On account of my continuing major technical problems with Google (which have
nearly completely blocked me from posting earlier and elsewhere), I have
written this post here also to address other posts in this subthread.

On 24 September 2003, ASACACHESS wrote to me:
"...the US *would* have won both wars with or *without support."

Evidently, "both wars" refers to the European and the Asian/Pacific theatres
of conflict in the Second World War, and "without (any) support" refers to the
hypothetical scenario where the United States would have had *no allies* at all,
which would exclude not only the Soviet Union but also every other nation.
Also, "*would* have won" implies the *certainty* of a United States victory,
even without the support of any other nation at any time during the war(s).

On 25 September 2003, ASCACHESS wrote to George Mirijanian ("Miriling"):
"Yes, we *could* have done it *without the Russians*."

That statement is a clearly weaker assertion than the previous statement.
Please compare these two points:

1) "the US *would* have won" vs "we *could* have done it"
2) "without support* vs "without the Russians"

Then ASCACHESS seems to contend only that there would have been a *possibility*
that the United States *and its many allies*, excluding *only* "the Russians",
"*could* have" won, *not*--as originally stated (above)--the certainty that the
United States *alone*, excluding every other allied nation, "*would* have won".

On 25 September 2003, Bruce Draney wrote to ASCACHESS:
"Use of the word 'could' makes a difference. We 'could' have, but we also
might not have been able to either....Of course it 'could' have happened.
Would it have happened? Now that's a different question."

Right, "now that's a different question" was one of my points about what
ASCACHESS has written here. Whether or not he cares to admit it, ASCACHESS
*changed* his position from a "*would* have won...*without support*" to a
"*could* have done it *without the Russians*". And that important change
makes it "a different question".

RSHaas wrote:
Very thoughtful post, Bruce, and one that shows you have
a profound sense of history.

I concur with Bruce Draney that ASCACHESS's "use of the word 'could' makes
a difference".

After much thought I sincerely believe if the South had developed
nuclear weapons it could have kept its taxes and would own Brazil.

"The Guns of the South: a Novel of the Civil War" by Harry Turtledove is
an "alternative history" speculation about what *could* have happened if
the Confederate soldiers had been armed with AK-47 assault rifles!

"The Lost Colony of the Confederacy" by Eugene Harter is a history of the
pro-Confederacy Southern families who preferred to emigrate to Brazil (where
slavery was still legal in 1866) rather than have to live under the military
occupation of the hated victorious Yankees.

"It is well that war is so terrible: we would grow too fond of it."
--Robert E. Lee (19 December 1862, at the Battle of Fredericksburg)

--Nick