Originally posted by Silver SlayerBismarck, I believe, said about a war against Russia: "Always a bad idea". Personally, I think the Germans didn't have a chance. It was historically inevitable that they be defeated in that war. Strategic, tactical mistakes (by both sides), cold winter all that took place but in the end it didn't matter.
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!!
Most of you guys, are looking at this issue from the purely Western angle. You know about Stalin's purges, lots of innocent people in the camps and Communism being a blatantly evil way to live under.
It could be exceedingly hard to believe that many Russians at the time believed that they were building a new society that would be more just and better than any created previously. This belief in combination with Russian nationalism and understanding that "the Motherland is in mortal danger" was enough to convince the masses to fight until the death if needed.
I also think that no amount of reading Western history books would help in understanding the Russian point of view on what happened in WW2.
Originally posted by arrakisFrom what I read, it seemed that Hitler relied a lot on horse pulled artillery on the Eastern Front.
Your answer doesn't explain why the Germans were slaughterd.
See, the German tanks were superior to the Russian machines BECAUSE the Germans made more precise machinery. The fact that the German tanks had less tolerances built into them meant that they had less sloppiness in the cylinders - which meant that the German tanks couldn't turn over in the cold ...[text shortened]... an winter, while the Russian tanks (with lots of sloppiness in their machinery) started up! đ˛
My comments on this thread are based on 2 books I've read, 1 on El Nino/La Nina events, and 1 chronocling the war on the Eastern Front.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakYou're right. Invincible German military technology was something of a myth. For example, the tanks used in the Blitzkrieg (Panzer II & III) were inferior to the English & French models. The Germans only produced superior tanks with the Panther and Tiger in 1943--too little, too late.
From what I read, it seemed that Hitler relied a lot on horse pulled artillery on the Eastern Front.
Originally posted by Heinrich BimmlerI can understand why you would dislike the subject, but it did happen.
Vhy vould you vant to write about zuch a bvoring zubject ? Best to vorget all about it. There iz no vun in Stalingrad at all.
The best way to avoid such wars happening again is to study the causes and be better prepared to stop them arising again.
Plus, it's really interesting.