You reply is just ludicrous in areas. I said Russia helped beat Germany. Just because Germany had to withdraw troups before Russia started taking back territory doesn't mean there advance wasn't hard faught nore that it didn't take a toll on the Germans. Geesh. The fact that long supply lines hampered the Germans does not mean that they would have failed even if Russians didn't fight back. What it means is that the long supply lines changed the dynamics of battle so that the Russians were able to fight them to a standstill instead of steadily loosing ground as they had before. I was quoting a historian on NPR by the way, but I undertood his reasoning rather readily unlike you.
Regards,
Mark
Current Events » in reply to Now, according to this post it wasn't Russian resistance which beat Germany.
Do You Ever Bother And Try To Understand Counter Points
The whole thread (41 posts)
- Signs that the "war on terrorism" can be lost
- A failed strategy
- must say ..
- Yes, the dems strategy of insulting our allies, insulting the Nat. Guard, and revelling in our casualties is failing. (n/t)
- Once again, you insult our allies
- Well, here. 'How can you say we're going it alone - - "
- Signs that democrats are years behind the curve
- It's a war.
- Sure, if we don't fight back,
- A failed strategy
