products
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
products

products and price


You are not connected. Please login or register

What Would Have Happened in World War II If Hitler Didn't Try to Invade the Soviet Union?

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Admin


Admin
<p><div><p>Short Answer:-Well they would've still lost the war.For those who write that they would've won is completely Rubbish.Let me ExplainFirst we have to ask ourself why Germany attacked Soviet Union in the first place?</p><p>Well,For many of us because of Hitlers Lebensraum in the East,which is wrong
The main reasons for the invasion were :-ResourcesFertile LandEliminate a Weak Red Army which had a potential of becoming strong in future with vast amount resources,manpower and considerable amount of Industrial capacity.(they were weak due to the great purge)During 1940sGermany conquered most of the Europe and lost the battle of Britain which was Bad for the Germans war effort. It seems reasonable for battle of Britain but how the conquered part is bad for the Germans since it provide more Industrial capacity ,land and resourcesWell,it is due to their Logistical and Resource problem(Not Iron or Steel but it was due to Oil).</p><p>Germany had to stretch their Transport units to France,Yugoslavia,Poland,Belgium and other European countries to send supplies to their Garrison troops and to the local population as well(They are still humans BTW),Which consume more than 3 times the fuel in 1938.So,it was a problem for the Germans.Now, the second question,If the Germans needed resources(mainly crude oil) for their war effort why didn't they just invade middle east and through north Africaand why the soviet union?</p><p>.Well,it is due to the fact that middle east didn't produces that much crude oil in 1940(comparable to German war effortjust look at it,USA 182.657 MtUSSR 29.</p><p>700 MtVenezuela 27.443 MtIran 10.426 MtIndonesia 7.</p><p>939 MtMexico 6.721 MtRomania 5.764 MtColumbia 3.</p><p>636 MtIraq 3.438 MtArgentina 2.871 MtTrinidad 2.</p><p>844 MtPeru 1.776 MtBurma 1.088 MtCanada 1.</p><p>082 MtEgypt 0.929 Mt millions of metric tons of crude oil produced for the whole year(1940)Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938,Now, U couldn't take oil from these countries due to :-North America and South AmericaBritish NavyBurma,Egypt and Indonesia-&gt;were colonies of Britain and Netherlands.Now, remains USSR,Iraq,Iran and Romania and Egypt(could be invaded through Italian North African colony).</p><p>Egypt:- well the Germans could've take the field but it wasn't enough( only 0.9 Mt) and cant be transfered through Mediterranean sea(British navy).Iran and Iraq:- Germans were already trading with them and they couldn't be invaded Why ?</p><p> , because invasion of Turkey wasn't feasible (same with case of Switzerland).you couldn't invade middle east through north Africa. Due to Suez canal and again due to the British Navy.</p><p>3. Romania:- Was in the Axis Power,Providing Axis Members with the most of the fuel requirement.But it wasn't enough.</p><p>Now the only one left is Soviet Union,Germany was importing 12 Million Barrel per year in 1941.But it was, limited because Stalin knew the German dependence on the oil.Now the last Question,What if they didn't attack the Soviet union instead they just continue to import Oil from them?</p><p>Well it wouldn't have last very long,Stalin was preparing his own invasion of Germany due the ambition of World Comintern.What if Soviet union had invaded in say 194344.They would've won quickly with less destruction and manpower casualties(Because it wasn't a surprise for the Soviet anymore and the effect of the great purge would've been much less in 1943 or 1944 which resulted in more organized Red Army and less casualties than in 1941)So,the Germans had no choice rather Gambling on Soviet Unionbecause they would have to fight them after all.</p><p>Thanks for Reading!</p><p>ยท Other Questions</p><p>How would you explain the Theory of Relativity in layman's terms? How can you explain it to a child or teenager?</p><p></p><p>Galileos principle of relativity states that the laws of physics are the same for all observers. He used the example of two experimenters, one in a room on land, and one in a boat travelling smooth and steady at sea. The two would not be able to easily tell the difference between them.</p><p>
Newton provided a mathematical framework to express the laws of physics, and included Galileos principle as a basis for it.By the time that Einstein came around, there was evidence, both theoretical and experimental, that the speed of light should be the same for all observers something that Galileo and Newton hadnt considered.So Einsteins theory of relativity added the idea that the speed of light was the same for all observers, and explored the implications to the rest of the laws of physics if that was the case.</p><p> He showed that if we assume that if the relative speeds of different observers was correct, then Galileo and Newtons formulations of relativity were almost correct, differing from his form by a small enough amount that it didnt invalidate their work. It did require that certain common sense notions, like distances or durations being the same for different observers, be rejected or modified. But again, at slow speeds, these effects are small.</p><p>
