1.  What is meant by Blitz Krieg? (2) Why did Lenin describe Russia as a prison of Nation?
153557
1. Lightning war. 2. I have no idea what your question is. Did you quote Lenin properly?
290464
Ok.....a full answer to this would take 200 pages minimum.  This is the stuff graduate thesis are made of....but to summarize.........\n\nYou have to change how you view what WW2 was.  It was essentially a late and last ditch effort for a newly resurgant Russian and German empire to expand territory.  Both countries have always had flexible borders (borders that often change) over their histories.  And Russia in particiular has always sought expansion for warm water ports.  If you look at the geography of it......Germany and Russia are natural rivals.  This is why Russia so distrusted any form of a unified Germany following ww2....Russia has always seen invasions from German territory...even before there was a Germany.  In the early-mid-late 30's both countries were already expanding.....but the Germans were bogged down with Yugoslavia and Poland, and the Russian expansion was bogged down in Finland.  Both leaders also distrusted their militaries....and had to consolidate domestic power at various times.  The alliance/non-agression pact was always meant to be a temporary measure.  Hitler rose to power screaming about communism and socialism.  He was always a direct rival of Stalin.  Stalin and the communist party in Russia saw Hitler as an enemy of the proletariat...and historically feared Germany.  In other words both Stalin and Hitler knew that they were going to be fighting at some point.  The non-agression pact was a mutual agreement to take care of other concerns before this happened.  Germany over came it's problems/obstacles before the Soviets did (they had a 70 year advantage on industrialization, and a more centralized/homogenous population) and broke the Warsaw Pact first.  Stalin's reaction was simple disbelief....and when he did find out the invasion was real he hid for days inside of a bunker and Russia was in chaos.  He finally emerged...and ww2 was fought on the the plains of Russia.  To say that ww2 was a land war between Germany and The Soviet Union would not be too far off the mark.  Both sides benefited from the non-agression pact....but Germany was quicker to take advantage.  As far as appeasement.....the initial German expansion was more bluff than anything else.  THe german war machine could quickly have been stopped in places like Czeck.  To understand appeasement you have to understand the Versailles treaty (the treaty/surrender that ended ww1).  The German State lost territory, had to make reparations, etc.  They had limited military production.  The French (who suffered the worst of ww1) were the primary driving force behind the humiliating (to German thinking) Treaty of Versailles.  The English always felt the sanctions on Germany were unfair and unenforcable.  Because of this....when the Germans entered areas like the Sudatland......the British saw it as fair.  The french lacked the strength or will to fight...especially without international support.  By the time that Germany entered Poland (a mutual invasion with Russia actually), their war machine and industry was far greater...and Hitler's domestic power was far more consolidated.  The Germans already had a huge buffer zone.  Appeasement lead to the inevitable and eventual war with a stronger Germany.
371173
B) and D) and my factual reasoning:\n\nHitler had argued in Mein Kampf of the necessity of acquiring new territory for German settlement (Lebensraum) in Eastern Europe. \n\nTo hardline Nazis in Berlin, the war against the Soviet Union was one of a struggle of Fascism against Communism, and the Aryan race against the "inferior" Slavic race.
422327
There are lots of reasons.  The infrastructure of the USSR was falling apart.  The cold war ate up all their resources.  They also had to implement some capitalistism in their economy so it wouldn't totally collapse, therefore not totally socialist.  The people were also terrified and pissed about being sent to Gulag.  Consult a history book for more.
344587
What do you mean by why did it happen? It was part of Germany's invasion of Russia during WWII. They had to take Stalingrad to be able to have a firm grasp on the country, and the Russians didn't want that to happen, so they held out in Stalingrad.
598119
Here's a comparison....what about the 'little dog that chased the car.' What would he do with it if he caught it? And, what would you do with Russia if you conquered it? Conquering Russia would involve a lot of energy, expenses...and besides, it gets REALLY cold in Russia.
