Bernd
12/27/2018 (Thu) 22:24:55
No.21683
del
12/27/2018 (Thu) 22:24:55
No.21683
del
>>21638
>And that's the warmest path in, in the east there is the literal North Cold Pole, that is a place colder than The North Pole for a change.
>Again, Russia doesn't end at Moscow. There are tens of millions of people on the Volga, Kazan oil fields were already being exploited and Samara prepped to be temporary capital. If the worst comes to pass, there are Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk and Omsk east of the Urals. Russia is impossible to occupy,
You don't need to occupy country fully to win the war, you need only do that level of damage so country would stop active fighting. Russia is pretty much empty east of Urals, end was even emptier in 1941 than today. Conquering biggest industrial and agriculture regions and main cities could force USSR to stop the war, at least to stop the active phase of war when army can do serious offensive operations. Especially in 1941, when industry wasn't moved east properly.
That was the Hitler's plan and it wasn't too stupid, but he failed. If blitzkrieg part was relatively successful at start, control part was failed completely, although in winter of 1941 and even in 1942 USSR also was on the edge.
Comparison with Napoleon isn't direct, it was different time and different technology level.
>Japan
Japanese were just cowards with delusion of grandeur, they wanted Pacific and conflict with USA, and weren't good ally to Germany at all. But striking in the worst time for USSR (like in 1941-1942) could change the course of war, even if it wasn't easy fight. Even losing to USSR in land war in 41 could give enough pressure to USSR to allow Germany to stay for more.
>So instead of dissoluting before full famine strikes, like in late 80's
It wasn't dissolved because food or anything related to general population. Every political change in Russia/USSR history was change from the top, not from the bottom. 1917 was liberal revolution of higher classes at start, 1989 was reformatting of union by elites (union didn't really died, and almost same commie ruling class still in power). So, Stalin's USSR could be in stasis state for years. Just look at modern Central Asian states for example, they have nothing but still exist.
>And that's the warmest path in, in the east there is the literal North Cold Pole, that is a place colder than The North Pole for a change.
>Again, Russia doesn't end at Moscow. There are tens of millions of people on the Volga, Kazan oil fields were already being exploited and Samara prepped to be temporary capital. If the worst comes to pass, there are Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk and Omsk east of the Urals. Russia is impossible to occupy,
You don't need to occupy country fully to win the war, you need only do that level of damage so country would stop active fighting. Russia is pretty much empty east of Urals, end was even emptier in 1941 than today. Conquering biggest industrial and agriculture regions and main cities could force USSR to stop the war, at least to stop the active phase of war when army can do serious offensive operations. Especially in 1941, when industry wasn't moved east properly.
That was the Hitler's plan and it wasn't too stupid, but he failed. If blitzkrieg part was relatively successful at start, control part was failed completely, although in winter of 1941 and even in 1942 USSR also was on the edge.
Comparison with Napoleon isn't direct, it was different time and different technology level.
>Japan
Japanese were just cowards with delusion of grandeur, they wanted Pacific and conflict with USA, and weren't good ally to Germany at all. But striking in the worst time for USSR (like in 1941-1942) could change the course of war, even if it wasn't easy fight. Even losing to USSR in land war in 41 could give enough pressure to USSR to allow Germany to stay for more.
>So instead of dissoluting before full famine strikes, like in late 80's
It wasn't dissolved because food or anything related to general population. Every political change in Russia/USSR history was change from the top, not from the bottom. 1917 was liberal revolution of higher classes at start, 1989 was reformatting of union by elites (union didn't really died, and almost same commie ruling class still in power). So, Stalin's USSR could be in stasis state for years. Just look at modern Central Asian states for example, they have nothing but still exist.
Message too long. Click here to view full text.