Einstein realized, however, that his theory of relativity broke the theory of gravity, and that he needed to extend it to include gravity. After all, gravity is rather important.There was a curious artifact in Newtons physics that had never been fully explained: Mass showed up twice in his laws; once when dealing with inertia, and once when dealing with gravity.</p><p> These two appeared to be exactly the same, even though there was no real reason for them to be. The end result was that the acceleration from gravity was somewhat independent of the mass of an object the inertial mass was exactly cancel<a href="https://5mdgojbn.lifisher.com/ai-article/what-would-have-happened-in-world-war-ii-if-hitler-didn-t-try-to-invade-the.html">led</a> by the gravitational mass. Most scientists didnt think much about this, but some scientists worried about it and conducted extensive tests to verify it.</p><p>Einstein noted that gravity acted like a pseudoforce a fictitious force that arises when you are using a non-inertial reference frame. The centrifugal and Coriolis forces you see when you use a rotating reference frame are examples of pseudoforces. Because pseudoforces arent real, they also have identical accelerations for different masses, and thus the force terms have a mass term in them, just like gravity.</p><p>This would mean, for instance, that objects in free-fall or in orbit, are not curving or accelerating in the proper reference frame, but rather following a straight path through spacetime.
So Einstein spent 10 years examining, mathematically, what it would take for gravity to be a pseudoforce, the speed of light to be constant for all observers, and physical laws to be the same for all observers. The end result was his new, general theory of relativity, which was based on the idea that, roughly speaking, spacetime tells masses how to move, and masses tell spacetime how to curve.</p><p> His original theory of relativity was for the special case of no gravity, when spacetime was not curved. As such, it got retroactively renamed the special theory of relativity and the new theory was the general theory of relativity.Of course, the devil is in the details, and the details for general relativity is immensely complicated maths that even today, 100 years after initial publication, is a field of active research</p><p>------</p><p>I've been assigned as a lead engineer over a team of slow and incompetent engineers.</p><p> How do I effectively lead them?</p><p>Can you identify an engineer that *is* competent that can review their work? If you can get just a few hours a week of that engineeru2019s time, it would behoove you to use it to review the teamu2019s work and give feedback.</p><p>Can you provide the u2018visionu2019 and break down the team membersu2019 tasks into small, consumable chunks? Put those chunks into a schedule on a reasonable timeline and then inform both the team and your manager(s) of that schedule. State your expectation of meeting the schedule.</p><p> Then, set up a weekly 1/2 hour meeting to assess progress with the team, expecting each member to report on their individual progress. Follow that up with a weekly meeting with your manager(s) to relay the teamu2019s progress. u2192 One of the biggest problems for a company is having a project go over budget and/or over time.</p><p> If you start falling behind because the team isnu2019t making schedule, youu2019ll be able to identify the issue early on (within a week or two) and report that to your superiors. Once the problem of being too u201cslowu201d and/or u201cincompetentu201d comes to light due to delays in the schedule, the management can then fully recognize the need (based upon cost for labor) to get the proper staff or see the project fail. This spreads the misery around without anyone really taking the blame, and it makes it so that more people get on board with moving the project forward.</p><p> It also shows that it isnu2019t your leadership (protects your career) at fault, but that the wrong personnel were assigned to the task.If you can, for the duration of the project, get your team moved to an open, general area where you can all see each other and work together. Many times, people goofing off at work (writing on Quora, lol), leaving on long lunches, chit-chatting with other employees all over the building, etc.</p><p> are seen as slow because they donu2019t get work done. By putting everyone together, you/they can see who is actually working and who isnu2019t. This peer/sociological pressure can lead to greater productivity and remove distractions.</p><p>
If these are long time employees, donu2019t expect to be able to inspire them to do this project. The best you can hope for is to get them to buy-in to the ideas by having them participate in brainstorming sessions to resolve issues. People that become invested because it is their idea they are working on tend to produce better results and focus better on that work.</p><p>
Just thought of something elseu2026find out what the individuals are interested in doing. They may be working on stuff that they hate and that is why they are u201cincompetentu201d. Iu2019ve often seen engineers that get pigeon ho<a href="https://5mdgojbn.lifisher.com/ai-article/what-would-have-happened-in-world-war-ii-if-hitler-didn-t-try-to-invade-the.html">led</a> into something that they know how to do (maybe even well) but that they arenu2019t interested in and then they get stuck in that role because the program wonu2019t backfill or doesnu2019t realize that they need someone else to do that job.</p><p> Depending on the size of the company, this could be detrimental to their overall satisfaction with the job and thus their desire to be productive because they canu2019t get into a different role. I always try to keep people that are the experts at something doing that thing because typically their strengths mirror their interests, but just in case I always ask</p></div></p>

https://weyes123.666forum.com

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum