Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Drew on February 02, 2004, 09:07:31 pm
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1136483,00.html
i dunt now about u... but im ready to bomb that place now :blah:
-
No. We can't do that. We wouldn't want to interfer with their culture.
-
Aw, man, they are killing people! That means we can kill people too!
:rolleyes:
-
oh, have we started up the propaganda machine against NK now, alright :cool:
-
1 of 3 things will happen:
1. they get in a war they can't win with the US
or
2. Globalization finally crack NK wide open
or
3. they all starve to death and find out that the Gov't has been lying to them for many years and the rest of the world is better of for the most part.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
oh, have we started up the propaganda machine against NK now, alright :cool:
Meh, I don't particularly want to be drafted today :doubt:
-
Ditto
-
just like we were for the last one
-
Hello Nazi Germany Part Two!
-
Great. Lets get ready for another expenditure of american lives. Before you ask, I don't really give a flying **** about the people in NK. I say let them be gassed, burned, etc--until the rest of the world* can muster itself to give a **** too.
Originally posted by StratComm
Meh, I don't particularly want to be drafted today :doubt:
Don't worry. College students get high draft numbers, or get to avoid the draft entirely.
* Rest of the World: Here that means "The Rest of the World" and NOT "the UK and Australia and a bunch of other pissant nations that can't muster the force of arms to rob a liquor store, let alone force regime change in a nation that desperately needs it".
-
*Grimaces* That's horrifying..
-
yeah, ****, that's bad.
now, who is surprised by this?
good.
now, why is Iraq "liberated" and NK not?
yes, indeed, profit for the liberators, none in NK, and quite some in Iraq.
no-one will do **** about NK untill somebody discovers oil/uranium/diamonds in the ground, and lot's of it too.
-
so are you saying you would suport US millitary action in NK?
-
another Korean war no thanks last one was terriple
I think USA military is not ready war with NK and what if China joins NK side USA would lose
-
Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
another Korean war no thanks last one was terriple
umm..... do yo u realize how much our millitary has advanced since then? even though the koreans have a 1mill man army, we have a significant technalogical advantage........
(ermm.... high altititude prescison bombing anyone?)
yes, indeed, profit for the liberators, none in NK, and quite some in Iraq.
wtf kasperal? We *know* iraq was doing basically the same thing to their citizens........ you say "lets free NK! but say "Damn the US for freeing Iraq".
:blah:
-
now, why is Iraq "liberated" and NK not?
NK is far more Dangerous enemy
umm..... do yo u realize how much our millitary has advanced since then? even though the koreans have a 1mill man army, we have a significant technalogical advantage........
do you believe that much to military technology? I don't cos they can't use it there that much there. i they want liberated NK. USA must send Ground troops there and well NK forces don't give up
-
Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
do you believe that much to military technology? I don't cos they can't use it there that much there. i they want liberated NK. USA must send Ground troops there and well NK forces don't give up
2 words
gram mar
-
Originally posted by Drew
umm..... do yo u realize how much our millitary has advanced since then? even though the koreans have a 1mill man army, we have a significant technalogical advantage........
(ermm.... high altititude prescison bombing anyone?)
You are aware that the NK's have sufficient resources for - IIRC - at least 6 nuclear bombs, and possess ballistic missile technology. i.e. bye-bye Seoul, and maybe also Tokyo. And almost certainly chemical weapons technology.
Not to mention the entire NK populaiton has been collectively brainwashed for decades and is very likely to fight back.... you're talking about a gigantic commitment to win the war even if NK fights alone, one which the US could not possibly sustain without moving troops from pretty much every other base it has (IIRC they're already massively overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan).
And that's assuming China does not become involved (who are an ally of NK)... and if China does become involved you're talking World War 3, and a ground war which I seriously doubt the US could win - simply down to the logistics of assembling enough troops and supply lines.
-
Technological superiority fails when facing guerrilla...
Vietnam, Afghanista, Iraq...
US army is not trained to fight partisaneers...
