[an0n]

It might have gone on longer.

[aldo_14]

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.

[an0n]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[vyper]

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.

[an0n]

Uh, yes it is. You bomb the **** out of the enemy and decimate their supplies, man-power and intelligence network. Then you win.

[aldo_14]

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.

[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.

Btw Allied tanks, with the exception of Russian ones were not designed for different roles than the Germans, they were just ****.

[aldo_14]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Gank]

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.

[JR2000Z]

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.

[karajorma]

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

[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?

[karajorma]

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.

[an0n]

I was speaking from the perspective of the Allies.

[karajorma]

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.

[StratComm]

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.