, specifically the US, to know the coming and goings of the Soviet navy, including submarines.  It was not unheard of for a Soviet sub to go out on patrol and be followed by a US attack submarine for its entire patrol without ever knowing it.  Under Reagan this would become more and more common.

NATO weapons were generally a little better than their Soviet counterparts, but the Soviets had lots and lots more of them.

The only reasonable NATO wins sceanrios involved trading land for time while the US, UK and Canada built up forces in Spain and possibly Italy.  When the Soviets reached the natural borders of the Alps and Pyrannes NATO would counterattack, with a possible US landing near Valdivostok to put the Soviets in a two front war.

The Third World War scenarios are interesting, but the truth is that the conventional warfare would have been impossible in the conditions of Cold War. Fighting would have been ended shortly by cease fire or more likely by nuclear attacks.

But as I said scenarios are fun so....

I don't believe that the USA landing operation in Russian Far East would have been effective, especially because North Korea would have joined in the war. Also USA would have needed a lot of troops in Cuba. Other  inevitable minor battlefields would have been Vietnam and South China Sea (over 20 000 Soviet troops there) Angola (50 000 Cubans) Yemen (Soviet troops and bases) A big question marks are radical Arab states like Syria and Libya. In 1981 Iraq was in war against Iran that I don't think that they would have interfered.

Finland would have been occupied by Soviets in two weeks. Our military was insignificant during the Cold War years.

It was estimated there was a 25% or so chance that China would join the war, and, if they did, a 90% chance they attacked the Soviet Union.

The US plan for Cuba was to kill Castro and let chaos ensue.  Castro, like many dictators, did not set up any plns for his demise.  The military would likely begin fighting to replace him.  At least, that was the US hope. 

The Middle East would have broken into a series of confused and chaotic wars.  The Saudis and Kuwait would be on the US side, theo ther arab states would likely try anothe rstupid move on Israel hoping for either Soviet backing or for Israel to someho falter this time.  Soviet troops in Yemen woudl find themselves in an untenable position really.  Long way from home, no chance of resupply and an unreliable population.

Vietnam was at this point, I believe, beginning the reforms that would begin the moderniztion.  Not sure how they would play out.  Even if they did side with the Soviets, what could they contribute?  The best they could do is open a second front if China got involved.

I would bet against a Soviet move on Finland.  All it would do is eat up troops without any benefit.

All of the second fronts can be safely ignored while the big battle plays out with the possible exception of Korea.  At this point though the RoK was a credible and ready force.  While the south would suffer terribly in a war, they would not do nearly so poorly as they did in the first war.  The US landing on the Soviet east was dependenant on the situation in Korea.  If the troops were needed their to stabilize the front, they would go there.  Otherwise they land in Russia.

One thing everyone agreed on was that the war would not alst more than a year under any but the most strange circumstances.  The US goes nuclear if they get pushed out of Europe, the Soviets do if they get pushed past the Eastern European satellites.

There were Soviet bombers based in Cuba during the Cold War so I consider that it would have been necessary to occupy Cuba. I don't think Castro's assassination plan would have worked.

There was a big Soviet naval base in Vietnam. I think that USA should have eliminated at least those forces. Vietnam forces wouldn't have a significant role though. Angola and other pro-Soviet African countries would have been easier to ignore. Probably ally in Africa could have been South Africa. The enemy of your enemy is your friend....

About Finland. Russians have always thought that Finland is a jump gate to St. Petersburg.  That was one reason why we had two separate wars against Soviets during the WWII: The Winter War (1939-1940) and the Continuation War (1941-1944) We saved our independence mainly because of our hard resistance and Stalin's willingness to reach Berlin before your troops. Soviet never occupied our country.

However after the war we had so-called Friendship-Cooperation-Assistance Pact with Soviet Union, what de facto would have allowed to Soviets to bring their troops to Finland in case of World War. This was a cost that we paid for maintaining our democratic system and market economy.

I think that Soviets would have occupied our country for just to make sure that their Northern borders were safe. There were their major naval bases in Kola Peninsula just few dozens miles from our borders. Despite that damn Pact it would have been possible that Finland would have resisted to occupation or at least I hope so....

The Winter War is very interesting war, if you are interested about military history.

http://www.winterwar.com/mainpage.htm

"History" is under construction , but most of other articles seem to be ready.

I am familiar with the Winter War and the Continuation War.  I had forgotten about the pact that let FInland be a non socialist Soviet satellite.  They would still go with a soft occupation, probably only the ports and a few observers in government to make sure the Finns were not getting set to sell them out.  Too much could lead to fighting and they would not want that, especially if they were trying to expand their northern borders.

You are correct that the Soviet Naval base in Vietnam would need to be neutralized. 

John: The Ju-22M3 was a highly effective naval bomber.  It did not enter service until 1981, and was not readily available until 1983.  The older model lacked the self defense capability to defend against naval launched interceptors, let alone the land based aircraft the US could field in the Pacific from Alaska and Japan.

The Soviets also had the bulk of their Backfire bombers and bases in the west, facing Europe. 