-
Originally posted by Drew
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1136483,00.html
i dunt now about u... but im ready to bomb that place now :blah:
Ready when you are. *loads fertilizer bombs into a crop duster*
Originally posted by mikhael
Great. Lets get ready for another expenditure of american lives. Before you ask, I don't really give a flying **** about the people in NK. I say let them be gassed, burned, etc--until the rest of the world* can muster itself to give a **** too.
Fuck you.
-
Why, Woolie? Because I don't believe in unilateral invasions? Because I think that what we did in Iraq--no matter how much it needed to be done--was illegal and done under false pretenses?
I agree, something needs to be done, but not the way we did Iraq.
-
Do you think Kim Jong Il CARES if you levy economic sanctions on North Korea? He doesn't give a flying FUCK about his people. He'll just take what little food and money there is for himself and his cronies. To bring liberty to North Korea, we'll have to kick him out by force.
Personally, I consider the lives and well-being of millions more important than the lives and well-being of a few thousand and the feelings of a bunch of piss-ant nations in Europe.
-
There must be other way if USA attacks it could bad to USA soldiers attack must be last Choice
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Do you think Kim Jong Il CARES if you levy economic sanctions on North Korea? He doesn't give a flying FUCK about his people. He'll just take what little food and money there is for himself and his cronies. To bring liberty to North Korea, we'll have to kick him out by force.
Personally, I consider the lives and well-being of millions more important than the lives and well-being of a few thousand and the feelings of a bunch of piss-ant nations in Europe.
You can't play nuclear brinksmanship under the pretext of saving lives.
And frankly, the US has still prove itself capable of bringing liberty to a nation - Iraq has no government and could topple into civil war very easily, and in Afghanistan the elected leadership has virtually no power outside Kabul.
-
Nuclear brinkmanship? The first strikes against NK would probably be to destroy its WMDs and nuclear facilities. We'd probably ship our best Patriot missiles to Japan and South Korea to stop incoming nukes. If a nuke hits, NK's Communist government will have hell to pay.
There really is no choice because Kim Jong Il cares about nothing but power. His people can go to hell in his mind as long as he still has control.
The war will happen eventually. Either we strike first or they nail one of our allies in the Pacific and drag us into the war.
Also, Iraq has a functioning provisional government and elections will be held this year. So there.
-
yes, elections will be run and Saddam will be back under the promise of being a good boy in the future...
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Nuclear brinkmanship? The first strikes against NK would probably be to destroy its WMDs and nuclear facilities. We'd probably ship our best Patriot missiles to Japan and South Korea to stop incoming nukes. If a nuke hits, NK's Communist government will have hell to pay.
There really is no choice because Kim Jong Il cares about nothing but power. His people can go to hell in his mind as long as he still has control.
The war will happen eventually. Either we strike first or they nail one of our allies in the Pacific and drag us into the war.
Also, Iraq has a functioning provisional government and elections will be held this year. So there.
Iraq has a provisional government which is composed of exiles with virtually no grass roots support. The US has had to resort to asking the Us for help in establishing the feasibility of elections this year, but the UN doubts that it will be possible by the summer date. The situation in Iraq is highly unstable - there's an ongoing guerilla war, and we've already seen mass protests aimed at the provisional government.
You're making a key assumption that the US knows where the nukes are. As Iraq shows, US intelligence can be extremely misleading when it comes to the location of WMD.
Not to mention that there is probably no way to tell whether a water tanker carries water or biological agents - and thus what the effect of blowing up that tanker is.
And just a single miss can result in the deaths of thousands, most likely civillians...
In fact, the Iraq war is a perfect example - several missiles succeeded in landing near allied positions and even, IIRC, one in Kuwait city. And NK will undoubtedly have both better missiles and more of them.
A war will solve nothing... all it will do is further destroy international relations, and kill a lot of people. To assume that you can simply send in troops, kill a few hundred (thousand) people and walk out leaving a happy, stable populace is sheer idiocy.
