War is part of human history, and while war grows, we should not encourage it. In World War II, street fighting became a brutal and bloody form of warfare. Why didn't the attackers choose to destroy the city directly, but instead check the buildings one by one?
Street fighting is a type of war fought in densely populated cities, full of blood. The attacking side is often unfamiliar with the terrain and has difficulty determining the position of the defender. However, instead of destroying the city directly, the attackers took the buildings one by one. There are deep-seated reasons for this choice.
Historically, the population density of cities has gradually increased, and a country often chooses street fighting to occupy a certain city, even in modern times, even if it has advanced **, it still needs to pay a high price for successful street fighting. The defender defends with the help of city buildings, which consumes the attacker's strength.
The street fighting at Stalingrad is a prime example of World War II, in which the Germans fell into the trap of Soviet street fighting, and the defenders put up stubborn resistance with the help of terrain and architecture. In this battle, the defenders even fortified the building, making it difficult to destroy. The Soviets eventually won by changing tactics and storming, but at great cost.
Why not just destroy the building?The outright destruction of a city would turn it into ruins, resulting in the death of a large number of civilians, which was contrary to the purpose of the invaders. The purpose of war is to occupy cities and use their resources for national development, not to destroy them.
Modern buildings are mostly made of reinforced concrete, which is not easy to collapse for ordinary bombs. Turning a city into ruins requires the use of powerful bombs, which often require air supremacy, an almost impossible task.
On the other hand, bombing can cause great harm to civilians, which is contrary to humanitarian principles. In war, at the very least, civilians should be evacuated to reduce the number of innocents**. In the street battles in Fallujah, ** was victorious, but ** was disastrous, which once again showed the need to investigate one by one in the street battles.
War requires humanitarian care, and the direct destruction of buildings is inconsistent with this principle. Society is developing, science and technology are advancing, civilization is prospering, but wars are becoming more and more intense, and the number of people is increasing. In a violent war, we need to defend the bottom line of humanity and protect civilians from harm.
In short, although street fighting is a brutal form of warfare, the purpose of inspecting buildings one by one is to reduce **, protect civilians, and conform to humanitarian principles. The direct destruction of the building is not only meaningless, but also provokes international condemnation to the detriment of the aggressor. In a society of peaceful development, we should do our best to avoid war and remain rational and humanitarian.
The article delves into the reasons why houses are not destroyed outright in street fighting, but are investigated one by one, emphasizing the importance of humanitarianism and the protection of civilians. This detailed and comprehensive explanation gives the reader a deeper understanding of the strategic and moral considerations in military warfare.
First of all, the article vividly illustrates the cruelty and complexity of street fighting through historical examples, such as the street fighting at Stalingrad. In this kind of warfare, both sides have to pay a heavy price, and the attackers often have to occupy the buildings one by one, facing strong resistance from the defenders. This depiction gives the reader a more intuitive understanding of the difficulty of street fighting.
Secondly, the article emphasizes the infeasibility and meaninglessness of the direct destruction of buildings. Through the analysis of modern building structures, the author points out that the buildings of modern cities are mostly solid reinforced concrete, and it is difficult for ordinary bombs to cause fatal damage. Moreover, the direct destruction of the building would lead to the death of a large number of civilians, which is contrary to the actual purpose of the war. Here, the article cleverly combines military prowess and humanitarian values, explaining why the readers chose to examine each building one by one.
Humanitarian care is another important theme in the article. When discussing war, the article repeatedly emphasizes the protection of civilians. Referring to the example of the street fighting in Fallujah, the article points out that ** was ultimately victorious, but ** was disastrous, which further underscores the inevitability of civilians in war. Through such narratives, readers are led to think about how innocent lives should be protected to the greatest extent possible in military operations.
Finally, the article summarizes the dilemma of war and calls for doing everything possible to avoid war in today's society and to remain rational and humanitarian. This appeal not only emphasizes the destructive nature of war, but also emphasizes the necessity of human society to pursue common interests in peaceful development. Such an ending makes the whole article more profound and thought-provoking.
In general, this article profoundly explains the reasons why the buildings were chosen one by one in street battles through detailed examples and reasonable arguments, emphasizing both military and strategic considerations and the importance of humanitarianism. This comprehensive and in-depth analysis gives the article a high information density and inspiration.
Disclaimer: The above content information is ** on the Internet, and the author of this article does not intend to target or insinuate any real country, political system, organization, race, or individual. The above content does not mean that the author of this article agrees with the laws, rules, opinions, behaviors in the article and is responsible for the authenticity of the relevant information. The author of this article is not responsible for any issues arising from the above or related issues, and does not assume any direct or indirect legal liability.
If the content of the article involves the content of the work, copyright**, infringement, rumors or other issues, please contact us to delete it. Finally, if you have any different thoughts about this event, please leave a message in the comment area to discuss!