Also to me one of the Generals or other professional military men seems likely to me to maybe not be as intrested in the broader scope of things as someone like Churchill or Ike. Churchill seems like a guy I would get along with and have fun sitting down with for an evening.
Play aganist Hitler to prove he was militarly incompentent
Play A&A Europe with Stalin to see if Barbarossa could work
Play aganist Montgomery to see if how many mistakes he would make
Patton to see how agressive he would be
Rommel to see how Germany would have won, if lead by cooleer heads.
- Posts: 951
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
- Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere
Churchill/Harris (no, not him!) on trial for mass bombing of Dresden. Churchill also for genocide against the Germans after the war in collaboration with Stalin (British soldiers loaded thousands of collaborators onto cattle wagons for certain death in Soviet concentration camps).
The Soviets would face much the same charges as the Nazis. They invaded many countries without just cause, killed more people than the Nazis in death camps, and destroyed whole nationalities they suspected of dealing with the Germans (in fact most nationalities in Russia did collaborate with the Nazis as they supposed they were bound to be better than the Bolsheviks; they were in fact just as bad).
And what about Harry Trueman for using the atomic bombs?
For parity with the Nuremburg trials, they would NOT be allowed to mention Axis war crimes in their own defence.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest