From: "D'jinnie" <jinn@inetnebr.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 10:01:50 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Further costs of war (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199711241930.NAA13443@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.971124195015.1962C-100000@falcon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Jim Choate wrote:

: Napolean never took Moscow, he was stopped - just like Hitler - at the
: gates. The closest either French or German forces got was to look at the
: spires of the Kremlin. Beyond that similarity there are a wide range of
: differences between the situation. The fact remains that had Stalin *not*
: been able to withdraw troops from the Chinese border he would not have been
: able to keep Stalingrad or Moscow. Further, the *only* reason that Stalin
: could afford to do that was because Sorge indicated that the Japanese were
: interested in other goals at the time. Oh, regarding Napolean, the reason
: that he couldn't take Moscow was because troops, called Cossacks, were moved
: from the east to the west.

I don't feel qualified to argue on any of the points brought up in this
rather long thread, but the fact is, Napoleon DID conquer Moscow. He was
stopped AFTER Moscow was taken. On his way out, he burned as much of it as
he could. Indeed, the taking of Moscow was a rallying point for Russian
troops. Kutuzov, who refused to participate earlier in the war, changed
his mind and took control of the armies.