which doc in particular?Watching this ww2 documentary
Took over paris in 2 weeks and had a parade in paris
Wow gangsta
which doc in particular?Watching this ww2 documentary
Took over paris in 2 weeks and had a parade in paris
Wow gangsta
False! Stalin wanted Hitler to attack Britain AFTER which he'd have invaded W Europe. Hitler found out and ACTUALLY ATTACKED just in time . Rmbr, Stalin invaded Finland in 1939- HISTORY books DON'T tell too it was practice for the whole of Europe.
The Russians were caught out at jump off points all along the border and lost enormous war stocks and materials. Just finished an excellent book I'll reread by a Russian intel guy, Victor Suvorov laying it all out.
The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II
"Suvorov debunks the theory that Stalin was duped by Hitler and that the Soviet Union was a victim of Nazi aggression. "
"Hitler's intelligence services detected the Soviet Union's preparations for a major war against Germany. This detection, he argues, led to Germany's preemptive war plan and the launch of an invasion of the USSR. Stalin emerges from the pages of this book as a diabolical genius consumed by visions of a worldwide Communist revolution at any cost--a leader who wooed Hitler and Germany in his own effort to conquer the world"
IIRC, the Germans captured 4800 railroad cars of ordnance in the first week on invasion!?
I think this book is a bit far-fetched. I agree that we shouldn't view Stalin as a naive victim, he definitely foresaw that there would be a war against Germany and signed the treaty to buy enough time for the USSR to get prepared for that war. So although they definitely knew that they needed to strap up and get organised, to portray him as the architect of the war goes much too far.
The Germans had powerful reasons of their own to start the war, like I said they were really hurting for fuel. All of their tank divisions and their air force couldn't be mobilised entirely because there just wasn't enough fuel for every tank and every plane they had to be sent out into the field. That's a problem you've got to resolve as a commander. What's the point of building all those tanks and planes when you can't use half of them because you don't have the petrol?
Fascinating. Let us read it please.
Secret alliances also caused WW1 if I remember correctly. When the match went off, the teams were already set and stockpiles were already in place. Europe just need that one event, to set it all off.
I'm going to bump this because I have got a decent draft of this up, which I'm now in the process of shopping around to various publications for peer review. I'm not fussed where it gets accepted, as long as somebody accepts it!
As a word of caution, it's about 30 pages long and only a couple of pages deal with the WW2 stuff; all of the rest of it is 2nd century BCE stuff like I detailed in my earlier post here. But if anybody cares just PM me and I'll share my draft with you, once I've submitted it to all the journals I've targeted
That's awesome, you getting your PhD in History?
No, not yet. I applied for a doctoral place 2 years ago but it wasn't practical for me. If I went ahead with it I would have had no income and finished with a $96,000 debt in principle with annual indexation pegged to the inflation rate, on top of the $31,000 I already owe for my undergrad. For a 25 year old at the time it was too much to justify without a scholarship which I couldn't secure. I mean $127k before interest is enough for a big down payment on an apartment or even a house. It's not the sort of money a young person can afford to gamble with on a degree
So I waited and applied for masters places last year, and I got a full ride, no tuition fees and I get paid a salary on top as well
I also feel that short term it would make me more employable than a PhD. Recruiters are way more likely to give a 29 year old with a master's degree but only limited work experience a go, than they are a 29 year old with a PhD but only limited work experience. You'd be considered over-qualified for graduate positions and under-experienced for senior positions
No, not yet. I applied for a doctoral place 2 years ago but it wasn't practical for me. If I went ahead with it I would have had no income and finished with a $96,000 debt in principle with annual indexation pegged to the inflation rate, on top of the $31,000 I already owe for my undergrad. For a 25 year old at the time it was too much to justify without a scholarship which I couldn't secure. I mean $127k before interest is enough for a big down payment on an apartment or even a house. It's not the sort of money a young person can afford to gamble with on a degree
So I waited and applied for masters places last year, and I got a full ride, no tuition fees and I get paid a salary on top as well
I also feel that short term it would make me more employable than a PhD. Recruiters are way more likely to give a 29 year old with a master's degree but only limited work experience a go, than they are a 29 year old with a PhD but only limited work experience. You'd be considered over-qualified for graduate positions and under-experienced for senior positions
to all my fellow history majors tho, we ouchea
thank god Einstein decided to share his knowledge with america instead of his home countryIF the Germans had figured out nuclear energy sooner we'd be in a totally different world right now.
That psychopath would have used it with reckless abandon.
Not to mention Russians basically shooting their citizens if they retreated even 1 foothe basically took on too much
he was already fighting a war on one end and then started another one on the other end,so to speak.
stretched his army paper thin and on top of that his forces couldn't handle the russian winter.
game over
French weren't fully mechanized and the army still relied on horsebackOnly advantage Americans had was the Atlantic ocean
SS would of bodied Americans on neutral soil
See the french..
france still had 5million ..the highest out of all the countriesFrench weren't fully mechanized and the army still relied on horseback