Given a chance would you kill baby Hitler?

[abaris]

The Brits and French had at least three or four hundred more tanks, and in the S-35 a better tank than anything the Wehrmacht fielded -- but they split them up into brigade and regimental assignments. So the Germans hit with a solid armored spearhead, while the Allies defended with a soft, uncoordinated design.

That wasn't even the probllem. The French tanks still communicated with flag signals, whereas the Germans already had radio in every tank, so that they coulld communicate in the thick of battle. Also, there tactical and logistic differences between the allies and the Germans back then. The Germans had spent the last decade to form independent tank units, acting as a formidable strike force, whereas the allies still viewed them as infantery support units. They hadn't moved on since 1918. As far as logistics are concerned, the Germans developed a system to fuel up their tanks on the fly, whith mobile units, whereas the allies sticked to supply points.

All in all, the secret to the so called Blitzkrieg, lies in commbining infantery, tanks and air force, to strike as one, while acting independently. A lesson, the allies had yet to learn.

[Anomalocaris]

The Brits and French had at least three or four hundred more tanks, and in the S-35 a better tank than anything the Wehrmacht fielded -- but they split them up into brigade and regimental assignments. So the Germans hit with a solid armored spearhead, while the Allies defended with a soft, uncoordinated design.

That wasn't even the probllem. The French tanks still communicated with flag signals, whereas the Germans already had radio in every tank, so that they coulld communicate in the thick of battle. Also, there tactical and logistic differences between the allies and the Germans back then. The Germans had spent the last decade to form independent tank units, acting as a formidable strike force, whereas the allies still viewed them as infantery support units. They hadn't moved on since 1918. As far as logistics are concerned, the Germans developed a system to fuel up their tanks on the fly, whith mobile units, whereas the allies sticked to supply points.

All in all, the secret to the so called Blitzkrieg, lies in commbining infantery, tanks and air force, to strike as one, while acting independently. A lesson, the allies had yet to learn.

The Germans gained some technical advantages during 1939 -1940 with both tank and aircraft simply because of the fact that they embarked on the main bulk of their buildup about 2 years after the French. The situation reversed later in the war in many ways because the Germans had to confront British, American, and Russian aircraft that were of a technical vintage 1-2 years more recent than the bulk of German equipment.

The combined arms tactics of blitzkrieg only works during the exploitation stage of the battle.   Germans only achieved the decisive breakthrough extremely quickly over the British and the French because of extremely fortuitous circumstances that was no part of their long standing plan.  As event showed, the French army was able to improvise quickly and tactically counter German maneuvers in the later stages of the battle.  It was impressively quick, just not quick enough to reverse the situation in light of the scope and speed of the Initial German breakthrough.

Had the Germans followed through with their original plan, the battle in Belgium would certainly have dragged on, and the French would have had the 2-3 weeks which they needed to adapt, and the Germans would likely have been halted on the Belgian French border, blitzkrieg doctrinal superiority not withstanding.

To focus too much on the importance of doctrinal superiority of the Germans is to focus too much ex post on the particular course of events, and neglect all the other possible courses which events might have taken.

If the major was not captured with German plans, history could easily show the Germans put too much faith in their superior doctrine, and the doctrinal superiority was unable to overcome the tenacity of Anglo-French defense, rather like in 1914.

[Catholic_Lady]

No. I don't think I would be able to bring myself to murder an innocent baby, for crimes it did not commit.

This. It's never ok to directly kill a baby.

[Anomalocaris]

It's never right to say it is never right.

[brewer]

What about indirectly killing babies? Can you knowingly indirectly kill a baby?

[Catholic_Lady]

What about indirectly killing babies? Can you knowingly indirectly kill a baby?

If a woman is pregnant but has cancer and undergoes chemo even though her baby may die as an unintended side effect of chemo... I'd say that's one example of a grey area/indirectly killing a baby. Totally different from the nature/context of this question though, which insinuates a direct killing.

[Minimalist]

It was by pure chance that the Germany army did not oblige the French and British by fighting precisely the last war for which the French and the British were prepared.

Everything I've ever read about Fall Gelb was that Hitler thought Halder's plan was shit from the get-go.  And why not?  He had actually served in the trenches.  IIRC Hitler was so unimpressed with Fall Gelb 1 that he considered attacking then and there before the Allies could get ready.  When Manstein's plan was outlined for him, he was quite impressed.
The Sitzkrieg might have never happened if the old war horses of the Wehrmacht were not calling the shots at the outset.

[Anomalocaris]

He may have been unimpressed, but that was the plan, and it was rolling towards implementation, backed by the general staff, until the fact that the plan fell into Belgian hands threw a monkey wrench into its execution at almost literally the last moment.