What you will have is a monumental death toll, the possbility of Chinese involvement, the potential for deployment of nuclear and biological weapons, thousands of destitute refugees swamping SK and collapsing the economy there, the need for a massive aid effort, long term military occupation to preserve civil order (of many more troops than Iraq), the likely collapse of international relations between China and the US (even if China remained neutral), the likelihood of WMD material being 'leaked' by the fleeing NK leadership, etc.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
1. they get in a war they can't win with the US
Yeah, we have more nukes then them
Woot for nuclear war!
:rolleyes:
-
You kids just stop ranting and hear from someone who knew people who experieced China's Proletariat Cultural Revolution in the 1960s.
North Korea today is really reminiscent of China's 1960s Cultural Revolution, which was a cultural and political revolution. You should read what the government did to its citizens. Mao Zhe Dong didn't give a crap. Kim Il Cheng could care less.
Plus, what they're doing is completely supported by China. The Chinese, despite UN sanctions, gives supplies and weapons technology to the North Koreans. Mao Zhe Dong during the Korean War said, "As the lips rot [Korea], the teeth [China] is exposed and vulnerable." So I don't think that China is going to allow North Korea to fall as a military power in the area. China, being a Communist nation, could not be menacing because of its status in the UN and the WTO, but NK can. And the Chinese are still using the regime to achieve their own purposes. China supplies NK with nuclear and chemical technology; NK refines the uranium and cyanide for creating those weapons.
And guess where the Chinese got all those tech white papers? Yep! They got them from Wild Bill himself! I say, as a staunch Republican, crush the Chinese, North Koreans, and the Democrats (politically) in one fell swoop.
- Rampage
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Nuclear brinkmanship? The first strikes against NK would probably be to destroy its WMDs and nuclear facilities. We'd probably ship our best Patriot missiles to Japan and South Korea to stop incoming nukes. If a nuke hits, NK's Communist government will have hell to pay.
You're a real idiot if you believe any of this would work.
1) Nuclear Strikes against North Korea to free its enslaved population. What kind of ****ing idiot would suggest that. If you're going in to save the people of the country from their tyranical leader you can't start chucking nukes at the country or you're far worse than the person you're complaining about.
2) The patriot missile is ****. That much is obvious. If it could do what you claimed it can why would Bush and Clinton have risked alienating everyone with that whole missile defence shield thing they were working on a few years back.
Don't even get me started on the whole patriot vs scud thing.
3) Do you really think that China would stand by and let the US invade and take control of a country on its borders and do nothing?
Originally posted by Rampage
And guess where the Chinese got all those tech white papers? Yep! They got them from Wild Bill himself! I say, as a staunch Republican, crush the Chinese, North Koreans, and the Democrats (politically) in one fell swoop.
What are you? A cartoon character or something? Please tell me you aren't insane enough to be advocating a war with China.
-
The only justification for a war is for self-defence. If there were WMDs in Iraq that could threaten us (which, in hindsight, there probably weren't) then the war in that country was justified. Not a single soldier should die for the absurd cause of 'regime change'.
The same is true for NK. mikhael is absolutely right in saying we can and should do nothing if it puts the lives of our own people at risk. If soldiers are going to die they should at least die in defense of their own country.
-
HOw many times do I have to post this:
[q] originally posted by me
Governments exist to protect the peoples and interests of the peoples of thier nation[/q]
-
which has been the case from day one and i dont see it changing any time soon.
-
And int eh "best Interests" of the American people (as well as our Korean Brothers) a single mercenary sharpshooter should be hired to take out old kim jong(?)... No troops needed.
I am so sick and tired of the WMD card being played.. Who the hell cares.. Intervention for other reasons is justified and I doubt china would really do anything (much like a toppled anthill will eventually restore itself into calmness) after the disturbance is done...
I say this cause Korea is ONE tyrant. Not a collective like China. I actually have hope for China while nothing but pity for Korea...
In my military opinion, take the bastard out, quick and quiet. Then get a McDonalds in the ASAP... Winning the hearts and minds (and paychecks)...
