Germany might have been willing to surrender to the Western Allies.  Can't see them surrendering to the Russians, though.

(March 26, 2016 at 11:12 pm)IATIA Wrote: Does anyone think that killing Hitler and his top generals would have had a major effect on the outcome of the war?

         Not as much as impact as you think, there was a lot of smart German commanders. If Hitler would of died in the early days of war it would made a impact and Germany could of possibly won the war. The person who would of took over would of probably worked with Japan and stalled out the attack on America. Germany would of also probably not started the final solution as soon as they did and it would of been pushed back. Germany still had England and Russia to deal with and a smart commander does not expose himself on two fronts. If the Germans did not start the camps in the 1941 they would of had far more resources to work with and would of been able to do more damage. I have a question for you then IATIA, if Pearl Harbor had been pushed back, would the U.S of entered the war anyways as soon as England was defeated?

I think the U.S. was looking for a reason to enter the war. But back on topic (or at least what it has digressed to). Killing a bunch of civilians to get a couple terrorists does no one any good and it will not stop shit. If we are going to go after them, we need to be smarter and better than mass killing and destruction.

(March 26, 2016 at 11:45 pm)IATIA Wrote: I think the U.S. was looking for a reason to enter the war.  But back on topic (or at least what it has digressed to). Killing a bunch of civilians to get a couple terrorists does no one any good and it will not stop shit.  If we are going to go after them, we need to be smarter and better than mass killing and destruction.

       Why can't more people see this point? If you keep killing innocent people and not fighting the root cause of the problems you get no where. Let's start with why these groups don't like the western world and each other, we have our own favorite theories with evidence backing them. Take out western interference from the picture and there left with themselves. The middle east erupts into a civil war while the western powers watch from the side lines, we still get to sell them weapons and makes money while a part of the globe settles conflicts. I don't see any other way for the middle east to solve there problems any then a civil war. America is just a marriage adviser who is preventing a couple from beating each other up with foam bats. Let the middle east have it's mass civil war and the corrupt gets to profit from the chaos. I know it sounds bad to let millions of people die, on the other hand though these problems are not going away and there getting worse. If we keep going with out current path nothing will be resolved and more western countries will suffer cause of our actions.

(March 26, 2016 at 11:30 pm)Sterben Wrote:

(March 26, 2016 at 11:12 pm)IATIA Wrote: Does anyone think that killing Hitler and his top generals would have had a major effect on the outcome of the war?

         Not as much as impact as you think, there was a lot of smart German commanders. If Hitler would of died in the early days of war it would made a impact and Germany could of possibly won the war. The person who would of took over would of probably worked with Japan and stalled out the attack on America. Germany would of also probably not started the final solution as soon as they did and it would of been pushed back. Germany still had England and Russia to deal with and a smart commander does not expose himself on two fronts. If the Germans did not start the camps in the 1941 they would of had far more resources to work with and would of been able to do more damage. I have a question for you then IATIA, if Pearl Harbor had been pushed back, would the U.S of entered the war anyways as soon as England was defeated?

Germany was incapable of defeating England because it didn't have the means to invade it.

I can't get my head around the idea that we should just let the Middle East suffer through a civil war. It's as if an older brother that survived a serious addiction problem sat back and said to his younger sibling 'it's just something you need to experience for yourself'. Totally misguided.

(March 27, 2016 at 1:04 am)Cato Wrote: I can't get my head around the idea that we should just let the Middle East suffer through a civil war. It's as if an older brother that survived a serious addiction problem sat back and said to his younger sibling 'it's just something you need to experience for yourself'. Totally misguided.

The primary reason there's war in the Middle East today is because the US and other Western Countries instigated it and keep it going.

(March 27, 2016 at 1:07 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(March 27, 2016 at 1:04 am)Cato Wrote: I can't get my head around the idea that we should just let the Middle East suffer through a civil war. It's as if an older brother that survived a serious addiction problem sat back and said to his younger sibling 'it's just something you need to experience for yourself'. Totally misguided.

The primary reason there's war in the Middle East today is because the US and other Western Countries instigated it and keep it going.

Care to substantiate your opinion? 

To be fair I'll point out the obvious you must overcome; if the West is to blame then why are the vast majority of the victims people that live and share a culture and religion with the perpetrators? You must also have solid evidence that warfare wasn't known to this region of the world before 1776 (ignoring of course that it took over a century for the U.S. To have any meaningful influence in international affairs).

Your move. I think I've done my best to make sure you properly consider your next reply and not look so ignorant.

(March 27, 2016 at 1:23 am)Cato Wrote:

(March 27, 2016 at 1:07 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: The primary reason there's war in the Middle East today is because the US and other Western Countries instigated it and keep it going.

Care to substantiate your opinion? 

To be fair I'll point out the obvious you must overcome; if the West is to blame then why are the vast majority of the victims people that live and share a culture and religion with the perpetrators? You must also have solid evidence that warfare wasn't known to this region of the world before 1776 (ignoring of course that it took over a century for the U.S. To have any meaningful influence in international affairs).

Your move. I think I've done my best to make sure you properly consider your next reply and not look so ignorant.

If you knew diddle about world history you would know that the Western Countries have been fucking over Syria since they first found out where it is.  The current session is that the dummies in Washington want to get rid of Assad because they hate the idea that he isn't one of their toadies.  

"Kerry sought missile strikes to force Syria's Assad to step down" -  http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/ker...1087172884  So they funded a lot of groups, including ISIS, to overthrow his government.  As a result they have destroyed most of the country and displaced half of its population.  The real end game is to steal it for Israel.  Our policy there goes back to WWII.  The French and English policy goes back to pre-WWI.

(March 27, 2016 at 1:03 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(March 26, 2016 at 11:30 pm)Sterben Wrote:          Not as much as impact as you think, there was a lot of smart German commanders. If Hitler would of died in the early days of war it would made a impact and Germany could of possibly won the war. The person who would of took over would of probably worked with Japan and stalled out the attack on America. Germany would of also probably not started the final solution as soon as they did and it would of been pushed back. Germany still had England and Russia to deal with and a smart commander does not expose himself on two fronts. If the Germans did not start the camps in the 1941 they would of had far more resources to work with and would of been able to do more damage. I have a question for you then IATIA, if Pearl Harbor had been pushed back, would the U.S of entered the war anyways as soon as England was defeated?

Germany was incapable of defeating England because it didn't have the means to invade it.

The one possible victory strategy was starvation vis commerce war, but Barbarossa scuppered that because the tanks got the steel rather than the U-boats.