What is better Veeky Forums?

If we simply wiped them out entirely at the start we wouldn't be still fighting.

>implying Sun Tzu wouldn't have considered Genghis a tactical genius

Also this.

WW2 could've theoretically been ended in 1938/1939 considering a few set things occurred, mainly; USA declared war, UK/France/USA invaded through Belgium, African troops invaded through Italy, and maybe a few other things I don't think of.

It would've been short, and very ruthless, still probably deadliest war ever.

But it would've saved the lives of all victims of holocaust, and the associated genocides, as well as OP. Barbarossa, and maybe even prevention of Nukes.

However, in exchange, UK/USA/France would've seen Soviet tier casualties.

Soviet-tier military casualities, you mean. It can't be discounted that of the 30 million Soviets dead, half of them were civilian deaths due to it being a homefront war against an opponent waging a war of annihilation.

Sun Tzu says the epitome of skill is to take a nation whole without fighting a single battle. I think he would have recognized that the Mongols were amazing tacticians and possibly strategists. I don't really know if the Mongols killed everyone at the beginning because they were just like that or if it was calculated to make future conquests easier. It eventually became the latter, but I don't know if that was the conscious intention in the first place. I don't recall anywhere where Sun Tzu advocates the killing of civillians, especially peasants outside of fortresses, but I don't really remember him being against it other than the "take whole" thing.

He probably would have loved Tsubodai though. Dude was a strategic and tactical genius.

By "them" do you mean the Iraqi people?

A long and ruthless war like WW1.

>But it would've saved the lives of all victims of holocaust, and the associated genocides

Wouldn't have been worth it really.

From what little I know Sun Tzu frowned on making war against the people. And there's cold rational logic to that, too, if the morality bit doesn't concern you. If you try to break a country like a horse, it will kick. You will forever be occupying that land rather than administrating it, and you will have to deploy armies to defend yourself from your own vassals. In the end you gain resources, but not people. Even such a lopsided matchup as Israel and Palestine has resulted in a half-century of casual, everyday war that is far too expensive for the conquering party to afford, even today, as it has become an established dynamic economy.

The Khans used shock and awe to cow their victims when wounds were fresh, but then let them go on pretty much as they were. They could do little else if they hoped to keep that territory. I wonder if a Chinese thinker like Sun Tzu would believe that a conquest that doesn't expand your culture is complete, or if you even have an empire at that rate. I wonder if there's more to being Emperor than being a landlord.

Exactly why it never happened.
I'm not sure if you're implying Jews/slavs aren't worth it.

But it's fairly obvious, looking from a historical viewpoint, that the Western Allied leaders made a distinct decision that Jews in Europe, and slavs/Russians should die, as to weaken Germany enough that most Western soldiers would be able to survive.

It's the only explanation as to why D-Day was post-poned so late into the war, despite there being a variety of options for invading Europe, all that would've cost more lives than D-Day.
Not to mention it explains why Allies did next to nothing with regards to the ethnic cleansing, which they were fully aware of, aside from the denouncement from the UN in 1942

compare modern kosovo to modern afghanistan

More people live in Kabul alone, than all of Kosovo

whichever gets the job done.

collateral damage is just that. collateral.