[Minimalist]

You know the saying, "no plan of battle survives contact with the enemy."  I have to go look this stuff up.  It's been too long since I read Collapse of the Third Republic.

[Aractus]

Sorry, I asked for numbers, not videos. Do you have statistics? Or ar you going to appeal to authority on the sly?

Give me data, or shut your piehole.

I'm not giving you anything on the sly. The only difference between what the USA does when it instigates wars, and what another power does is which side of the conflict you belong to. If it's the other side it's labelled "terrorism" and if its your side "counter-terrorism". Labelling ISIL a terrorist organisation is disingenuous - they are taking over land by military conflict, exactly what has been done for millennia, and exactly how the USA became the USA.

The more truthful, more honest thing we could say is that we want to put military conflict behind us as a species; it's in our past and we want to learn from it and move on from it.

You want data? I'll give you data.

1898-1934 the USA instigated the Banana Wars. This involved the USA instigating war, sorry I mean terrorist activity, with a number of Central American nations such as Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, and others; the reasons were for the USA's economic interests in the region, and it left those countries economically devastated, and even today they continue to be third-world regions of the world.

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." (War Is a Racket, 1935)

Shall I continue?

The 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état was a covert terrorist operation carried out by the CIA that disposed the democratically-elected head of state in Guatemala, and installed a US-backed military dictatorship.

The Vietnam War, perhaps not started by the USA, but their involvement in terror raised it to a different level and left Vietnam devastated for decades. Many war crimes including the torture and murder of POWs, and the slaughtering of innocent civilians were either committed or supported by the US military.

Since 1980 the USA has been conducing terrorist activity in the middle east, and other places, including in: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Panama, Haiti, Sudan, Kosovo, and other countries.

Since 2002 they have operated an illegal concentration-camp/death-camp in Cuba in which detainees have been tortured, killed, and denied their rights under the Geneva Conventions.

The claim that the USA is the worlds leading terrorist state is easily supported with data.

By wishing misfortune on people who don't necessarily support the bad decisions of the American government ... that's how, you dick. Perhaps you'll learn how to consider individuals as individuals regardless of their nation of origin. Me, I don't think you're so bright you can reach that sort of thinking; I think you're a self-righteous flag-happy cunt who thinks that your country is a great place to be emulated, and you yourself do not even see the blinders you place over your own peripheral vision.

That's how you're being a dick ... Dick.

Don't go thinking that I love all Muslims. I don't. I specifically despise their religion, and Scientology - and I'll tell you why. Because right from the beginning, Islam was not only a religion, but also a political persuasion. Other religions, like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism don't restrict political views. They can influence them of course, but they don't have political views that are intertwined with their religions the way that Islam does.

Again, all I wish is for the US government and civilians to feel the same oppression supported by the US government and military elsewhere. Not more, not less, the same.

And I would also like Bush, Cheney, Obama, and everyone else guilty of war crimes, of the UN convention against torture, and other international crimes to be held accountable.

And yes, that justifies As for war hungry countries like the United States, I hope to God one day that Russia or Saudi or India or China starts war in their country and puts them in their goddamned place, because we all know that the answer to misery is more misery.

Really, are you this stupid, or is this just a play you're putting on for kicks? The answer to oppression is not more oppression. The answer to suffering is not more suffering. The answer to death is not more death,

If you're so dull you cannot see that much, I can only be happy you're in a place so irrelevant that you have no weight to throw around. Also, I hope the other poms are a few points brighter than you. You're not exactly the sharpest blade on the chopping block.

As for war hungry countries like the United States, I hope to God one day that Russia or Saudi or India or China starts war in their country and puts them in their goddamned place.So you can't fucking tell me with a straight face that America doesn't deserve to feel the same oppression that they have bestowed upon others. I'll be very happy when someone invades America (again) and displaces the present inhabitants and confines them to tiny camps and settlements, and maybe that will stop them from instigating wars everywhere else.

That's because in your infantile desire for revenge, you're unable to see that misery for one person is misery for all.  I'll recommend you go reread your Locke, and ponder what it means to be an island or a continent, if you are able to think that deeply; and I'll challenge you to drop your parochial views, if you're able to do so. Color me skeptical.

And I'll repeat my call, that you're being a dick, and you should stop it ... except that by now, it's clear you don't have the wisdom to avoid throwing good money after bad.

Dick.

You don't seem to realise that the misery that the USA has created through terrorist acts (most of them illegal) are still being felt, and will be felt for centuries to come. As much as anything else I want the US government disposed of by military force so they cannot continue their illegal military terrorist activities.