Recommended Posts

You're basing your opinion that the UK would have been unharmed on a large scale because the Soviets had better tanks and it was "only a matter of time"? :laugh: I thought the first post was laughable, but that is beyond laughable, just sad really. I don't think I would ever risk my countries wellbeing on "only a matter of time." I certainly glad that Winston Churchill didn't think like this or the UK would be speaking German.

And Pat Buchanan in trying to defend isolationist policies said that the Soviets and Nazis would have eventually destroyed each other.

But it would have been incredibly short-sighted either way. The UK was already in really dire straights, their economy was completely destroyed; and they wouldn't have really benefited from a Soviet stewardship over Europe, supposing the Soviet Union would have controlled Europe after the war. If you want to pursue the scenario in which both the Soviets and Nazis destroy each other, you have to be able to explain how that war would have ended. Either way, the US wouldn't have necessarily been able to secure, politically, the $13 billion to help rebuild Europe like it did with the Marshall plan, if it had never been involved in the war.

Oh be serious! this is the worst case of trollitis I've ever seen!

If you want to have some self-loving patriotic rant about something that happened over half a century ago, and that has probably never affected you, and which you probably saw on that episode of the Simpsons, then go set up a specialised trolling BBS on freewebs or something, and pride yourself on creating the angriest place on earth. Hey, maybe people might even kill themselves listening to you and your band of about 3 other misfits discharging their Star Trek, testosterone and Red Bull fueled ranting, and then you could set up a secondary Samaritan-style category, where people can go to be rehabilitated after being exposed to your awful meaningless dirges

+1 (hide the crackers..a troll is sniffing around)

The Nazis would have gotten "bored"? They weren't playing Day of Defeat. And they wouldn't have "then" started on the Soviets, they were already fighting the Soviets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad.

You make it sound so easy. Why did the UK get involved at all if it was so easy? If the Nazis would have just gotten "bored" :laugh:

Lol should have known sorry if strategy isn't your strong point.

Lol should have known sorry if strategy isn't your strong point.

Strategy? You're serious? Wow. So you think it would have been better if the US had not gotten involved and the UK just sat back and did nothing? I would like to read one experts opinion that agrees with you on that. I doubt there are any. And if there are, they're few and far between I'm sure.

I don't think you realize how easy you're making this sound. There's no way that the UK would be the same or better off if they had sat back and done nothing, nor would it if the US hadn't have gotten involved. It is arrogant to even think such a thing.

You realize, Yuri, that the reason that WWII ended in 1945 was because the Nazi's were fighting wars on two fronts. They were fighting the Americans, and they were fighting the Soviets. Had they not been fighting the Americans, then they could have focused completely on the Soviets.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the Nazi's could have defeated the Soviets, but the war would have gone on significantly longer, and during that time, Nazi Germany would have continued to kick the UK's asses.

I'm not saying the UK wasn't doing anything, but you guys were in a tough spot when the Americans came in.

I don't even want to get involved in the subject of the thread, but I don't see a problem with YouTube being a source.

I could post a video of your face drunk if I knew you, or I could post something that passed on TV and write the source.

YouTube doesn't mean it's an unreliable source.

You sound like all the teachers I had in high school who told us never to use informations on the Internet because they were false.

Anyone can upload anything to You Tube. Just because it is on You Tube, does not make it factual. A source that backs up what the topic is, has to be unimpeachable. Where is the factual data from You Tube? Look up the term "Reliable Source"

You realize, Yuri, that the reason that WWII ended in 1945 was because the Nazi's were fighting wars on two fronts. They were fighting the Americans, and they were fighting the Soviets. Had they not been fighting the Americans, then they could have focused completely on the Soviets.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the Nazi's could have defeated the Soviets, but the war would have gone on significantly longer, and during that time, Nazi Germany would have continued to kick the UK's asses.

I'm not saying the UK wasn't doing anything, but you guys were in a tough spot when the Americans came in.

Not to mention the lend lease program prior to the US getting into the War.

You're basing your opinion that the UK would have been unharmed on a large scale because the Soviets had better tanks and it was "only a matter of time"? :laugh: I thought the first post was laughable, but that is beyond laughable, just sad really. I don't think I would ever risk my countries wellbeing on "only a matter of time." I certainly glad that Winston Churchill didn't think like this or the UK would be speaking German.

Indeed.

Anyone with half a brain knows how expensive war is. Complete and utter economic ruin does not go away overnight and as an "island nation" with limited food supplies Britain could not have held out indefinately. I personally can't imagine how Britain would have been better off or equally as well off with zero American help/input in the war. We were in a real mess as it was.

You're basing your opinion that the UK would have been unharmed on a large scale because the Soviets had better tanks and it was "only a matter of time"? :laugh: I thought the first post was laughable, but that is beyond laughable, just sad really. I don't think I would ever risk my countries wellbeing on "only a matter of time." I certainly glad that Winston Churchill didn't think like this or the UK would be speaking German.

