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

    • Segra 1.6.2 by Razvan Serea Segra is a free, open-source OBS-powered game recorder offering fast gameplay capture, instant clips, AI highlights, deep game integration, and seamless uploads—perfect for gamers, streamers, and content creators. Lightweight, fast, zero bloat. Segra key features: Automatic Game Recording: Begin capturing gameplay the moment your game launches, with zero manual setup. Instant Clipping: Save important moments instantly using a customizable hotkey—perfect for highlights, montages, or quick shares. Segra AI Highlights: Let Segra automatically detect kills, assists, deaths, and key events to generate polished highlight reels without manual editing. Gameplay Uploads: Upload recordings and clips directly to Segra.tv for fast sharing and cloud access. Deep Game Integration: Enjoy advanced game-data tracking across hundreds of supported titles, enabling smart highlight generation and stat-informed clipping. High-Performance Capture: Record up to 4K at 144 FPS using OBS-powered technology with minimal performance impact, supporting NVENC, AMD VCE, and custom quality controls. Segra Editor: Edit recordings easily with timeline controls, segment management, and event-based navigation to build the perfect clip. Customization Options: Adjust hotkeys, output formats, storage paths, codecs, capture quality, and performance settings for a tailored recording experience. Segra 1.6.2 changelog: UI: Improved the transition from the loading skeleton to the real content card. Security: Added Segra.dll code signing and automatic VirusTotal upload. Settings: Fixed the settings header to highlight Account when scrolled to the top. Recording: Updated OBSKit.NET to 1.4.1. Download: Segra 1.6.2 | 74.5 MB (Open Source) View: Segra Homepage | Github | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Hey Google, these are the Gemini features I want in 2026 by Aditya Tiwari Google Gemini has been around for over three years. The AI chatbot started its journey back in 2023 (as Bard) when ChatGPT was already a talk of the town. However, it quickly attracted criticism after misrepresenting facts about the James Webb Space Telescope. The search giant spent a year fine-tuning Bard before rebranding the chatbot and its underlying generative AI model to Gemini, drawing inspiration from NASA's first human spaceflight program. Note that Bard was initially powered by LaMDA and PaLM 2; Google has since added several new features and integrations to Gemini. That said, there is scope for improvement and a gap for new features. I have been using Gemini for a while now and have realized that the chatbot lacks several features, making it harder for me to research across topics. These are mostly function-over-form updates that can improve the overall experience. Delete individual messages from a conversation Image via DepositPhotos.com One good thing about Gemini is that it can maintain context throughout the conversation. But things might get chaotic when you want to ask a related question, but don't want it to be part of your conversation in the long run. You can't ask that related question in a fresh chat because Gemini will lose the active conversation context of what you're trying to research. If Google allowed you to delete individual question/answer pairs, you could simply ask about a sub-topic and remove it from the conversation to create a smooth flow of important stuff. Offline mode Image via DepositPhotos.com A big pain of using Gemini daily is that everything loads from the cloud. It takes time for your chats to appear, and you can't view your conversation history while offline. To get a better idea, you can open the Gemini app and see how it looks without an internet connection. While Gemini models run in the cloud, it wouldn't hurt if Google could store chats (at least the text part) on the device so we can refer to them when offline. Google can also offer a lightweight version of its AI model to help with basic drafting, summarization, and other tasks. It has the Gemini Nano model, which can perform on-device processing on Google Pixel, Samsung, and some other Android brands, but it's a system feature and not related to the cloud-based Gemini app. Make temporary chats permanent I can't thank Google enough for taking the time and effort to add incognito mode or temporary chat mode to the Gemini app. It lets you have conversations without worrying that the topics will end up in your chat history or used for model training (at least on paper). Google claims that it doesn't use your temporary chats to "personalize your Gemini experience or train Google’s AI models." However, the data is stored "up to 72 hours to respond to you and to process any feedback you choose to provide." That said, I often start researching something in a temporary chat, only to realize the chatbot's answer is good enough to refer to later. Sadly, Gemini doesn't have an option to make such temporary chats permanent. In other words, I won't be able to follow up on it if I close the temporary chat. I'm left with alternatives like copying the answers into notes or another app. My digital life will get a lot better if Gemini gets a button to make temporary chats permanent. Collapse answers for a cleaner view You're heavily invested in your research game and suddenly feel the need to go up in the chat to recall something. This is when the conversation thread starts to feel like an overwhelming, unending wall of questions and answers. What if Google added a way to collapse Q&A pairs in the Gemini chat thread? It would look quite clean and easy to navigate. You'll quickly get an overview of everything you have discussed with the chatbot. Add buttons to jump between messages Suggested mockup of the feature. This reminds me of a small but useful Gemini feature that Google could add to its chatbot: the ability to hop between prompts in a conversation. Just add simple up- and down-arrow buttons, similar to YouTube Shorts, so people can quickly scroll through the messages. A table of contents or Chat Overview It's hard to get a bird's-eye view of everything you have discussed with the chatbot during a lengthy conversation. This is where a table of contents, or Chat Overview, displayed at the top of the screen, possibly in a drop-down button, might come in handy. You'll be able to get an overview of the chat and jump between messages, serving as an alternative to the up/down arrow buttons. Temporary mode for Gemini Live Image: Google You can use Gemini Live to have real-time conversations with the chatbot, which feels like you're talking to someone in the same room. However, a downside is that Gemini Live doesn't work in Temporary Chat mode, so all your conversations end up in the chat history. Google should consider expanding the temporary chat mode to include Gemini Live. Default to a specific chat One thing that feels somewhat annoying to me is that Gemini always opens in a new chat, whether on web or mobile. Sometimes, you want to return to your last chat. Google can take cues from web browsers, which let you choose whether you want to go to a new tab or a specific web page(s). Gemini can also have options to default to a specific chat when reopened. That said, generative AI chatbots have endless possibilities given the vagueness of their work. You can mold them the way you want by attaching different connectors, adding custom instructions, and including source files. It remains to be seen what Google has in store for future updates and whether anything from this wishlist gets the green light. The search giant released a stream of new Gemini updates in recent months, including Gemini 3.5 Flash and Gemini Omni Spark, adding that it now has 13 products with more than a billion users each. What do you want to see in the Gemini app? Tell us in the comments.
    • Thank you for the post. Just a FYI that links to an outside site or promoting specific software is considered spamming here. Asking general questions is fine.
    • I have been thinking about AI detector tools as a software workflow rather than a single "AI score" widget. When someone pastes text or uploads a document, the UI can return a report with a probability-style score, sentence highlights, reliability notes, and limitations. The useful part is that it can point a reviewer toward passages worth reading again. The risky part is that a polished score can look more certain than it really is. For people who build or review web apps, what should happen before the user copies or exports that kind of report? The minimum I would expect is: A clear input boundary for pasted text versus document files. Limits shown near the workflow, including minimum text length and maximum file size. A report label that says the result is a signal, not proof of who wrote the text. Sentence highlights and evidence notes alongside the global score. Reliability notes when the sample is too short or lacks enough sentence variety. False-positive and false-negative caveats that remain visible in copied/exported summaries. I am trying to avoid the pattern where a clean report card becomes the whole product story. For AI detection, "review this evidence in context" seems more honest than "trust this score." Would you keep the warning text visible on every report, or make it collapsible so the main result stays easier to scan? Disclosure: I work on a small AI detector/reporting workflow, but I am intentionally not linking it here. I am asking about software and report design, not promoting a site.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      sumytbe earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      B4dM1k3 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      DarkWun earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      507
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      181
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      86
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!