this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
84 points (100.0% liked)

History

23101 readers
3 users here now

Welcome to c/history! History is written by the posters.

c/history is a comm for discussion about history so feel free to talk and post about articles, books, videos, events or historical figures you find interesting

Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.

Do not post reactionary or imperialist takes (criticism is fine, but don't pull nonsense from whatever chud author is out there).

When sharing historical facts, remember to provide credible souces or citations.

Historical Disinformation will be removed

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As many of you know, 80% of the Wehrmacht were stationed on the eastern front. And where did the Soviets decide to engage them? On the eastern front. If the soviet leadership had any regard for the lives of their soldiers, they would have engaged the Wehrmacht on the western front.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 24 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The smart thing would obviously have been to sit on the sidelines until the enemies wore themselves out fighting others, maybe send material support to the side that seemed to be losing so as many as possible are killed, then in 1944 you swoop in and reap the benefits of victory. That's what the Soviets shoulda done.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Seen this argued unironically. You see, the soviets didn’t protect their industrial base as opposed to the US. Not being across an entire ocean against an enemy that has no real way to project naval power is a classic tactical blunder.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

smuglord They coulda just dug a giant moat on their Western front. What? Could the USSR not figure out "shovel technology?" alphys-smug

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago

That’s eerily similar to what this other US something nation did…