Change a battle

Is that supposed to be a serious argument?

 

Yeah,i think clarke was perfectly correct to put the lives of civilians before the lives of soldiers.

What would have happaned if clarke decided to cut off the german retreat and the germans north of rome decided to reoccupy rome.

I find it incredably naive of so called experts not to consider that the germans north of rome wouldnt move to help their retreating comrades.

I also think chamberlin was right to try and prevent war with hitler.

 

Well the forces north of Rome didn't come to capture Rome. They didn't know where Clark was going to take his men, and they still didn't take it.

As for your last statement...that is pretty random

 

expect the unexpected.

 

i would change the battles in europe
1.sicily
i would concentrate more panzer troops on the island
and place a garrison of ss troops there
2.italy
more american troops would be needed to defeat the germans at monte cassino
3.normandy
in every major town
ss panzer troops would be stationed there
4.market garden
more allied troops to combat german armored troops in the areas of nijmegen vagel and sonne

 

Okinawa. Just drop the bomb already!

 

Some sort of sick humor?

 

That could certainly be said with a bit more respect.

 

Not only is that a poor suggestion, you obviously have no idea how little effect atomic blasts have on caves and such. It would have done little in the immediate conflict, and radiation poisoning (largely un-recognized at the time), takes a great deal of time to "lay people low".

 

Yes, his intentions surely were just, but he went too far with the appeasement. The crucifixion of the Czechs in Münich was one of the most shamefull acts in 20th century Europe. And the fault for it rests solely on him. Going a bit OT, sry.

 

I'd say the people who actually commited the crime might also take some of the fault...

 

Hmm.. You are absolutely right. I was too straight forward. Ofcourse Hitler is the one to blame what happened in Münich and in the 30's. From the German point of view Chamberlain was 'a useful idiot' like Lenin put it.

 

Actually, if anything, Hitler was temporarily frustrated at the Munich agreement, because it prevented him from having the casus belli for a full annexation of Czechoslovakia.

 

I'd quite like to move one little landmine in November 1944; so my great uncle might not have hit it with a jeep shortly after his arrival in Burma.

Now resident in Imphal CWGC Cemetery.

~A

 

The one I would like to change is the French 1940 collapse, there'se a chance the war would then end in 1941 or 1942 without ever going global, the German army overthrowing a discredited Hitler and a few millions lives spared. I thought about a Polish victory but it would be both highly unlikely and not likely to bring a lasting peace.

 

A Polish victory could work, if it was based on a successful Polish-Soviet alliance. The Russians were conducting parallel negotiations with the Germans and the Poles, and indeed had a pact before Molotov Ribbentrop, so if they did enter an alliance with the Polish, Poland would have been much less vulnerable in 1939.

 

Now I would add a change that I think a few people would disagree to be the best possible change:

In September 1939, Germany attacks Poland with 2/3 of its army, Poland deploy its forces better and holds them for a few more weeks (i.e.: deploys them depeer in her territory). France, having the best army the allies ever had, plus england's expeditionary force, attacks germany with full force (about 100 divisions), while germany has only 28 divisions defending.

WW2 ends in late 1939, about 100.000 people die instead of 50 million.

 

French grow a pair and challenge the seizure of the Rhineland in 1936. Hitler's out, game over.