In fact, if the US hadn't finally gotten involved (took them long enough!), England WOULD have fallen to the Reich in the end. With limited resources stretched to breaking point, it had already gotten to the point where Churchill implemented an emergency invasion plan, with a network sleeper agents and hidden weapons cashes ready to start harassing the occupying forces. It was accepted as a very real possibility that England would fall, so they made preparations to make damn sure that it would be a VERY costly premise to keep hold of it, and a damned short occupation too.

So, in many ways, it IS correct to say that the American's DID save our asses. The only question really is, why did our closest ally delay for so long? Even their own people were left wondering why the US government took so long, and some of its citizens actually came over here and volunteered to join our armed forces to help. THOSE people deserve nothing but our highest respect, and deepest thanks.

Wow, I'm a Brit - and I am gonna voice my feelings on this:

1) I hate the attitude of uninformed Americans who yell "We saved your ass in WW2" - however, this is possibly less than 1% of all Americans I have encountered.

2) Would the war have gone differently without the US involvement? 100% yes. We cant 100% say we relied on it as we will never know, but it certainly allowed us to strengthen our borders while continuing the push. Without the support, we would most likely have fallen.

3) France: France WAS saved by US involvement. As such, Europe was saved. And as such, yeah, the UK in a way was saved.

4) Post-War the US donated a lot and lent a lot. It was in the position to do so, and Europe was in the position to borrow. War and economy are linked. What the problem?

we would look the same if not better.

If the US had not aided the UK in World War II, Hitler's children, Himler's children and Goering's children would be right along side Neville Chamberlain's children, dancing on your parent's or great-grandparent's graves - which would mean that your post would have never appeared in this thread.

We can all dream, can't we?

:woot: :p :rofl: :wacko:

--ScottKin

Wow, I'm a Brit - and I am gonna voice my feelings on this:

1) I hate the attitude of uninformed Americans who yell "We saved your ass in WW2" - however, this is possibly less than 1% of all Americans I have encountered.

2) Would the war have gone differently without the US involvement? 100% yes. We cant 100% say we relied on it as we will never know, but it certainly allowed us to strengthen our borders while continuing the push. Without the support, we would most likely have fallen.

3) France: France WAS saved by US involvement. As such, Europe was saved. And as such, yeah, the UK in a way was saved.

4) Post-War the US donated a lot and lent a lot. It was in the position to do so, and Europe was in the position to borrow. War and economy are linked. What the problem?

Absolutely nothing. 2, 3 & 4 proved that if the US had not stepped-in, the UK would be VASTLY different today; there would be a swastika right in the center of The Union Jack, the entire Windsor family would have been executed and WW2 would still be going on today, but the US would be fighting a military state that engulfed Europe and Asia.

To answer your points:

1) Try coming over to the US for any length of time and actually ASK some of us. You'll find that the percentage that you stated to be in the absolute inverse. Truth hurts, huh?

2) You (the UK) firstly relied in our military technpology and supplies: B-17 Bombers, P-51 Mustangs, Rifles, Ammo, Cannons, etc. Then, US Troops were sent to Europe.

3) QED

4) QED

--ScottKin

In fact, if the US hadn't finally gotten involved (took them long enough!), England WOULD have fallen to the Reich in the end. With limited resources stretched to breaking point, it had already gotten to the point where Churchill implemented an emergency invasion plan, with a network sleeper agents and hidden weapons cashes ready to start harassing the occupying forces. It was accepted as a very real possibility that England would fall, so they made preparations to make damn sure that it would be a VERY costly premise to keep hold of it, and a damned short occupation too.

So, in many ways, it IS correct to say that the American's DID save our asses. The only question really is, why did our closest ally delay for so long? Even their own people were left wondering why the US government took so long, and some of its citizens actually came over here and volunteered to join our armed forces to help. THOSE people deserve nothing but our highest respect, and deepest thanks.

Sadly, the US didn't really get involved in WW2 until December 7th, 1941. Too many government officials thought that one World War per century was enough, and took a passive role by supplying material support & weapons systems to the UK. After Pearl Harbor, however, the US was thrust into the war.

It's refreshing to see someone from the UK expressing their thanks for the help the US gave. SPOT ON!!!

--ScottKin

You looking to start an argument? What's your problem? I stated that in a way we are thankful to the US. But the way you argue your points seems to put you in that 1% I mentioned.

Also - the Windsor family would NOT have been executed - don't be so dumb. Firstly they are of German heritage, and secondly Hitler weasled his way into the culture of nations, by allying himself with the ruling elite of the time.

Tell you something - WW2 would have been over by now, and America would easily had lost had it been US vs Europe, Asia et al.

Truth hurts? QED to yourself mate!

You realize, Yuri, that the reason that WWII ended in 1945 was because the Nazi's were fighting wars on two fronts. They were fighting the Americans, and they were fighting the Soviets. Had they not been fighting the Americans, then they could have focused completely on the Soviets.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the Nazi's could have defeated the Soviets, but the war would have gone on significantly longer, and during that time, Nazi Germany would have continued to kick the UK's asses.

I'm not saying the UK wasn't doing anything, but you guys were in a tough spot when the Americans came in.

Well done, by calling him Yuri you just make yourself seem ignorant and take away from the merit your argument could have had.

You looking to start an argument? What's your problem? I stated that in a way we are thankful to the US. But the way you argue your points seems to put you in that 1% I mentioned.

