|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Dec 6, 2021 20:24:49 GMT
I know, this is a travesty. It is like the Italians in WW2. Were they great troops? Definitely. Were their commanders idiots? Definitely. Were they cowardly fools? NO! Kutuzov is one of my favorite figures of the Napoleonic wars, and while the winter was definitely a factor (it was factored to weaken Napoleon so that he would be susceptible to an attack by Kutuzov and de Tolly), it does not undermine that that was not what killed him. It was the brave men who risked and gave their lives for a country where they would be essential slaves. It was honestly touching the foolhardiness of the men. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Dec 7, 2021 9:55:00 GMT
Johaness Gutenberg ofc. If not due to him, i already break my back now due to heavy books. Also writing on bamboo like my ancestor is hard. You need brush for it so if one Word wrong well you doomed Yes, but printing was already invented in east Asia. Gutenberg was important and invented the printing machine, but he wasn't the only contributor. He wasn't the only one, but he was the main one. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2021 13:11:59 GMT
While taking more casualties in summer. “General Frost theory” doesn’t explain everything! Why doesn’t anybody care about Russian army and partisans, only paying tribute to weather?!Because it ruins the invincibility of Napoleon. Him losing to weather makes him, or at least his image, save face. Also show the Russians as coward and incompetent by only retreating, when it was a viable strategy of war, and was actually the best way of defeating someone with an ego like Napoleon. Cossacks did a number on him, along with the large mud pools that slowed down his advance. The scorched earth policy the russians employed forced Napoleon to rely on long supply lines, which slowed down his advance. Maybe Napoleon should have sponsored making a nicely paved road straight to St. Petersburg before he planned any invasion. Or maybe not invade and rely on diplomacy. Then again, that was what Talleyrand was advising him, which Napoleon rejected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2021 13:14:41 GMT
Like in the great northern war Karl XII against Peter the great of russia
Or world War II hitler nazis again russia
But it wasn't a show of cowardice at all. It was strategy to weaken the invasion army and choosing the right moment to strike.
The vast Russian territory gave enough opportunities to use this strategy
And nappo isn't invincible, he just used the right strategy in key battles
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Dec 7, 2021 13:31:30 GMT
While taking more casualties in summer. “General Frost theory” doesn’t explain everything! Why doesn’t anybody care about Russian army and partisans, only paying tribute to weather?!Because it ruins the invincibility of Napoleon. Him losing to weather makes him, or at least his image, save face. Also show the Russians as coward and incompetent by only retreating, when it was a viable strategy of war, and was actually the best way of defeating someone with an ego like Napoleon. Cossacks did a number on him, along with the large mud pools that slowed down his advance. The scorched earth policy the russians employed forced Napoleon to rely on long supply lines, which slowed down his advance. Maybe Napoleon should have sponsored making a nicely paved road straight to St. Petersburg before he planned any invasion. Or maybe not invade and rely on diplomacy. Then again, that was what Talleyrand was advising him, which Napoleon rejected. Uh, only the Cossacks used Scorched Earth. The general army were loathe to burn down fields owned by fellow serfs, and often didn't do it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2021 13:50:07 GMT
Gerd von Rundstedt, the point is, the scorched earth worked, and forced Nappy to use a conventional supply line rather than on the usual living on the land way of his army, which greatly slowed the mobility of his army. Nappy also got like 600,000+ men, which didn't help at all. Nappy really got sloppy in his invasion of Russia. Usually, he was quite pragmatic when planning his campaigns, but this time, he let his ego get the better of him. Funny thing was that he read about Charles the XII's disastrous Russian campaign more than a century ago, and thought he could do a better job. He did do a better job, but it still failed. Asymmetric warfare against a conventional army in hostile land is really effective. Napoleon was used to conventional warfare, but he wasn't used to the opponent constantly retreating and harassing him(funnily enough, the spanish was doing this to his army in the Peninsular war). Which is quite funny, because you know, french stereotypes and all that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2021 13:56:37 GMT
Like in the great northern war Karl XII against Peter the great of russia Or world War II hitler nazis again russia But it wasn't a show of cowardice at all. It was strategy to weaken the invasion army and choosing the right moment to strike. The vast Russian territory gave enough opportunities to use this strategy And nappo isn't invincible, he just used the right strategy in key battles Tbf to Nappy, his style of organizing his army and his strategy was quite radical and new, which mirror's the French and their acceptance of a new order. Poetic comparisons aside, this new form of warfare led Napoleon to use tactics that other armies cannot replicate, nor can answer due to their rigid style. The Prussians were quite for a surprise when they thought their conservative military structure would destroy Napoleon's army. Should've done their research on Napoleon's army rather than Frederick the great's outdated military. To Prussia's credit, they did eventually learn from Napoleon, and through the guidance of Moltke the Elder's military reform some 40 years later, made Prussia's army the strongest land based army. Nappy also kept destroying his neighbors in battle, so he eventually cultivated that aura of invincibility, until cracks started showing when he started the Peninsular war, Austria starting to learn from their constant *Auto corrected* whooping, and Nappy's ambition of taking over all of Europe through military might rather than diplomacy. Really should've listened to Talleyrand. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2021 14:07:08 GMT
Like Hitler nazis in ww2. While the whermacht doing asymmetric war they got into encirclement battles in the big cities where millions of soldiers died.
