posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Otts
Actually, in using the term "allies" I really had the WWII context with Adolf Hitler in mind.
good thought actualy. you kinda brought up a point i was going to make. how many people here think that hittler should have been assasinated i
in all honesty killing him off could have been one of the worst things the allies could have done. sure we would have been short one evil meglo
maniac but what might have resulted from it? lets see first off hittler would have become a mayrter to the cause of the third reich. an icon for
others to take up his cause. who would have taken over for him, there was a pretty nasty line of sucession if he died. lets see off the top of my head
we have heidrich himmler, head of the ss. he could have done a much better job of running the war.
in fact i have been in discussions about it and the conclusion was that we were better off with hittler in charge then most of his underlings and
possible sucessores. true he was nuts by the end of the war, but that was in our favour. it was due to HITTLER's incompitance and surrity that he was
right that enabled the allies to come to ultimate victory. just think at what would have happened if hittler had actualy listened to his advisors and
staff and kept up the pressure on england? remember that britton was extreemly close to looseing the air war when hittler's gaze wandered over to
another objective. operation sea lion very likely would have suceeded if not for hittler's stupidity. if he had only finished off britton BEFORE
attacking russia he likely would have ultimatly won the war.
there would have been NO us involvement that mattered at that point. do you think that the states and other allies would have gone to russia's aid?
stalian was ONLY helped out due to the fact that that second front helped everyone. it is farly well known that rosivelt and churchill could barly
stand the man muchless the communist regime that was in place.
so hopefuly you can see that hittler's assasination would have been a HUGE mistake, it very well could have cost the allies the war. thats the
problem with assasination, it is a very short sighted solution that has a bad habbit of backfireing.
then there is the question of who gets to make the decision on who to assainate?
what is to stop a personal agenda from getting invoved? oh
canada said no again so lets assasinate the prime minister and hopefully get someone who agrees with me in charge. germany wants to get rid of
american bases, again lets assasinate the leader to get someone who agrees with us in charge. it is indeed a slipery slope.
i will admit that sometimes
assasination can be a usefull tool. but normaly it would be in the case of takeing out compitant battlefield
leaders to cause confusion as well as possibly getting "that incompitant" commanderin charge who can be defeated easyer. but on the whole
assasination is a bad thing ESPECIALY when takeing out pollitical leadership.