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

    • With Microsoft now listening to its core audience and acting upon received feedback, fans can finally expect a much better version of Windows 11 than what was available five years ago. Here is to five more years, Windows 11! I guess we all need a good laugh now and again...
    • Amazon Prime Day 2026 deal sees Samsung Odyssey 49" 240Hz QD-OLED monitor at lowest price by Sayan Sen Earlier today we covered a very good deal on JBL's BAR 800 Dolby Atmos soundbar system as the unit is available for just $600 as part of Amazon Prime Day 2026 deals. That's not all though as there are many more discounts to choose from. If you are looking for a high-end monitor, Samsung's 49 inch G9 QD-OLED gaming monitor is a solid deal too as it's currently just $855 (purchase link under the specs table down below). It is a super-ultrawide (32:9) 1440p curved gaming monitor and as such should offer a very immersive experience. The G93SC is a 49-inch QD-OLED (Quantum Dot OLED) screen and that means it should have excellent contrast as well as color reproduction. Brightness is a bit lacking though so if you are looking to set it up in a relatively bright room, you may be better off with something else. Speaking of external light and brightness, the major difference on the G93SC vs the newer G93SD is that the latter comes with Samsung's "Glare Free" technology to reduce glare while the C model packs a glossy finish. The technical specifications of the Samsung G93SC are given in the table below: Specification Value Panel Type OLED Screen Shape Curved Screen Curvature 1800R Resolution DQHD (5120 × 1440) Aspect Ratio 32:9 Brightness (Typical) 250 cd/m² Brightness (Minimum) 200 cd/m² Contrast Ratio 1,000,000:1 HDR Support VESA DisplayHDR True Black 400 HDR10+ HDR10+ Gaming Response Time 0.03 ms (GTG) Refresh Rate Up to 240 Hz Viewing Angle 178° Horizontal / 178° Vertical Color Support 1 Billion Colors Color Gamut 99% DCI-P3 (CIE1976) Adaptive Sync FreeSync Premium Pro / G-SYNC Compatible DisplayPort 1 × DisplayPort 1.4 HDMI 1 × HDMI 2.1 Micro HDMI 1 × Micro HDMI 2.1 USB Hub 3 × USB 3.0 Speakers Built-in Speaker Output 5W × 2 Channels Operating Temperature 10°C – 40°C Operating Humidity 10–80% (Non-condensing) Stand Type Height Adjustable Stand (HAS) Height Adjustment 120.0 ± 5.0 mm Tilt -2° (±2°) to 15° (±2°) Wall Mount 100 × 100 mm (VESA) Included HDMI Cable HDMI-to-Micro HDMI Cable Included DisplayPort Cable Yes Get it at the link below: Samsung 49" Odyssey G93SC Series Curved Gaming Monitor, QD-OLED: $854.99 (Sold and Shipped by Amazon US with Prime) Prime subscription can be cancelled within three business days at no cost. Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Actually Windows 11 is the GUI from Windows 10 X slapped onto Windows 10. Hence the many performance issues and initial limitations of the UI, like all the restrictions on the task bar placement and features. You could not even right click on the Taskbar and bring up task manager when it first shipped. Windows 10X was truly a new OS from the ground up. Basically a lightweight OS that ran containers for various app types. Win32 got its own container. Performance was not good and OEM’s pushed back on it, but wanted a new OS to push Pc sales. Hence Windows 11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10X
    • Windows 10 was 6 years old when Microsoft revealed Windows 11. Does this mean Windows 12 is due next year?
    • Congratulations Windows.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
    • One Year In
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      123
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      81
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!