[lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:53:08 -0400
Again I think you're missing the point Eric. Shipping aid is certainly
important, but it isn't the same thing as being in battle. Do you think it
is? We lost a relative handful of soldiers compared to the overall
numbers. We got all hot and bothered over 9/11. Imagine a 9/11 that was
over 300 times worse, to equal 1 million dead soldiers in one battle, and
that raged for months and years. How can anyone know this kind of reality
and not be against it?
> [Original Message]
> From: Eric Yost <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 9/10/2006 11:40:01 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
>
> >>In November 1941 Roosevelt authorized aid to the USSR.
> The battle of Leningrad, for example, which had two phases.
> The first was pretty much a stalemate. The Russians
> weren?t able to take taken advantage of it until they
> started getting aid shipped to their troops them from
> Vladivostok.
>
>
> You will find this situation, and Lawrence's point,
> presented rather eloquently in Vollmann's _Europe Central_.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