Also - the Windsor family would NOT have been executed - don't be so dumb. Firstly they are of German heritage, and secondly Hitler weasled his way into the culture of nations, by allying himself with the ruling elite of the time.

Tell you something - WW2 would have been over by now, and America would easily had lost had it been US vs Europe, Asia et al.

Truth hurts? QED to yourself mate!

Technically, the house of Windsor is a distaff of Germanic heritage and Hitler would have executed them because of the symbol they are to the UK and the fact that they did not "fit" into his Aryan Master-Race plans. Look at how both World Wars started: political assasination of an austrian royal - you seriously think that executing the Windsor family was above him?

Take a look a few posts ago when Shane Pitman (Heya, Shane!!!) posted the map of what Europe would be if Hitler had won. If the US had not helped the UK, look for the UK to be renamed "Iso Britannia". Why in the hell would it have been "US vs Europe"?? Are you DAFT?? Put you cute little RTS games and pnp strategy games away and stop trying to butter the toast on both sides. Your own points 2 through 4 I absolutely agreed with, and then you pull this "USA vs Europe" crap? Again, I ask: Are you DAFT!?!?

I used to lay Sod (pre-grown grass in rolls) for a living - now, get off of it.

--ScottKin

Well done, by calling him Yuri you just make yourself seem ignorant and take away from the merit your argument could have had.

ummm - is username is "yurithedragon"???

:blink:

--ScottKin

Are you DAFT!?!?

No, not at all, in fact I am quite intelligent thank you. Intelligent enough to not call my own posts "crap".

I used YOUR US/Europe argument - if I may quote:

but the US would be fighting a military state that engulfed Europe and Asia.

So, um, you just negated your own point. But really I don't see your issue? I stated that we should be thankful to the US - but you chose to make an argument out of it. I reiterate that I believe we are making very similar points, and yet you argue. Then you make assumptions that I play RTS games and so on (which I do not).

Wanting to label others who don't share their mindset? Guess you're in that 1% I mentioned. Shame...

As for laying sod - right? and? Well done?

Edited by njlouch
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The Trump administration doesn't want you to use OpenAI's GPT-5.6 without its approval by David Uzondu Image via @realDonalTrump (X) As OpenAI prepares the release of its next model, GPT 5.6, the White House has instructed the company to limit the distribution of the software to a small group of government-approved partners instead of the general public, as it has done with previous releases. According to The Information, OpenAI Chief Executive Officer Sam Altman sent an internal memo to staff on Thursday explaining that the federal government will approve access "customer by customer" during an initial preview phase. Altman noted in the communication that this restrictive rollout is "not [their] long-term model" for software deployment, and the company plans to work toward a "more sustainable" distribution method later. CNN said that both OpenAI and the Trump administration view the capabilities of GPT 5.6 on the same level as Anthropic's Mythos and that government officials intend to "collaborate with frontier AI labs to develop shared approaches for addressing the challenges of scaling this technology." The latest restriction comes just weeks after the US Commerce Department decided to restrict Fable, a version of Mythos with extra safety "guardrails" to prevent users from exploiting software vulnerabilities. Not long after the release, though, researchers at Amazon found a way to bypass these restrictions, prompting an aggressive response from federal authorities. The government ordered Anthropic to cut off access for non-US citizens located outside the US, non-US citizens living inside the US, and incredibly, even Anthropic's own foreign-born employees. Anthropic now appears to be building a workaround to resolve this compliance block with an update to its Privacy Policy that introduces a category called "Verification Data" to handle KYC and Digital IDs. This setup could mandate digital identity checks to filter users by nationality, requiring a government-issued ID and facial biometric data. Who knows? Maybe in the future, you would have to scan your US Passport or State ID to prove your citizenship before you are allowed to chat with Fable 5 (or any other model).
    • When Windows 7 was released I created an AutoHotkey script that uses Alt+` as a keyboard shortcut to move a window across monitors. I have been using that script for over 15 years and this is the first time I have come across another app that uses the same shortcut!
    • I called it last year that they wouldn't end support when they said there would. There are too many people still on Windows 10 waiting for something better to upgrade to and 11 ain't it! The recent promises of fixing Windows 11's many problems is nice, but unless they deliver on those promises in a big way then I expect customers will still want to stick with 10.
    • Full ACK. I went too far adressing your post specifically. And as you said, it up to us customers as participant of the market dynamic as it happens to decide whether we spend our money on a product or not. The responsibility is to the company. In case of this price hike one could assume that MS is expecting or even starting to see a new interest in XBox hardware so they want to avoid losses per unit sold. I find it fair enough that they granted a period in which everyone interested could grab a unit for the current price (Amazon.de has a reliable stock of XBox Series X digital, which I bought last December after having sold my day one Series X a year ago). It is not that they cash up their customers starting on Monday. Cheers and let's cling to our perfectly fine hardware as long as we deem it worthy in relation to purchasing something new!
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      xvvxcvv earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      xvvxcvv earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Enthusiast
      Xonos went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      412
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      129
    4. 4
      neufuse
      69
    5. 5
      Xenon
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!