Part of why it worked for the Russians though, is because for every ten soldiers they only had one gun. Kill four soldiers, you’ve still got the same number of guns pointed at you. Now multiply it by a hundred or a thousand and see how, while not exactly sustainable, it ends up working as it did in the right circumstances. Like, I dunno, brutal winters with nowhere to retreat to and an enemy struggling with the reality of logistics in the same conditions
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.
Maybe Russia has won every defensive war of attrition, but certainly not every war its embarked on.
the historical truth that Russia wins every war of attrition.
You don’t need history to know this is bullshit. Current events are enough to prove this wrong.
Russia didn’t win World War I, nor the Afghanistan war. Both would have been wars of attricion, according to my understanding.
My brother the Germans didn’t take In Christ sustainable casualties eithe
I don’t think any casualties are sustainable in christ
If the US/UK had decided to support the Nazis instead of the USSR, then the Nazis would have won. It would be idiotic for the US/UK to do so, but they could have.
