For example, Germany successfully conquered Russia in 1917
You must be using a pretty strange definition of the word “successfully”.
there have been plenty of successes
Certainly Russian armies have been defeated and Russia lost chunks of territory on occasion. But the last guy who, I’d say, successfully invaded Russia went by the name of Genghis Khan.
You must be using a pretty strange definition of the word “successfully”.
I think I’m using the standard one. Germany invaded Russia, forced it to renounce huge amounts of territory, and knocked it out of WW1. Incidentally, it was that invasion which led to the formation of Finland, the Baltic States, Ukraine and Belarus which persist (some with interruptions) to this day. Looks like a pretty resounding victory to most. And Germany did all that while fighting on two fronts! Now, Germany later lost on the Western front, but the moral there isn’t “Don’t start a land war in Asia,” it’s “Don’t fight serious enemies on two fronts at once.”
Certainly Russian armies have been defeated and Russia lost chunks of territory on occasion.
Great, so you agree with skeptical_lurker that, nukes aside, NATO retaking the Crimea from Russia is a possibility. (Frankly I’d say it would be a certainty).
I think Russia’s conventional army today would fold in a matter of weeks. Yes I know who else said that.
It would be bloody though, on both sides.
Lenin’s peace with Germany in WW1 isn’t even applicable to the saying about land wars in Asia, as only the European part of Russia was a part of the theatre. The historically relevant bit of Russia is in Europe both culturally and geographically. Maybe the saying should be “don’t get involved in land wars with Russia.” China was partitioned just fine back in the day. Commodore Perry got what he wanted from Japan just by showing up in a fancy ship, right? The East India Company did ok for a while, etc.
You’re right that the WW1 invasion was entirely in the European part of Russia… but then, so were the Napoleonic and WW2 invasions. And the Crimea too, the point in question.
And you are of course quite right that lots of people have successfully invaded Asia by land, from Alexander onwards. I think the saying is nonsense, relying entirely on a highly selective reading of history.
I feel like Princess Bride was probably repeating Baby Boomer wisdom from the anti-Vietnam protests. A quick Googling attributes the quote to Douglas MacArthur, of all people(who fought no less than three of them, which makes me wonder...)
I like how you ignore Russia’s, um, internal problems at the time :-/ Not to mention that what you are showing is that Russia lost WW1, not that Germany successfully conquered it.
so you agree with skeptical_lurker that, nukes aside, NATO retaking the Crimea from Russia is a possibility
No, I do not, not in the real world. If you want to do simulated war-games which abstract from most everything except for numbers and hardware, maybe, but I don’t see how that’s relevant to anything.
I like how you ignore Russia’s, um, internal problems at the time :-/
But those internal problems were largely caused by the hardships and stresses of losing the war. Similarly, the proximate cause of the German surrender in WW1 was “internal problems” in Germany (the revolutions in Kiel and Bavaria, etc) but those are inseparable from the fact that the hardships of the war and the psychological sense that Germany was losing put an intolerable strain on German morale. Loss of morale leading to institutional overthrow is often the mechanism by which countries collapse when at war.
Russia faced Germany and its allies, fought until the country collapsed, and then surrendered and gave up a massive chunk of land to secure an ignominious and punitive peace.
Germany faced France and its allies, fought until the country collapsed, and then surrendered and gave up a massive chunk of land to secure an ignominious and punitive peace.
You must be using a pretty strange definition of the word “successfully”.
Certainly Russian armies have been defeated and Russia lost chunks of territory on occasion. But the last guy who, I’d say, successfully invaded Russia went by the name of Genghis Khan.
I think I’m using the standard one. Germany invaded Russia, forced it to renounce huge amounts of territory, and knocked it out of WW1. Incidentally, it was that invasion which led to the formation of Finland, the Baltic States, Ukraine and Belarus which persist (some with interruptions) to this day. Looks like a pretty resounding victory to most. And Germany did all that while fighting on two fronts! Now, Germany later lost on the Western front, but the moral there isn’t “Don’t start a land war in Asia,” it’s “Don’t fight serious enemies on two fronts at once.”
Great, so you agree with skeptical_lurker that, nukes aside, NATO retaking the Crimea from Russia is a possibility. (Frankly I’d say it would be a certainty).
I think Russia’s conventional army today would fold in a matter of weeks. Yes I know who else said that.
It would be bloody though, on both sides.
Lenin’s peace with Germany in WW1 isn’t even applicable to the saying about land wars in Asia, as only the European part of Russia was a part of the theatre. The historically relevant bit of Russia is in Europe both culturally and geographically. Maybe the saying should be “don’t get involved in land wars with Russia.” China was partitioned just fine back in the day. Commodore Perry got what he wanted from Japan just by showing up in a fancy ship, right? The East India Company did ok for a while, etc.
You’re right that the WW1 invasion was entirely in the European part of Russia… but then, so were the Napoleonic and WW2 invasions. And the Crimea too, the point in question.
And you are of course quite right that lots of people have successfully invaded Asia by land, from Alexander onwards. I think the saying is nonsense, relying entirely on a highly selective reading of history.
I think that facing an Eastern Front meatgrinder over some intra-Slav land squabble, the West’s political will today would fold faster.
The saying, I think, is a quote from Princess Bride and at the time the relevant war was Vietnam (and to a lesser degree, Korea).
I feel like Princess Bride was probably repeating Baby Boomer wisdom from the anti-Vietnam protests. A quick Googling attributes the quote to Douglas MacArthur, of all people(who fought no less than three of them, which makes me wonder...)
I like how you ignore Russia’s, um, internal problems at the time :-/ Not to mention that what you are showing is that Russia lost WW1, not that Germany successfully conquered it.
No, I do not, not in the real world. If you want to do simulated war-games which abstract from most everything except for numbers and hardware, maybe, but I don’t see how that’s relevant to anything.
But those internal problems were largely caused by the hardships and stresses of losing the war. Similarly, the proximate cause of the German surrender in WW1 was “internal problems” in Germany (the revolutions in Kiel and Bavaria, etc) but those are inseparable from the fact that the hardships of the war and the psychological sense that Germany was losing put an intolerable strain on German morale. Loss of morale leading to institutional overthrow is often the mechanism by which countries collapse when at war.
I agree that Russia lost WW1. What I don’t agree with is that Germany “successfully conquered” Russia in 1917.
Russia faced Germany and its allies, fought until the country collapsed, and then surrendered and gave up a massive chunk of land to secure an ignominious and punitive peace.
Germany faced France and its allies, fought until the country collapsed, and then surrendered and gave up a massive chunk of land to secure an ignominious and punitive peace.
I see no difference between the two.