Wehrmacht was highest in the world in military tech and knowledge before USA came into view, but Russia was too big to be controlled and conquered on all fronts battles
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2021 14:14:06 GMT
Like Hitler nazis in ww2. While the whermacht doing asymmetric war they got into encirclement battles in the big cities where millions of soldiers died. Wehrmacht was highest in the world in military tech and knowledge before USA came into view, but Russia was too big to be controlled and conquered on all fronts battles Russia was able to mass produce, while Germany couldn't. That, and Russian generals found ways to neutralize the blitzkrieg by going really close to the enemy, which makes it so air raids would also hit their allies if they did any bombings. Honestly, if Stalin didn't purge Russia of it's more experienced generals, Russia would've came out of top much earlier. But yeah, Hitler's invasion was always doomed to fail. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2021 14:43:58 GMT
so you think hitler was a full idiot and criminal? cuz thats what i am thinking about him
but millions german followed his order and went to dead
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Dec 7, 2021 18:41:14 GMT
Like Hitler nazis in ww2. While the whermacht doing asymmetric war they got into encirclement battles in the big cities where millions of soldiers died. Wehrmacht was highest in the world in military tech and knowledge before USA came into view, but Russia was too big to be controlled and conquered on all fronts battles How was it assymetrical warfare? They're armies were almost equal in the beginning of the war. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Dec 7, 2021 18:49:47 GMT
Like Hitler nazis in ww2. While the whermacht doing asymmetric war they got into encirclement battles in the big cities where millions of soldiers died. Wehrmacht was highest in the world in military tech and knowledge before USA came into view, but Russia was too big to be controlled and conquered on all fronts battles Russia was able to mass produce, while Germany couldn't. That, and Russian generals found ways to neutralize the blitzkrieg by going really close to the enemy, which makes it so air raids would also hit their allies if they did any bombings. Honestly, if Stalin didn't purge Russia of it's more experienced generals, Russia would've came out of top much earlier. But yeah, Hitler's invasion was always doomed to fail. Sorry for my arrogant answer, I couldn't resist myself. That was really the case only in Stalingrad. The victory was a result of countless factors. The great purge did have unarguably a great negative effect on the Soviet war effort, but in the beginning of the war before the formation of STAVKA, the command structure was all messed up, nobody could make fast decisions in the high command. In the field Stalin's politruks were a real headache making decisions difficult. Then not only mass production, the Axis had a numerical superiority on the front in the beginning of the war, this of course changed. Also, the Soviet airforce had been destroyed in the first hours of the war and despite numerical superiority of tanks for the Soviets, the incompetence of tank crews to fix minor mechanical failures in tanks and the lack of supply vehicles forced the Soviets to abandon thousands of tanks. Then last but not least Stalin's idiotic tactics and idiotic tactics in general in the beginning of the war. |
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Dec 7, 2021 19:59:39 GMT
Sorry for my arrogant answer, I couldn't resist myself. That was really the case only in Stalingrad. The victory was a result of countless factors. The great purge did have unarguably a great negative effect on the Soviet war effort, but in the beginning of the war before the formation of STAVKA, the command structure was all messed up, nobody could make fast decisions in the high command. In the field Stalin's politruks were a real headache making decisions difficult. Then not only mass production, the Axis had a numerical superiority on the front in the beginning of the war, this of course changed. Also, the Soviet airforce had been destroyed in the first hours of the war and despite numerical superiority of tanks for the Soviets, the incompetence of tank crews to fix minor mechanical failures in tanks and the lack of supply vehicles forced the Soviets to abandon thousands of tanks. Then last but not least Stalin's idiotic tactics and idiotic tactics in general in the beginning of the war. I think it's interesting how a lot of really garbage military leaders were really good political leaders (in the sense that they know how to lead, not that they're morally good or anything), and vice versa. People like Mao Zedong, George Washington, and a lot of Austrian kings come to mind. And then there's Chiang Kai-Shek |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Dec 7, 2021 22:10:08 GMT
Sorry for my arrogant answer, I couldn't resist myself. That was really the case only in Stalingrad. The victory was a result of countless factors. The great purge did have unarguably a great negative effect on the Soviet war effort, but in the beginning of the war before the formation of STAVKA, the command structure was all messed up, nobody could make fast decisions in the high command. In the field Stalin's politruks were a real headache making decisions difficult. Then not only mass production, the Axis had a numerical superiority on the front in the beginning of the war, this of course changed. Also, the Soviet airforce had been destroyed in the first hours of the war and despite numerical superiority of tanks for the Soviets, the incompetence of tank crews to fix minor mechanical failures in tanks and the lack of supply vehicles forced the Soviets to abandon thousands of tanks. Then last but not least Stalin's idiotic tactics and idiotic tactics in general in the beginning of the war. I think it's interesting how a lot of really garbage military leaders were really good political leaders (in the sense that they know how to lead, not that they're morally good or anything), and vice versa. People like Mao Zedong, George Washington, and a lot of Austrian kings come to mind. And then there's Chiang Kai-Shek Agree, maybe they're able to focus only on either the military or the goverment lol. Stalin was a very bad military leader, but not that bad compared to some political leaders. As a political leader, I would consider Stalin the best of atleast the 20th century in terms of being able to keep power. His position was truly unchallenged which he could thank himself. But at the same time I consider him to be the worst politicial leader of the 20th century in terms of human suffering, maybe second to Mao. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2021 22:26:25 GMT
i made a decision. i chose c. kolumbus, cuz of the New World
|
|