As for the "million man army", I wouldn't be boasting about that (look what happened to saddam). As oppressed as the Koreans are if any troops ACTUALLY came to korea, after 40-50 years of neutral zone mentality, they'd probably ****e themselves cause they would know they were about to get Iraq'ed!!! :lol:
Just one guy's opinion... and I didn't even vote for bush!
-
Originally posted by Zarax
yes, elections will be run and Saddam will be back under the promise of being a good boy in the future...
Not after what the provisional government does to him and his party. He won the 2002 Iraqi elections by a 99% margin because you couldn't vote for anyone else.:p
Sodamn Insane has run out of second chances.
-
I thought it was taken from an electorate consisting of only himself. Whatever, I don't see him coming back to any leadership positions anytime soon, especially with a sizable portion of Iraqis pushing for his execution.
-
Call me old fashioned, but I still want more proof for there to be a war. I see an article, and a lot of "eyewitnesses", but given the evidence we've had on certain issues in recent history, I'm a bit skeptical either way.
-
Originally posted by Dr.Zer0
Yeah, we have more nukes then them
Woot for nuclear war!
:rolleyes:
Nukes are pretty much never used for actual warfare (and if Kim Jong Il pulls one out, we'll smother all of the military and government assets and infrastructure in his rathole nation with smart bombs--with CONVENTIONAL explosives, mind you). Diplomacy involves around a lot of posturing and chest-beating: you intimidate your opponent into submission, and you fight only if the other guy doesn't back off. Nukes are basically a political penis: "mine's bigger than yours, so **** off".
-
There's no way the Senate will support this unless NK launches a nuke.
-
I see it along the lines that North Korea should have always been considered the primary threat and dealt with on a international stage instead of playing games over there, tossing in a few B-1B's in range of North Korea to "show strength" and then going to war in Iraq with a thin veil of justification.
But now the US Military is tied up heavily in Iraq...the US Military may pride itself on efficiency of technology but it seems pretty clear from the media reports (all over the place) that the military is stretched thin as it is.
Still...conflict may be around the corner.
-
I would realy like to know wwhat did happen to Iraqs weapons, we know they had them, I realy doubt he actualy destroied them, hmmm... anyway
NK is a much meaner beast to fight, we realy should get done in Afghanastan and Iraq first, and it would probly be better to try and trick Kim into pissing off China,
NK is one of the few places I wouldn't be totaly against useing Nukes, there entire populace is brainwashed into something strait out of old Tojo Japan, unlike Iraq I beleve they would fight, and hard, this is something that could probly best be done via specal ops, sabatoge, getting ourselves a ****ing intelegence agency of some form, keeping things caiotic within the NK government (a few well placed assassanations maybe), and slowly building up a coalition this time (unlike Iraq we will need it for NK). now I am hopeing for something to get done, but this isn't a five week war, and we can't win it in our current state allone (without nukes anyway)
but maybe Kim will make it easy on us and decide it's time to invade South Korea, nukes Soal, and we would have nobody complaining if we nuked him there.
note: use of nukes is not a means of liberation, any use of nukes would be in resoponce to NK, and would be an attempt to simply kill the entire contry (ie, they nuked Soal or LA, or something equaly stupid), I would _much_ prefer containment and sabatoge untill we have a means by wich to take care of Kim and palls, but if he picks a fight, South Korea becomes an island nation
-
Interesting timing, first the US reduces ground forces in SK, then they pull them back from within range of NK's guns, now the horror storys start appearing. Ground wars not gonna happen, US doesnt, and never had, the strength for it. If anything does happen it'll most likely be bombing, though I dont see how thats going to achieve anything as everything worth bombing is deep underground and US intelligence doesnt seem to be able to find its own arse these days.
-
it's been quite a few years sence any US intelligence agency has had reliable evedence regarding likely locations of there ass(es)
-
China - Wouldn't give a ****. They'd enter an economic deal with the US whereby their new-found capitalism would be fed by US companies in exchange for them not directly engaging the US forces.
UK - No ****ing way would the UK pick a fight with North Korea. The government is in tatters as it is over Iraq and starting more **** would just kill it outright.
