Wigans quote watch

[blackcat]

well, I might well be wrong. I take my penance.

How many knighthoods do you give away? Weeties packet nighthoods? Here they just give Weeties packets.

 

[Winterfold]

He will get a knighthood if he wins a GT or gets another Olympic medal.

I used to live in London near the Queen and she told me when I saw her the newsagent when we both popped out for a pint of milk.

 

[Martin318is]

The hypersensitive Brit posts remind me of that Monty Python scene in a Roman theater...."Hate the Romans, hate the Romans...but what they ever give us?"

The law...

Roads...

Running water...

etcetera

Only now it should be framed differently: "Hate the Americans...but what they ever give us?"

Our liberty...well, that's true.

(I'm by no means being patriotic here, rather all is merely in the comedic spirit.)

Sorry I am confused - who thinks that the Americans gave them their liberty?

 

[Anonymous]

well, I might well be wrong. I take my penance.

How many knighthoods do you give away? Weeties packet nighthoods? Here they just give Weeties packets.

Hang on.. youre a yank..? I always thought you where a Brit

I always assumed the "BLack" bit referred to the black country (west midlands)

 

[Libertine Seguros]

In fact when the US first began operating in the Atlantic theater (taking part in Operation Torch, attacking vichy controlled Algiers) in late 1942 did coincide with when things started turning around for the allies. This was when Montgomery took control and began having success against Rommell and when Zhukov took over the defense of Stalingrad and held.

Prior to that... things were pretty dire. Tobruk was taken and the British were routed. The british were under heavy attack at El Alamein. Soviet Crimea was compltely taken and troops were marching on Stalingrad. The germans weren't invading England... but they were pushing the allied back on the fronts that existed. The US troops entering the fray DID change the equationd drastically in favor of the allies.

Could the British and Russians have pulled it off without the US?

Stalingrad was far more important than the US contribution. To be totally honest, considering that Lebensraum in the East was Hitler's aim throughout and the amount of territory and manpower involved, the Western Front was barely a pimple compared to the Eastern Front. And Russia could have pulled it off without either of us. It would certainly have taken longer (especially as the US provided them with plenty of equipment), but nobody on earth was beating Stalin at war in Europe at that time. Britain had defended itself pretty well, and sure, it wasn't overthrowing Hitler, but Hitler didn't mind Britain, and would have been prepared to peacefully coexist with it as long as that meddling Churchill wasn't around. And the point was not about whether Britain would have won the war, it was about whether Britain would have its liberty. And that's a whole different story - see when Hollywood's version of the war says "if it hadn't been for us Americans the limeys would all be speaking German", this isn't really the case - although we may have been forced to coexist with Nazi Germany as a power in Europe had it not been for Barbarossa. The Battle of Britain was won without American help, and Hitler wasn't all that bothered about taking Britain, he'd just have preferred not to have anything else to think about when attacking Russia.

Ergo, the US provided important but not necessarily essential resources to the War in Europe (different matter when it comes to Japan, of course), without which the war would probably have been far more protracted, and contributed to its victory, but it didn't 'save' Britain from anything; Hitler had long since given up on the idea of invading Britain, which had never really been a priority of his and was off the agenda as soon as they lost the air battle - just kept up enough air raids to keep Britain quiet while the war was still going on.

Anyway, I thought invoking Godwin's Law would have made this discussion completely dead by now.

 

[Anonymous]

Stalingrad was far more important than the US contribution. To be totally honest, considering that Lebensraum in the East was Hitler's aim throughout and the amount of territory and manpower involved, the Western Front was barely a pimple compared to the Eastern Front. And Russia could have pulled it off without either of us. It would certainly have taken longer (especially as the US provided them with plenty of equipment), but nobody on earth was beating Stalin at war in Europe at that time. Britain had defended itself pretty well, and sure, it wasn't overthrowing Hitler, but Hitler didn't mind Britain, and would have been prepared to peacefully coexist with it as long as that meddling Churchill wasn't around. And the point was not about whether Britain would have won the war, it was about whether Britain would have its liberty. And that's a whole different story - see when Hollywood's version of the war says "if it hadn't been for us Americans the limeys would all be speaking German", this isn't really the case - although we may have been forced to coexist with Nazi Germany as a power in Europe had it not been for Barbarossa. The Battle of Britain was won without American help, and Hitler wasn't all that bothered about taking Britain, he'd just have preferred not to have anything else to think about when attacking Russia.

Ergo, the US provided important but not necessarily essential resources to the War in Europe (different matter when it comes to Japan, of course), without which the war would probably have been far more protracted, and contributed to its victory, but it didn't 'save' Britain from anything; Hitler had long since given up on the idea of invading Britain, which had never really been a priority of his and was off the agenda as soon as they lost the air battle - just kept up enough air raids to keep Britain quiet while the war was still going on.

Anyway, I thought invoking Godwin's Law would have made this discussion completely dead by now.

