Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cybersharp
Um the Germans didnt "hold" the Russians off at Stalingrad. The situation was that Germany attacked and Russia simply could not:
1. Get reinforcements, food, ect into the city.
2. Do much about bombs getting dropped on their city, (not much ANYONE can do about shots being fired miles away and blowing holes through walls.)
Think on this, do you think the Russians in that situation, if even near a quarter more russian had been train soldeirs the outcome would of been largly different? No, probably not, the city didnt have supply's or food for those kinds of troups, I'd wager that any random soldeir would have any problems killing a half starved individual whether it be soldeir, or civilian.
The issue isnt truly a TRAINED rebel army. Think of the civil war, it WAS cusins and brothers fighting against each other and they devided it up by lines. Something sure as hell happened there. A person will fight if their belief's in how their way of life should be lived is threatened by anouther living thing. No the goverment would not out right win a fight, because undoubtably people would switch sides in what they believe in. People dont fight for laws, they fight for their way of life and how they want their lives and those around them to be.
Think of it this way, what would be the reason to raise a rebellion if you felt you where totaly unthreatened by events surrounding your civil rights and the rights of your future offspring? If you thought that your children or the children of the nation where going the be used by people thousands of miles away who dont have the good of THE PEOPLE, not the goverment in mind, then wouldnt you fight? A single party system that control's everything, even OTHER PARTY's through espinage to get information that they have to hide simply because it is not their right to obtain it. That sounds kind of like a communistic goverment to me, although I was say it sounds more like a tyrany that a commi goverment, (I veiw tyrany as worse) Dont you?
I will stop here and read the rest of the posts now, your comment just caught my eye..
|
Historically speaking, what you're saying here is innaccurate. The Germans held over 90% of the city for over 6 months and at one point controlled all of it except for a 1000m ribbon 100m deep along the river. By all accounts, the Russian army was undertrained and underarmed. If you've ever seen "Enemies at the Gates", the opening scene is actually an accurate depiction of how the 62nd Army was inserted into the city. The 62nd was made up mostly of conscripts who had a few weeks of training and virtually no weapons when they went into the field. They were instructed to pick up weapons from fallen comrades.
At best estimate, 500,000 Germans took and held the city from 1,750,000 Soviet troops, which is the point of my comment. The reason that the Soviets managed to win at Stalingrad was not through the tactical genius of their commanders (although there was some of that) but because they stalled the Germans long enough that they could employ the method that won the Russian Empire so many battles - sheer weight of numbers. A well armed, well trained, battle hardened force held off a poorly organized, poorly trained, poorly armed force over 3 times the size of the former for well over 6 months. With proper supplies, the Germans might have very well continued their advance.
By the way, the Soviets had no problem getting reinforcements or supplies into or out of the city in summer or winter since they had boats for the water and could drive over the ice. There were weeks where this was not possible and that's when supplies ran low.
As for the rest, I don't believe in suicide, which is what an attack against the American government would be. There are other ways to change the system, and we've all seen that non-violent aggitation can cause serious changes in this country. The problem is that people who feel like you are in the minority and have no advocates in positions of power, governmental or otherwise.