506596
Mein Kampf (English translation: My Struggle or My Fight) is the fundamental political work of Adolf Hitler, combining elements of autobiography with an exposition of Hitler's political ideology of Nazism.\n\n    \nThe writing of Mein Kampf\n\nThe first volume, titled Eine Abrechnung ("An Account") was published on July 18, 1925; the second volume Die Nationalsozialistische Bewegung ("The National-Socialistic Movement") was published in 1926. The original title Hitler chose was "Viereinhalb Jahre [des Kampfes] gegen Lüge, Dummheit und Feigheit" (Four and a Half Years [of Struggle] against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice). His Nazi publisher, Max Amann, decided this title was too complicated and had it shortened to Mein Kampf ("My Struggle").\n\nThe connotive and contextual flexibility of the German word 'kampf' brings the possibility of multiple translations to the title. Similarly to the influence of its different connotations in the translation of 'jihad', 'kampf' is frequently translated into its ambiguously denotive meaning of 'struggle'. The contemporary connotations of 'kampf' at the time of the text's writing are equally ambigious. When translated as 'fight', 'combat', or even 'war', as evidenced by examples such as the German names for a number of tanks ("Panzerkampfwagen", "armored war vehicle") and dive bombers ("Sturzkampfflugzeug", "falling war airplane"). "My Fight" might be considered a more accurate, but still conservative, translation. "My War" may be closer.\n\nMany still feel "My Struggle" is the truest interpretation however, as throughout the text, Hitler describes the various trials and tribulations he and his movement experienced during their early years. Precedence for this translation can be found in the titles of other contemporary literary works such as Rudolf von Jhering's "Der Kampf ums Recht" (The struggle for justice).\n\nHitler began dictating the book to Emil Maurice while imprisoned in Landsberg, then after July 1924 to Rudolf Hess, who later, along with several others, edited it. The book has been said to be convoluted, repetitive, and hard to read, and partly as a result it was edited and re-edited over the next twenty years in a range of editions. It has been dedicated to Dietrich Eckart, member of the Thule Society.
636432
nvm... I didn't pay attention, I said Brest-Litovsk before, but that's when Russia pulls out of the war...  For the Non-aggression Pact check:\n\nhttp://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa072699.htm\nhttp://www.faits-et-documents.com/bilan_communisme/nonaggression_pact.htm\nhttp://yad-vashem.org.il/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205948.pdf\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi-Soviet_Pact
177277
There were two main places communists got involved in World War II.  The first, obviously, was Russia.  They were, ironically enough, our allies in the fight against the Nazis.  The second was the underground movements in occupied countries.  Since communists were banned by the Nazis, they already had a network of secret cells and communication systems.  They were the ones, after all, who invented the Molotov Cocktail and other guerrilla fighting techniques.  And there is no denying that some of them were very brave and took terrible risks in the underground fighting.  This also clearly gave them some key positions when the war was over, and they took maximum advantage of the fact.
174520
In addition to everything rose_n_steel said, (an awesome answer by the way) there's another little known point:  You've heard of "Red Square" in Moscow?  In Russian, it's "Krasnaya Ploshchad'".  The word "krasnyj" now is used simply to mean "red", but in old Russian it also had the meaning of "beautiful".  After the 1917 revolution, many westerners thought that Red Square had been named by the communists.  It hadn't, it had that name when the Kremlin was built and the square finished centuries before.\n\nAnyway - a little Russian trivia for you - hope you enjoyed it.
187900
The previous answer is not quite true - as there was no such place as the Soviet Union during Napoleon's time.  Napoleon invaded Russia.\nThe Germans invaded the Soviet Union during World War II and were unsuccessful due to a combination of their own strategic incompetence and a particularaly bitter winter.\nI am fairly sure that during the lifetime of the Soviet Union no one invaded and took land from it.
277917
Ya Russian is agressor till 1980. Now also it is agressor in part of militray .
703932
Time flies and nothing changes.\n\nThis is a quotation by nazi Hermann Goering:\n\n"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."\n\nDoesn't seem the same?
421901
Huh?  Glasnost, I believe means openness and was one of Mikhail  Gorbachev's buzzwords for reform in the dying days of the Soviet Union.  \n\nBasically, it meant, well, that the communist party could be criticized in public (at first tepidly) and the soviet system in general could also be criticized and examined, without punishment.  \n\nWell, in World War II, Stalin, who ran the Soviet Union, er, had this habit of killing anyone who disagreed with him after torturing them.  The thing about a system like that, is, you can't kill everyone.  So you rely on fear to keep the people in line.  But once a policy of Glasnost is pursued, it's like letting the Genie out of the bottle.  Suddenly if, so and so can criticize the government and not be shipped to Siberia, then maybe I can too.  \n\nAnd if everybody is criticizing the government, then that government, even if it is a dictatorship, will have very few days in office.  (The rewards of overthrowing it are too great).  \n\nWhen fighting a war that it is either kill or be killed (which the Eastern Front was in WWII) you can't afford little things like revolutions distract you from the war effort.
604753
to "unite" the world under communism.  Now the largest remnant (Russia) just wants to annihilate the US (although they won't admit it publically until they pull it off).
62991
it's a russian word that means "council" - used originally to refer to local community councils of workers.  these were (supposedly) regarded as the fundamental government entity under a communist system.\n\ninteresting, isn't it, that the form of government that was in theory all about putting power into the hands of local people and everyday workers has almost-universally has meant huge, absolutist, centralized power?  makes you wonder how communism would've turned out if the guys in charge weren't powermongering jerks.
564332
1. F (They had been against communism before Potsdam)\n2. T (I'm not sure if Britain was involved)\n3. F (Only 9 of the 23 were sentenced to death)\n4. F (U.S. and South vs. China and North)\n5. F (He actually wanted to continue the war into China)