US - Even without China backing NK, the US would get raped. The simply don't have the man-power to attack North Korea while policing Afghanistan and Iraq. Then there's the matter of every tin-pot dictator, terrorist and 'illegitimate businessman' in the East deciding they could get a lot of power by attacking the US while their forces are thinly spread.
UN - No matter how 'justified' an invasion would be, the UN aren't going to back it, on the grounds that if they tell the US "It's okay to invade yet another country" they'll lose all credibility.
All the US have to do is shoot one high-power ballistic missile at the capital and take out the NK government.
The entire country is basically one huge rabble with guns. Their heirarchy is laughable. And few people have the ability to organise and control the armies of NK. You take out the leaders, the 'army' gets scared, turns tail and runs.
Think of it this way: How far would the Nazi's have got if in 1940 the UK had assasinated Hitler, Himmler and Goebels?
Hell, they could even do things the easy way and just commandeer the media in NK.
If the population believes everything that pours through their 2-cent radios all you gotta do is broadcast the surrender-message at a higher power than the NK Gov can and you've won.
And before you all go whining about how terrible this is, at least NK have a reason. The US lets thousands of people die every year because they can't afford health-insurance. They let thousands of people die because the government just doesn't give a **** and would rather be clutching at glory and conquering the world than sorting out problems at home.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Think of it this way: How far would the Nazi's have got if in 1940 the UK had assasinated Hitler, Himmler and Goebels?
Quite a bit longer actually. Hitler didn't support Rommel enough in North Africa for one thing. Had the germans had someone capable in charge rather than just charismatic and popular the war would have gone on a lot longer.
-
Uh, no. The only reason they wanted a war in the first place was because of Hitlers speeches and Goebels manipulation of the media.
Take away that and all support for the war collapses. So no matter how capable Rommel was the people wouldn't have even let him into power and he wouldn't have been invading anyone.
-
China would give a ****, NK is the sole chinese client state in an area dominated by US allies. The Chinese would be very eager to see the US taking a blow both militarily and credability wise over NK. Probably wouldnt intervene militarily, might slip the Koreans a couple of SS-N-25s if they were feeling particularly nasty but other than that they wouldnt really have too.
You're right about the US, UK and UN but the rest of your post is utter bollocks.
First of all the NK leadership lives about a mile underground, along with all heavy industry, military installations and most of its skilled labour force. Launching a missile at Pyongyang would simply be a slaughter of poor civilians.
Secondly the army isnt a rabble, its highly trained and motivated and frequently has fought to the death when caught infiltrating by the south. Its also well equipped, particularly in the artillery department. Taking out the leadership is a nice idea, but I think in real life it mightnt be as easy as you make it sound.
The idea that the people are going to give up just because they hear an american voice on the radio is ****ing ludicrous. I seriously hope you're taking the piss. These guys have trained to fight you for the last 50 years, they're not going to run away when you come, they're going to try and **** you up as best they can.
Oh and I seriously doubt the article is true, people dont defect from Nk every day and by the sounds of it this guys been out a while. Usually defecters spill the beans as soon as they get out, and I cant see how this guy forgot to mention it when whoever picked him up interrogated him. And iirc, most of the evidence concerning Iraqs wmds came from defectors.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Think of it this way: How far would the Nazi's have got if in 1940 the UK had assasinated Hitler, Himmler and Goebels?
Originally posted by an0n
Uh, no. The only reason they wanted a war in the first place was because of Hitlers speeches and Goebels manipulation of the media.
Take away that and all support for the war collapses. So no matter how capable Rommel was the people wouldn't have even let him into power and he wouldn't have been invading anyone.
War had already started in 1940, so the only people who wouldnt have been invaded were the russians. Given how much German strength this front took up I'd say Britain would have screwed themselves quite thoroughly had they pursued this course of action.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Uh, no. The only reason they wanted a war in the first place was because of Hitlers speeches and Goebels manipulation of the media.
Take away that and all support for the war collapses. So no matter how capable Rommel was the people wouldn't have even let him into power and he wouldn't have been invading anyone.
