Their potential to be enslaved by brutal tyrants? Yeah i'm counting on that lol Russia is difficult to invade due to it's vastness... not the russians. The russians lost the first world war to the west, agent Lenin took care of business.
Their potential to be enslaved by brutal tyrants? Yeah i'm counting on that lol Russia is difficult to invade due to it's vastness... not the russians. The russians lost the first world war to the west, agent Lenin took care of business.
Is that a quote from the History channel or from National Geography? Or from Smithsonian University? You forgot to add that, in addition to the vastness of the Russian land, the winter also defeated the invaders! Don't leave out important details, someone was racking their brains to come up with all the narratives...
Tactical depth, very important. The nazis crushed europe because they could overrun the small nations with ease. Even at blitzkrieg speed the steppe goes on forever
I didn't see the comment, I'm sorry, I don't want to argue about it, it's a broad topic. There is an excellent Russian documentary series "Великая война" (сериал 2010 – 2012), it is very well explained from the beginning to the end, from the first attack of the Wehrmacht, all the way to the war in Japan. There are 18 episodes of 40+ minutes each, and there is an English version of the series, "Soviet storm wwii in the east", I downloaded both versions and watched them simultaneously, episode after episode, first the Russian and then the English. I was shocked at how much the English version cut out the most important parts, everything that didn't suit them. That tells you everything about modifying history. I'm not saying, it's also possible that the Russians embellished something, but for the English version to be so brutally butchered is unbelievable. I suggest you watch both versions if you know Russian of course.
Edit: the best way to find out the "true" history, (I put it in quotation marks because it is almost impossible to find out the complete truth), is to read domestic historians and foreign historians about the same event, so compare several domestic historians and give preference to them , and then check what other parties say. But what is the sure path to wrong history? It means that you see history only through foreign historians, or even worse from the TV screen. So, for example, when we study the second great war, we should read in this order: Russian historians from several eras, not only from Stalin's era, then German historians immediately after the war and today, then European historians mixed, and those who were at one and these on the other hand, therefore, English, Italian, French, and even Romanian and Yugoslav. This is how you can reach the approximate truth, but building your judgment according to, for example, the History channel, is a sure way for a person to be manipulated and fed with narratives that are far from the truth. Another example, if we are studying the Kosovo battle from 1389, we will first read old charters and records from Serbia, then we will read contemporary Serbian historians, and then of course Turkish, old records and new historians, and finally European the same event. Recently, Turkish archives were opened, and Serbian historians went there to study, they discovered many things from old Turkish charters, etc. Of course, Erdogan will tell some story about that event, that the Turks won, etc., but the old charters were written quite honestly (although that should be taken with a grain of salt), for example, it was revealed that since the Serbian knight Obilić killed Murat with a knife from a boot, that since then the Turkish pashas have introduced a no-approach rule. That battle was a draw, a massacre, and it delayed for almost 100 years the penetration of the Turkish empire into Europe, or, the Turks won but it was a Pyrrhic victory, or, the Serbs lost because they were occupied for 400 years, but they won because created a victorious myth, which gave them enormous spiritual strength. And all in all, it can be looked at from several angles.
Their potential to be enslaved by brutal tyrants? Yeah i'm counting on that lol Russia is difficult to invade due to it's vastness... not the russians. The russians lost the first world war to the west, agent Lenin took care of business.
Is that a quote from the History channel or from National Geography? Or from Smithsonian University? You forgot to add that, in addition to the vastness of the Russian land, the winter also defeated the invaders! Don't leave out important details, someone was racking their brains to come up with all the narratives...
Tactical depth, very important. The nazis crushed europe because they could overrun the small nations with ease. Even at blitzkrieg speed the steppe goes on forever
I didn't see the comment, I'm sorry, I don't want to argue about it, it's a broad topic. There is an excellent Russian documentary series "Великая война" (сериал 2010 – 2012), it is very well explained from the beginning to the end, from the first attack of the Wehrmacht, all the way to the war in Japan. There are 18 episodes of 40+ minutes each, and there is an English version of the series, "Soviet storm wwii in the east", I downloaded both versions and watched them simultaneously, episode after episode, first the Russian and then the English. I was shocked at how much the English version cut out the most important parts, everything that didn't suit them. That tells you everything about modifying history. I'm not saying, it's also possible that the Russians embellished something, but for the English version to be so brutally butchered is unbelievable. I suggest you watch both versions if you know Russian of course.
Edit: the best way to find out the "true" history, (I put it in quotation marks because it is almost impossible to find out the complete truth), is to read domestic historians and foreign historians about the same event, so compare several domestic historians and give preference to them , and then check what other parties say. But what is the sure path to wrong history? It means that you see history only through foreign historians, or even worse from the TV screen. So, for example, when we study the second great war, we should read in this order: Russian historians from several eras, not only from Stalin's era, then German historians immediately after the war and today, then European historians mixed, and those who were at one and these on the other hand, therefore, English, Italian, French, and even Romanian and Yugoslav. This is how you can reach the approximate truth, but building your judgment according to, for example, the History channel, is a sure way for a person to be manipulated and fed with narratives that are far from the truth. Another example, if we are studying the Kosovo battle from 1389, we will first read old charters and records from Serbia, then we will read contemporary Serbian historians, and then of course Turkish, old records and new historians, and finally European the same event. Recently, Turkish archives were opened, and Serbian historians went there to study, they discovered many things from old Turkish charters, etc. Of course, Erdogan will tell some story about that event, that the Turks won, etc., but the old charters were written quite honestly (although that should be taken with a grain of salt), for example, it was revealed that since the Serbian knight Obilić killed Murat with a knife from a boot, that since then the Turkish pashas have introduced a no-approach rule. That battle was a draw, a massacre, and it delayed for almost 100 years the penetration of the Turkish empire into Europe, or, the Turks won but it was a Pyrrhic victory, or, the Serbs lost because they were occupied for 400 years, but they won because created a victorious myth, which gave them enormous spiritual strength. And all in all, it can be looked at from several angles.