sabotstarr said:
OK, i HAVE searched, and do believe that this has not come up before.(If there is please feel free to rub it in my face)
So history tells us that when a nation, take Germany during WW2, attacks a nation south of it(France) They win the fight. But when that same nation attacks a nation to it's north(Russia) the outcome is either defeat or a humiliating victory(Russia Vs. Finland). So due to this historical duplication, wouldn't a nation (say Sweden, who is located in the very far north) attacking in the winter destroy all other opponents?
This all stems from my amazing (light bulb word) that if any of the nations around Finland and Sweden were to actually have a large army, they would of never been conquered by the Russians or Germans.
Please feel free to either comment, ridicule, elaborate or discuss this idea.
France is to the west, Russia is to the east.
Hitler, i.e. Germany, didnt care about France, Britain or anything to the west, he cared about the HUGE amount of land that happened to be called Eastern Europe.
Russia did really badly against Finland because of the poor equipment and training of the troops. It was that war that made Stalin purge and reorganise the Red Army which led to the eventual Allied victory, even though the Reds were missing most of their most experienced commanders because of the purges.
Damn, I love history.