In an lazy attept to gain good ideas and sources of information for an essay from brainy chess players/historians, I pose the following question!!
To what extent was the victory of Soviet arms by 1944 the result of the Soviet Unions overwhelming resources?
Thanks in advance to those who attempt an answer!!
Originally posted by Silver SlayerIn your answer it would probably be a good idea to refer frequently to the Battle of Stalingrad.
In an lazy attept to gain good ideas and sources of information for an essay from brainy chess players/historians, I pose the following question!!
To what extent was the victory of Soviet arms by 1944 the result of the Soviet Unions overwhelming resources?
Thanks in advance to those who attempt an answer!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad
Originally posted by Silver SlayerGoogle... 😞
In an lazy attept to gain good ideas and sources of information for an essay from brainy chess players/historians, I pose the following question!!
To what extent was the victory of Soviet arms by 1944 the result of the Soviet Unions overwhelming resources?
Thanks in advance to those who attempt an answer!!
Originally posted by Positional PlayerThe problem is finding different historians view points and coming to my own decision as to whether it was due to;
In your answer it would probably be a good idea to refer frequently to the Battle of Stalingrad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad
arms
tactics
leadership
conditions
etc
Originally posted by Silver SlayerWhat do you mean by "Soviet Arms"...I study A-level history and will be able to help you if you explain what that means.
In an lazy attept to gain good ideas and sources of information for an essay from brainy chess players/historians, I pose the following question!!
To what extent was the victory of Soviet arms by 1944 the result of the Soviet Unions overwhelming resources?
Thanks in advance to those who attempt an answer!!
Originally posted by Freddie2006If you are a bit of a historian answer this. Would the Russian people have fought the Russian Government if the Germans would have treated them well and armed them? I am of the opinion that the way the Germans treated the Russian people was the biggest mistake they made in that part of that war.
What do you mean by "Soviet Arms"...I study A-level history and will be able to help you if you explain what that means.
1 edit
Originally posted by gambit3I don't think so, Heres an extract from my essay(edit!..notes!!). This was written by S. L. Mayer;
If you are a bit of a historian answer this. Would the Russian people have fought the Russian Government if the Germans would have treated them well and armed them? I am of the opinion that the way the Germans treated the Russian people was the biggest mistake they made in that part of that war.
"Stalin rapidly created the greatest weapon ever placed in the hands of a totalitarian dictator: the Rusasian war machicine. Its exploits were monumental; its heroism unquestioned; it weapons like the T-34 tank modern and formidable; the unity of the people behind it hard as steel; and the determination of those people to undergo suffering almost beyond indurance was undaunted and steadfast. The Russian war machine, in all its terror and magnificence, in the hands of an utterly cold and heartless tyrant became more than a defender of Russia. The war machine which he created became the dominate powering on the continent of Europe and the spear head of modern Russian imperialism."
1 edit
Originally posted by Silver SlayerThat's about right.....plus the secret police created by Stalin aimed weapons at Russian soldiers and told them to either attack the Germans enmasse or get shot in the back.....maltreatment by German soldiers didn't help, the T-34 did help, trucks, parts, food and other hardware from the USA helped immensley. A strung-out German supply line and Hitlers refusal to reinforce Von Paulus was the final straw....Hitler should have stayed a corporal and let Rommel run the war without Goebbels.
I don't think so, Heres an extract from my essay(edit!..notes!!). This was written by S. L. Mayer;
"Stalin rapidly created the greatest weapon ever placed in the hands of a totalitarian dictator: the Rusasian war machicine. Its exploits were monumental; its heroism unquestioned; it weapons like the T-34 tank modern and formidable; the unity of the peo ...[text shortened]... minate powering on the continent of Europe and the spear head of modern Russian imperialism."
The Chinese did the same thing in Korea in '50-'51, sending thousands to their deaths and succeeding in overrunning the American defense perimeter. Superior firepower and strategic planning reversed that course of action to a stalemate that is on the verge of exploding to this day....
Originally posted by chancremechanicHitler messed up!! In December 1941 Germany was bought to the reality that the army which had conquered Western Europe, Scandinavia and achieved such success was faced with one of its first defeats since the beginning of the war. Countless causes added to the defeat but one of them was Hitler’s meddling in the affairs of the German General staff. Before the beginning of the Russian winter counter offensive Hitler’s generals wanted to fall back and establish defensive line which they knew would hold, but Hitler refused, and so the beginning of the end.
That's about right.....plus the secret police created by Stalin aimed weapons at Russian soldiers and told them to either attack the Germans enmasse or get shot in the back.....maltreatment by German soldiers didn't help, the T-34 did help, trucks, parts, food and other hardware from the USA helped immensley. A strung-out German supply line and Hitl ...[text shortened]... ersed that course of action to a stalemate that is on the verge of exploding to this day....
Originally posted by Silver SlayerThe standard answer is the ability of the Russians to shift their manufacturing production across the Urals and their almost unlimited manpower and their willingness to expend them. Plus, the hugely extended German supply lines. I don't think the German's inability to take Moscow would have made a difference to the final outcome. Oh, and winter, but that's supply line related and planning. As Napoleon also found out. Ultimately, the generals failed their troops.
In an lazy attept to gain good ideas and sources of information for an essay from brainy chess players/historians, I pose the following question!!
To what extent was the victory of Soviet arms by 1944 the result of the Soviet Unions overwhelming resources?
Thanks in advance to those who attempt an answer!!
It's your essay. Do the research and read the books.
The Russian victory victory came in 1945 but it was inevitable already by 1943. Why? Ask yourself the same resources question about the role the US played in WWII in Europe. Then ask yourself, why victory over the Japanese (despite Pearl Harbour), was inevitable. And why Japan attacked Pearl Harbour in the first place.
Now, you've got the beginnings of a deeper understanding of your original question. Think, read and understand.
Originally posted by Silver SlayerProofread this more carefully: "domimate powering"?
I don't think so, Heres an extract from my essay(edit!..notes!!). This was written by S. L. Mayer;
"Stalin rapidly created the greatest weapon ever placed in the hands of a totalitarian dictator: the Rusasian war machicine. Its exploits were monumental; its heroism unquestioned; it weapons like the T-34 tank modern and formidable; the unity of the peo ...[text shortened]... minate powering on the continent of Europe and the spear head of modern Russian imperialism."
I also don't like your argument. This is about WWII, not the consequences and the Cold War.
Write it in your own words.
Originally posted by buffalobillThanks for the advice!
The standard answer is the ability of the Russians to shift their manufacturing production across the Urals and their almost unlimited manpower and their willingness to expend them. Plus, the hugely extended German supply lines. I don't think the German's inability to take Moscow would have made a difference to the final outcome. Oh, and winter, but that ...[text shortened]... beginnings of a deeper understanding of your original question. Think, read and understand.
Originally posted by Silver SlayerWell, he should never have invaded Russia in the first place. Don't fight a war on several fronts. But, that's history and the person.
Hitler messed up!! In December 1941 Germany was bought to the reality that the army which had conquered Western Europe, Scandinavia and achieved such success was faced with one of its first defeats since the beginning of the war. Countless causes added to the defeat but one of them was Hitler’s meddling in the affairs of the German General staff. Befor ...[text shortened]... defensive line which they knew would hold, but Hitler refused, and so the beginning of the end.