[Huckleberry Finn]

One correction to John Ford: in 1981 the US had a noticable advantage at sea.  The location of Soviet naval bases allowed NATO, specifically the US, to know the coming and goings of the Soviet navy, including submarines.  It was not unheard of for a Soviet sub to go out on patrol and be followed by a US attack submarine for its entire patrol without ever knowing it.  Under Reagan this would become more and more common.

NATO weapons were generally a little better than their Soviet counterparts, but the Soviets had lots and lots more of them.

The only reasonable NATO wins sceanrios involved trading land for time while the US, UK and Canada built up forces in Spain and possibly Italy.  When the Soviets reached the natural borders of the Alps and Pyrannes NATO would counterattack, with a possible US landing near Valdivostok to put the Soviets in a two front war.

The Third World War scenarios are interesting, but the truth is that the conventional warfare would have been impossible in the conditions of Cold War. Fighting would have been ended shortly by cease fire or more likely by nuclear attacks.

But as I said scenarios are fun so....

I don't believe that the USA landing operation in Russian Far East would have been effective, especially because North Korea would have joined in the war. Also USA would have needed a lot of troops in Cuba. Other  inevitable minor battlefields would have been Vietnam and South China Sea (over 20 000 Soviet troops there) Angola (50 000 Cubans) Yemen (Soviet troops and bases) A big question marks are radical Arab states like Syria and Libya. In 1981 Iraq was in war against Iran that I don't think that they would have interfered.

Finland would have been occupied by Soviets in two weeks. Our military was insignificant during the Cold War years.

It was estimated there was a 25% or so chance that China would join the war, and, if they did, a 90% chance they attacked the Soviet Union.

The US plan for Cuba was to kill Castro and let chaos ensue.  Castro, like many dictators, did not set up any plns for his demise.  The military would likely begin fighting to replace him.  At least, that was the US hope. 

The Middle East would have broken into a series of confused and chaotic wars.  The Saudis and Kuwait would be on the US side, theo ther arab states would likely try anothe rstupid move on Israel hoping for either Soviet backing or for Israel to someho falter this time.  Soviet troops in Yemen woudl find themselves in an untenable position really.  Long way from home, no chance of resupply and an unreliable population.

Vietnam was at this point, I believe, beginning the reforms that would begin the moderniztion.  Not sure how they would play out.  Even if they did side with the Soviets, what could they contribute?  The best they could do is open a second front if China got involved.

I would bet against a Soviet move on Finland.  All it would do is eat up troops without any benefit.

All of the second fronts can be safely ignored while the big battle plays out with the possible exception of Korea.  At this point though the RoK was a credible and ready force.  While the south would suffer terribly in a war, they would not do nearly so poorly as they did in the first war.  The US landing on the Soviet east was dependenant on the situation in Korea.  If the troops were needed their to stabilize the front, they would go there.  Otherwise they land in Russia.

One thing everyone agreed on was that the war would not alst more than a year under any but the most strange circumstances.  The US goes nuclear if they get pushed out of Europe, the Soviets do if they get pushed past the Eastern European satellites.

There were Soviet bombers based in Cuba during the Cold War so I consider that it would have been necessary to occupy Cuba. I don't think Castro's assassination plan would have worked.

There was a big Soviet naval base in Vietnam. I think that USA should have eliminated at least those forces. Vietnam forces wouldn't have a significant role though. Angola and other pro-Soviet African countries would have been easier to ignore. Probably ally in Africa could have been South Africa. The enemy of your enemy is your friend....

About Finland. Russians have always thought that Finland is a jump gate to St. Petersburg.  That was one reason why we had two separate wars against Soviets during the WWII: The Winter War (1939-1940) and the Continuation War (1941-1944) We saved our independence mainly because of our hard resistance and Stalin's willingness to reach Berlin before your troops. Soviet never occupied our country.

However after the war we had so-called Friendship-Cooperation-Assistance Pact with Soviet Union, what de facto would have allowed to Soviets to bring their troops to Finland in case of World War. This was a cost that we paid for maintaining our democratic system and market economy.

I think that Soviets would have occupied our country for just to make sure that their Northern borders were safe. There were their major naval bases in Kola Peninsula just few dozens miles from our borders. Despite that damn Pact it would have been possible that Finland would have resisted to occupation or at least I hope so....

The Winter War is very interesting war, if you are interested about military history.

http://www.winterwar.com/mainpage.htm

"History" is under construction , but most of other articles seem to be ready.

I am familiar with the Winter War and the Continuation War.  I had forgotten about the pact that let FInland be a non socialist Soviet satellite.  They would still go with a soft occupation, probably only the ports and a few observers in government to make sure the Finns were not getting set to sell them out.  Too much could lead to fighting and they would not want that, especially if they were trying to expand their northern borders.

A non socialist Soviet satellite. What can I say. True it is, although most Finns still think that our country was "neutral". But is better be non-socialist and non-occupied satellite than socialist and occupied. Thanks to Veterans.

Your scenario about Finland in the Third World War is reasonable.

[skybridge]

Washington, Reagan, and Kennedy.

I'm so glad someone brought up Washington. Needless to say, I second that!

[Storebought]

The most overrated president: that original socialist and communitarian, Theodore Roosevelt.

[dca5347]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I totally agree with that

[PBrunsel]

Millard Fillmore