Its been interesting for a variety of reasons, some of it having to do with where we are now and how different it was then. Some of it because so far it really does illustrate that sometimes the winner is the side that makes the fewest mistakes. There is an abundance of poor decision making all around (is this battle an example of mission creep on both sides? Hitler wasn't even going to bother with the city, but changed his mind. Stalin wasn't even going to defend it, but changed his mind. I'm sure that's a very superficial take on it, but interesting from the support it gives for the vagaries of war. That is, war can be surprisingly unpredictable and a bit of a gamble. This is part of why I think the Boogaloo Boys are so foolish. Unless you've got a solid reason for thinking you'll win, 'solid' meaning more than your misguided belief in your own superiority and the weakness of your likely enemy, then you probably have no idea what horrors you'd be unleashing. Civil wars, especially, can be very nasty and I am fairly confident that anyone starting one will lose people they care about. It's not something you should do lightly.)
Anyways, I found a couple of minor points interesting. One is that Khruschev is there. I know about him from his later role leading the Soviet Union, do when his name came up I had to stop and confirm that it really was him. It doesn't sound like he had a major role, but I'm certain his entire experience in the war influenced how he led later on.
The other interesting point was when it mentioned Hitler's other forces (they were trying to get control of the oil in the Caucasian Mountains, further south) and Grozny came up.
I mostly remember Grozny from the Battle of Grozny, and a rather interesting discussion on urban warfare. I've occasionally perked my ear at later mentions. No serious study, but it seems Putin found a local ally able to lock down Chechnyan resistance. The thing is, in all the various references I've heard (to Chechnya and Grozny) I don't recall anyone mentioning oil.
Which seems odd, since that was probably one of the underlying causes for the history I just mentioned. Not that it wouldn't have happened anyway, I suppose. (Not an expert, but Russia does not like ceding independence.)
Very strange to think about all of that. Not just WWIi, but the Cold War, Chechnya... And where we are now.
Come to think of it, all of this is probably even more familiar to our overly aged political leadership. Not to say that age would keep them from doing their job, but the Battle of Grozny was in 1996. It's been over 20 years, almost 25 years. The Cold War was even longer. And while you have to understand history to understand how we got to the where we're at today, I have doubts about how clearly the people shaped by that era can see our current one.
No comments:
Post a Comment