This is a basic history concept is it not? Combined with WW2 fact
Russia - whether it wants to or not - always ends up fighting wars in a slow meat grinder way, but because of uts superior pooulation it wins every ‘War of attrittion’ against another european power.
Germany on the eastern front did manage to push into russia but, as per usual, the cold and the lack of infrastructure (settlements more spaced out than in core Europe) causes immense suffering for them - eventually they are driven back. Many casualties, of course.
So i say that because i’m baffked why someone would know the top statement and need to be corrected with the bottom one. People should learn both together - the WW2 fact - and with it, the historical truth that Russia wins every war of attrition.
I’ll need to read up on afghanistan war but for ww1 i’d say that russia lost because it had a revolution co-occuring and it was already a collapsing country
And history books would say that the revolution occurred because Russia lost (and specifically the Tsar lost, after publicly announcing he was taking control and stop the stream of Russian defeats).
Also if they couldn’t win the war, they shouldn’t have started it in the first place. That they were unable to recognise their own military strength and started a war that would destroy them is a failure in and of itself. And to clarify, I’m talking about WW1 not Ukraine here.
Actually, they had a revolution because they were loosing the war, not the other way round. Just as Germany did not loose WW1 because they had a revolution, but they had a revolution because they lost the war.
It was a famous conspiracy theory among fascist and monarchists, that Germany would have won otherwise, leading to some unfortunate events 20 years later.
This is a basic history concept is it not? Combined with WW2 fact
Russia - whether it wants to or not - always ends up fighting wars in a slow meat grinder way, but because of uts superior pooulation it wins every ‘War of attrittion’ against another european power.
Germany on the eastern front did manage to push into russia but, as per usual, the cold and the lack of infrastructure (settlements more spaced out than in core Europe) causes immense suffering for them - eventually they are driven back. Many casualties, of course.
So i say that because i’m baffked why someone would know the top statement and need to be corrected with the bottom one. People should learn both together - the WW2 fact - and with it, the historical truth that Russia wins every war of attrition.
I think Russian leadership over-learned that fact a bit, resulting in the mess they are in now.
Russia didn’t win World War I, nor the Afghanistan war. Both would have been wars of attricion, according to my understanding.
I’ll need to read up on afghanistan war but for ww1 i’d say that russia lost because it had a revolution co-occuring and it was already a collapsing country
And history books would say that the revolution occurred because Russia lost (and specifically the Tsar lost, after publicly announcing he was taking control and stop the stream of Russian defeats).
Also if they couldn’t win the war, they shouldn’t have started it in the first place. That they were unable to recognise their own military strength and started a war that would destroy them is a failure in and of itself. And to clarify, I’m talking about WW1 not Ukraine here.
Actually, they had a revolution because they were loosing the war, not the other way round. Just as Germany did not loose WW1 because they had a revolution, but they had a revolution because they lost the war. It was a famous conspiracy theory among fascist and monarchists, that Germany would have won otherwise, leading to some unfortunate events 20 years later.
You don’t need history to know this is bullshit. Current events are enough to prove this wrong.
Hey now hey now. We’re at the end of history. It died with my inner child.
But since you insist, let me amend my statement to simply say russia “war of attritions” better than anyone else.
Afganistan
Maybe Russia has won every defensive war of attrition, but certainly not every war its embarked on.
I don’t know how attritional the crimean war was, but it was certainly a defensive war Russia lost.
I think ‘defensive’ makes it true. Do we have any exceptions historians of lemmy?