In WWI, the British blockade of Germany was key in Germany's defeat because of it's supplies and food shortages throughout the war. In WWII a Blockade wasn't fully implemented in order to keep German citizens from starvation as in WWI.
What things should I consider when comparing the differences the eastern front in WWI to Operation Barbarossa in WWII?
What other perspectives should I consider in order to try to answer this question? This is one of my 8 random in-class essays that might be given to me next week for my midterm. Thank You.
In WW2 a blockade was definitely implemented. The difference was that Germany was able to strip food from a far larger area of Europe than in WW1. Still by the end there were 10s of millions of Europeans, or more, on the edge of starvation.
The question is a bit. .vague. The differences in the Eastern front was entirely different. The only similarity being it being on the Eastern Front. Barbarossa was far more well planned than any comparable WW1 exercise and probably the most substantial difference is that in WW1 the Germans intended to defeat the Russian Government, in WW2 they specifically intended to eliminate it and most of the country itself. So far far different strategic goals and I think that this is where the major seperation between the two campaigns lie.