Timeline for Why didn't trench warfare produce a similar stalemate on the eastern front in World War I?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sep 19, 2016 at 8:09 | vote | accept | Tom Au | ||
Aug 2, 2016 at 10:23 | comment | added | Anaryl | Through which mechanisms do you believe economics and politics were the drivers of stalemate on the Western Front? | |
Aug 2, 2016 at 9:19 | comment | added | Gangnus | @Anaryl economics and inner politics were the real reasons. As for inventions, every invention on one side was answered by an invention on the other side. Some inventions broke stalemate only once, some never. As for MOBILE storm groups, the whole technology tree was not ripe enough for them. Even in WWII the war was manoeuvre only in places of maximal concentration of the best technology. | |
Aug 2, 2016 at 8:29 | comment | added | Anaryl | @Gangnus Economics surely played a part by the war's end but it was not the sole reason. Whited's Law. | |
Aug 2, 2016 at 7:38 | comment | added | Gangnus | So, the both eastern and western fronts had long period when armies stood still in trench wars. OK. You say in fact that they on the Eastern side moved far simply because they had enough place. Utter nonsense without any logic. if the only difference was the place, Germans would simply take Paris. Command? You name it the second reason and at once say it was not the reason, but the economics was. And the main reason - why they broke front on the East more times remains unanswered. | |
Aug 2, 2016 at 1:46 | comment | added | enderland | You typed all that without a space bar? You're crazy. | |
Aug 1, 2016 at 17:42 | history | edited | Anaryl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
managed expectations
|
Aug 1, 2016 at 17:36 | history | edited | Anaryl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
managed expectations
|
Aug 1, 2016 at 17:16 | history | edited | Anaryl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
managed expectations
|
Aug 1, 2016 at 17:07 | history | answered | Anaryl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |