i don't think they would put up much of a fight even in the medium term but they could sure wreck seoul and kill a million people before they went down. south korea would convincingly whip that ass with or without our help all the way up to the chinese border...at least they would if china would have any of it.
China is behind North Korea all the way in this, make no mistakes guys. However, they will be the first to pull the plug if it hampers US/China business relationships.
hitler could have taken moscow and stalingrad, he still would have lost. he did not have the resources to control that much land.
now if he would have cut moscow off from the oil rich black and caspian seas area by marching through turkey, the mediterranean and north africa, he may have brought stalin to his knees. but a headfirst assault into the manpower and oil that the soviet union controlled would have been a failure in any season.
You romance Russia too fondly, you must remember they lost over 3 million at Stalingrad and how many more at Kiev? They had no air force left, their armor was in shambles, and their pending suspected threat from Japan had confused Stalin. Now had I been Hitler, I would have left Stalingrad alone, secured a line to the oil, and aided japan on a two front attack...just sayin...
If Hitler had taken Moscow the Soviets MAY have surrendered, especially if Stalin had been killed. It's impossible to tell what would have happened had Hitler not diverted his forces South when they had a chance to get Moscow but I think it may have made things happen in a much different light.
Of course, you are right about the resources needed to control this land. The German military was never quite as powerful as it was made out to be, Poland and an underprepared France were what made the Blitzkrieg seem so fearsome. Once the Soviets gained some momentum and Britain regrouped, it was all pretty much defeat after defeat for the Germans.
Gohron, delete your post, stay out of the way.
Bookmarks