SittingDuck
Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002 Status: offline
|
Apparently not coded to take hits or raises after the first time. OK, I am going to speak about this from the standpoint of community mental health, and I feel rather well-enlightened as I work in the field (exclusively with American Veterans - love it). Losing a capital city would be heart-rending. As the conqueror, it would be a massive rush. To regain it, only to lose it again would be crushing. As in, a loss of heart. No more fight (at least for it). So indeed, had Moscow been recaptured, hope and morale would be restored to the Russians. Should they have lost it again, in general, there would be no fight left (at least for that city) - at least nothing like was once exerted. And even any rebound would take herculean effort for building a heart to do it. Further, it depends on if 'Moscow' would represent to the Russian people what, say, Berlin, London or Paris would to those associated peoples. That right there is an argument that could be had, and is both cultural and temporal in nature. But to say that there would be no morale loss after having recaptured it and then losing it again? Sorry, that's 180deg off from human nature. That would be soul-crushing to a nation (again, should they hold the capital or any objective in such high esteem). It would indicate, much more than the first loss, "We've lost - we're overcome. We prize this, and we cannot overcome them." Doesn't mean there wouldn't be any fight, just that there would be a massive sense of lose and futility, in general. Bear in mind that for the various resistance movements that sprung up, all of them took time - not just from the logistical standpoint, but also from the psychological standpoint of people having to get over their shock, misery and sense of despair. And THEN being motivated to do something about it.
< Message edited by SittingDuck -- 11/11/2021 4:14:08 AM >
|