As Gank says by 1940 the war had already started. Do you think that if Hitler had been killed the germans would have just turned over Poland and retreated to their pre-war positions? Absolute nonsense.
Had you said 1933 then you might have had some validity but by 1940 killing Hitler would have been a bad idea. That much should be obvious from the fact that AFAIK no one from the allied powers even tried it.
Originally posted by Gank
Oh and I seriously doubt the article is true, people dont defect from Nk every day and by the sounds of it this guys been out a while. Usually defecters spill the beans as soon as they get out, and I cant see how this guy forgot to mention it when whoever picked him up interrogated him. And iirc, most of the evidence concerning Iraqs wmds came from defectors.
I doubt that the story itself is made up. The Guardian is a pretty credible source. If you're saying that the defector is suspect then that's a completely different matter.
-
Firstly: I meant 1940. By killing Hitler the Nazi's lose their figure-head, the population loses most of its sense of purpose and everyone goes "Hey, why the hell does Himmler get to be king now? I wanna be king" and the bickering starts. I'm not saying they wouldn't have still been all "Kill everything", just that they'd've been pretty much instantly ****ed.
Secondly: The North Korean leadership could be 100 miles underground for all it'd matter. How the hell do you think they'd organize a counter-offensive burried under hundreds of meters of solid rock and collapsed tunnels?
Thirdly: No matter how well-trained an army is, it cannot function properly unless it A) Believes in the cause enough to die for it and B) Has some kind of leadership, be it cell-based, centrally organized or faction-based.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
* Rest of the World: Here that means "The Rest of the World" and NOT "the UK and Australia and a bunch of other pissant nations that can't muster the force of arms to rob a liquor store, let alone force regime change in a nation that desperately needs it".
Wheee, I'm Willing!
-
well they seem to have A
-
Originally posted by an0n
Firstly: I meant 1940. By killing Hitler the Nazi's lose their figure-head, the population loses most of its sense of purpose and everyone goes "Hey, why the hell does Himmler get to be king now? I wanna be king" and the bickering starts. I'm not saying they wouldn't have still been all "Kill everything", just that they'd've been pretty much instantly ****ed.
An0n that's really simplistic thinking from you. Sometimes when a dictator dies or get killed the resulting power vacuum does result in trouble like that but just as often an even worse person seizes control and since everyone moves up the food chain no one is particularly unhappy enough to cause a revolution (or brave enough for that matter).
Besides as I said earlier. If killing Hitler would have ended the war that easily how come no attempts were made by the allies?
-
Doesn't always work that way...for instance Goering contributed significant gains to the British during The Battle of Britian by being a strategic and tactical idiot. He knew nothing of fighter or bomber tactics and between that and his arrogant boasting managed to loose himself the battle quite handily. Kill him and replace him with one of his lieutenants who actually knew how to do things and the situation may have been different...of course Hilter was the one who decided that London be reduced to rubble which gave a chance for the RAF to rebuild their numbers enough to make the Germans think twice about a daylight bombing campaign over London again.
-
Hitler was a principle reason for Germany losing the war.... he demanded, in particular, control of every single unit on the ground. For example, during the Omaha landings, there was a division of Panzers that, if deployed, would have decimated the landing toops and repelled that particular landing. But, because Hitler demanded total control, they couldn't send in the Panzers without his approval. And no-one wanted to wake him in Berlin to ask.....
a similar thing also happened in Iraq, when Saddam moved a division(+) of the Republican guard to the North - as the US was making it's attacking move from the south. Despite the fact that Republican guards were engaging US forces to the south at tat moment, no-one dared disobey Saddam. When Baghdad fell, the northern based divisions simply went home and gave up.
Granted, neither example is a 'war-losing' one, but imagine these repeated over and over.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/hitler_churchill_01.shtml
Is interesting.
-
I sometimes wish my history lessons had been better :) I'd heard several times with explainations that killing Hitler would extend the war but I couldn't remember a single one of them :)
-
I still really hope there is no war between usa and NK in near future Woolie wool&Drew you guys talk that USA should attack against NK would you willing go there too? and maybe end dead
Cos Soldiers fight war not lame Politics .
