Hello There Again. The correct answer C. Limiting Soviet influence in neighboring countries.
Explanation:
Because of The Russian Russia had ever
known before. This achievement and its ensuing results led to the emergence
of the Soviet Union as a military superpower. In this capacity, the Soviet
Union was able to project its power to a degree unparalleled in Russian
history-a transformation with immense potential. This broad view focused
the examination of the symposium’s various topics and themes, orally in
presentations and discussions, and then more fully in the essays of this
volume, composed prior to the symposium and refiied in its wake.
All historical records are incomplete and these proceedings are an
imperfect record. The introductions and commentaries exhibit some discontinuities because their authors did not see the revised versions of the papers
contained in this volume. The members of the inti~~ti~nal panelwhich
closed the symposium commented only briefly because of time limitations,
but subsequently submitted the written observations in this volume. Discussions with the audience at the symposium’s sessions and the banquet presentation by Brig. Gen. Roland Lajoie, USA, on “The Soviet Fignting Man” are
not included here because of space limitations. They must remain the special
pleasure, benefit, and memory of the symposium’s participants.
What distinguishes this book from others in Soviet studies and Russian
military history? In Soviet studies a plethora of books and articles on military issues exists in a contemporary framework from the vantage points of
national security and international relations. Very few are written in the historical perspective. In Western writing on Russian military history, the
number of historians and uniformed specialists recognized as truly outstanding is surprisingly limited- fact which became forcefully evident to
the symposium’s organizers as they combed Germany, France, Great Britain,
and the United Stam for qualified contributors. This volume views the subject historically and may be unique in its combination of overall program,
individual connibutions, and suggestions for future research. In the structure
of its program it is a survey of modern Russian military history. In its individual contributions it provides a good bit of specialized “post-holing.” It
possesses a pragmatic, professional military view in having sought out contributions by qualified military contributors and in providing a bibliographical aid. This aid is a significant indicator of the current professional
level of Soviet military studies in the West, offering military specialists,
scholars, and graduate students a readily accessible tool for further research
and study. The Great Patriotic War demonstrated both capabilities and deficiencies
in Soviet society, many still unexplored by Western specialists. The ability
of the Soviet Union to sustain itself in the face of extraordmxy losses and
destruction is indisputable. Why this was true is less cIear. It may be that
this was the major contribution of the Communist Party, but the issue remains
unestablished, at least in Western minds. This question is related to one of
the symposium’s major gaps, the question of the role of the “rear” or the
“homefront” in Russian wars and in particular in World War II. The poverty
of Westem scholarship on the Russian and Soviet ‘‘mar’’ caused planners for
the Academy’s 1982 military history symposium to leave out Russia and the
Soviet Union altogether at that symposium, which was devoted to the subject. Hope it helps!