-
I vote we drop Woolie, Drew and the rest of them in NK with a gun and leave them to get on with it :D
-
If killing Hitler would have ended the war that easily how come no attempts were made by the allies?
Because Hitler was a known quantity. And they'd rather face Hitler with all his flaws that have him assasinated and face the uncertainty of who would follow him.
At the time it coulda swung either way, either the entire German government coulda gone to **** or one man could've decisively seized power and conquered the world.
But with the gift of hind-sight we know there was enough selfishness and inter-personal bickering within the heirarchy to have at worst put Goering into power with begruded support from the rest of the leadership and at best completely screwed the Nazis.
The peoples belief in Hitler was the only thing stopping the likes of Goering or Hess sticking a very literal knife in his back and seizing power for themselves.
Germans liked Hitler. Hitler was a man of the people. And if someone had ousted him and tried to take power they'd've seen it as treason and probably (literally) crucified them.
-
With the gift of hindsight we know that MIGHT have happened. You can never say with much certainty that someone else whouldn't have simply knifed Goering and done a much better job of running Germany.
Besides as Aldo said without a lot of Hitler's micromanaging of the war the fighting would have gone on for longer.
-
It might have gone on longer.
-
True. 'tis all relative.
Incidentally, did anyone see that programme on the telly about Hitlers plan to atom-bomb New York with a new bomber type (aka 'Amerikabomber')? 'twas interesting.
-
The Nazi's had some cool ****.
Technologically they whupped everyones ass. T'was just the industrial power of America that boned them.
IIRC by the end of the war the Nazi tanks were taking out Allied tanks at a ratio of 6:1, but the Allies had like 40 times as many.
-
In particular, Russian production was something like 6 times that of the Axis.
Although I don't think the allies had tanks in the same sense as the Axis - the various Panzers and soforth were dedicated tankkillers (i.e. built specifically to blow up other tanks), whereas I think many of the allied equivalents were much lighter and originally designed for APC type roles.... not to mention the obvious difficulties of getting them across the English channel on D-Day.
To be fair, a lot of Allied technology more than matched up to the Axis - I think sonar was more advanced (as was the whole general anti-submarine tech, out of necessity), and there were lots of innovations created that aren't heard of much - like the introduction of chaff and electronic jamming to take down German radar stations.
-
Look, we (the Allies of the UK) would have to redeploy thousands, neigh millions of troops before any realistic attack could be launched on NK.
This means we would have to move men, equipment and supplies on a scale unseen since the last Korean war (from the UK perspective). We would have to do this without much of it being noticed by the North Koreans - othewise they'd probably invade the south as a pre-emptive act, killing thousands of US troops stationed there along with several more civilians.
Oh, and to those who think wiping out the leadership would make a difference - what real input do you think the Govt. will have on the military machine that runs NK in a war? Soviet style military units have a tendancy for absolute bloody mindedness when it comes to "defending the revolution". The populous itself, has already been subject to years of propaganda about the government, the US and such. Thus as patriots they would fight any invading force with equal tanacity to any American or Brit.
War is not as simple as C&C.
-
Uh, yes it is. You bomb the **** out of the enemy and decimate their supplies, man-power and intelligence network. Then you win.
-
Oh God, back on topic.
Er... IMO it's best to leave both China and NK to themselves, and work subtly towards encouraging a people revolution ala the USSR, Yugolsivia / Serbia & Montegro, Georgia, etc. Any military pressure on NK, in particular, simply strengthens government support.
-
The only problem there is the people arent particularly willing to rise up against the government, its a closed society which hasnt been bombarded with MTV, hollywood etc. All the peoples revolutions you mention took place after the fall of communism, although I dont recall one in the USSR. As for China, no idiot is going to try and bring democracy there, organising elections in a country of one billion people which has never in its history had them before is a bit daunting to say the least. The best you can hope for there is the communists to go quietly capatalit, which is happening.
Btw Allied tanks, with the exception of Russian ones were not designed for different roles than the Germans, they were just ****.
-
Originally posted by Gank
The only problem there is the people arent particularly willing to rise up against the government, its a closed society which hasnt been bombarded with MTV, hollywood etc. All the peoples revolutions you mention took place after the fall of communism, although I dont recall one in the USSR. As for China, no idiot is going to try and bring democracy there, organising elections in a country of one billion people which has never in its history had them before is a bit daunting to say the least. The best you can hope for there is the communists to go quietly capatalit, which is happening.
That is true..... it may be many decades before it happens. But in terms of the alternatives, for me it's the most viable. USSR - wasn't there a revolution / rebellion in Poland that prompted the breakup of the Soiet union?
Originally posted by Gank
Btw Allied tanks, with the exception of Russian ones were not designed for different roles than the Germans, they were just ****.
Er, yeah, probably. I can;t remeber wher I ot that idea from... some Tv programme about Weapons of WW2 or something doing a comparison between the Tiger & some allied tank.
-
What aldo is on about is how the west won the cold war by bankrupting the USSR.
It may be possible to do it with China but it would be much harder as the west relies on cheap labour from there.
-
Chinas economy is one of the fastest growing in the world, the odds of bankrupting it are slim to non existant. The USSR was bankrupted because of its arms race with the west, China isnt going to enter one because it knows there isnt a damn thing the US can do to it militarily. The opposite is actually true, China is sitting quietly waiting for the US to go bankrupt.
Aldo, Poland wasnt in the USSR. Did have some bearing on matters though I would imagine, as did the breaking down of the Berlin wall.
-
If Hitler planned that if by any acount that he would be assassinated and to whom it would take his place, then there would have been little fuss about it. If he didn't, it would slow down the german advance untill things get settled. And don't think that everybody wanted to take Hitlers place because they knew that they would never would be like him and they would be a target against possible future revolts.
Now with that said....
Originally posted by karajorma
Besides as I said earlier. If killing Hitler would have ended the war that easily how come no attempts were made by the allies?
In 1930s, Hitler wasn't as much as a threat so not many people really felt the need to have him assassinated.
In 1940s?
How easy do you think it would be to travel across an entire continent which is most enemy territory and to have to assassinate one of the post well-protected man in Europe? Travel by water? Okay, hopefully you can pack a months worth of food into that little sailboat of yours...just watch out for those hundreds of u-boats. Planning to hitch-hike? Guess you're the adventurous type if you want to face the lions, tigers, and panzers! Oh my! If even you do manage to reach Berlin and assassinate Hitler, let's not even talk about the return tip home...
Enough of the stupid crap. No one could have assassinated Hitler except those closest to them.
And back on topic.... if NV does have WMD, and the US or any other country has actual proof that convinces the rest of the UN, and they give the green light to attack then the war is justiable. Otherwise it's better to leave them alone because it's their culture.
-
Read up on the SOE. They carried cyanide pills and the average lifespan for some of them was around 6 weeks.
I'm sure you could have talked some of them into trying if they thought it worth it.
Besides you completely ignore the fact that the allies did have spies already in Berlin
-
Yes, and what's a better use for spies: Using them to help set ambushes for German divisions to quickly and easily decimate the entire German army, or using them to stab Hitler in the head and leaving the German army free to do what the hell it liked without interference from spying?
-
Originally posted by an0n
Yes, and what's a better use for spies: Using them to help set ambushes for German divisions to quickly and easily decimate the entire German army, or using them to stab Hitler in the head and leaving the German army free to do what the hell it liked without interference from spying?
Hang on a sec. Weren't you claiming earlier that killing Hitler would have shortened the war? Nice of you to join me on my side of the arguement.
-
I was speaking from the perspective of the Allies.
-
Originally posted by an0n
I was speaking from the perspective of the Allies.
And I wasn't. I was taking the same hindsight is 20/20 view that you took.
-
I think you all fail to consider just how well-gaurded Hitler was in 1940. Some of his own troops tried, and it got them all killed. It's not like one could just run up on stage when he was speaking and pull a gun, no one got within a mile of him armed that wasn't a trusted aide.