People like William M.L. Fiske might disagree. Your take is patronizing and historically inaccurate. I am sure that Stalin was pushing for a second front in Europe because he was confident he could handle it himself. Hitler may not have invaded Great Britain as you suggest, but the ramifications of a Nazi state in Europe are impossible to calculate. Fact is that you couldn't have won in the west without US troops. In fact, you couldn't have stepped foot on French soil. That, and that little thing called "Lend Lease" also contributed nicely to your a$$es being saved. Hitler showed you just how formidable your army was at Dunkirk. As to North Africa, you were at best fighting to a stalemate until our arrival. I guess if a draw is what you think would have sufficed for strategic victory, you have a point. I would suggest reading "An Army at Dawn" and "The Day of Battle" for a realistic and unflinching narrative of the American contribution to the war. You might not have been speaking German without our help, but you would have been an economic sh!t hole nobody wanted to take over anyway with a dominate Nazi or even Russian state in mainland Europe. Don't dare think that Stalin would have been as giving if he had defeated the Nazi's himself. Mainland Europe might not have been speaking German, but they would have had a red flag of some configuration.

 

[Hawkwood]

A few points to ponder about WWII. Firstly Germany's assessment of Britain was that it was `The most dangerous enemy'. When the Soviets asked Von Rundstedt (the Wehrmacht's most senior commander) in 1945 what the most decisive battle of the war was he stated `The Battle of Britain'. In the 1930s German economists had already worked out that if Hitler couldn't execute a swift victory against Britain Germany would lose the war. This was based on their assessment of the two countries' ability to mobilise to full industrial and war capacity. By the time of the Battle of Britain Britain had already outstripped Germany in fighter production. In terms of naval strength Raeder stated that all the German navy could do against the Royal Navy was to learn how to `die gallantly'. The German navy and airforce never recovered from the disastrous summer of 1940. Sorry this is a bit of a list.

 

[Anonymous]

Another point to consider is that there is still no way you would have been able to invade mainland Europe without the help of the United States. Given that, IF Hitler would have been able to overrun Moscow and defeat the Soviets or at least fought them to a treaty, Hitler would have come for you again at some point. You all may have forgotten the blockade that starved thousands of Germans to death following the Treaty of Versailles, but Hitler and his command surely had not. He wanted your scalp, and had his scientists had more time to create a nuclear bomb (because we didn't enter, and the war drug on much longer), you can be certain that there would have been mushroom clouds over Britain at some point.

 

[Hawkwood]

Oh and sorry I forgot to add the little fact that from 1941 onwards the British Royal and Merchant Navies were running convoys `over the top' to Murmansk and other ports taking British built supplies (e.g. Hurricane fighters) to the Soviet forces.

 

[Hawkwood]

Hitler would have come for you again at some point.

Sorry I don't get it. He couldn't invade in 1940 due to not having a navy, landing crafts, etc, but you think he might have gone nuclear? The British went after his heavy water plants, and his secret weapons installations. It was one of the reasons some of the really big bombs, i.e. `Tall-boys' and `Grand-Slams' were developed by the British. there was also the slight problem that having developed no real heavy bomber for example Lancaster, Halifax or Superfortress he had no delivery system for such a weapon. Yes Germany developed the V2, but this couldn't carry a sufficient payload, and yes they tried to build a `super-gun' but this was bombed by the RAF.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh and sorry I forgot to add the little fact that from 1941 onwards the British Royal and Merchant Navies were running convoys `over the top' to Murmansk and other ports taking British built supplies (e.g. Hurricane fighters) to the Soviet forces.

Might want to check the ship manifests on that one sparky. From 1941 on, those ships had a significant amount of American necessities of war on-board.

I honestly can barely believe the drivel you guys are passing as "history' regarding these points. Yes, there is a certain amount of "Hollywood" content in the American narrative regarding the war, but to suggest that things would have been just fine without us is ignorant. You would have had to deal with a Nazi state on mainland Europe or a Soviet one, and neither would have been all that thrilled about you sitting over there on your island.

Again, think mushroom clouds or an enormous communist state, and consider where you would be had either a Nazi or Soviet state existed across the English Channel. Because there was nothing you were going to do to stop one of those two things from happening. Period.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry I don't get it. He couldn't invade in 1940 due to not having a navy, landing crafts, etc, but you think he might have gone nuclear? The British went after his heavy water plants, and his secret weapons installations. It was one of the reasons some of the really big bombs, i.e. `Tall-boys' and `Grand-Slams' were developed by the British. there was also the slight problem that having developed no real heavy bomber for example Lancaster, Halifax or Superfortress he had no delivery system for such a weapon. Yes Germany developed the V2, but this couldn't carry a sufficient payload, and yes they tried to build a `super-gun' but this was bombed by the RAF.

By "come again," I am referring to the fact that, given the time, German scientists could very well have created nuclear weapons, and if you believe Hitler would not have reserved some of them for your, you miss the fact that he was sending a delivery vehicle over with a conventional payload by war's end.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Another point to consider is that there is still no way you would have been able to invade mainland Europe without the help of the United States. Given that, IF Hitler would have been able to overrun Moscow and defeat the Soviets or at least fought them to a treaty, Hitler would have come for you again at some point. You all may have forgotten the blockade that starved thousands of Germans to death following the Treaty of Versailles, but Hitler and his command surely had not. He wanted your scalp, and had his scientists had more time to create a nuclear bomb (because we didn't enter, and the war drug on much longer), you can be certain that there would have been mushroom clouds over Britain at some point.

But the very point was not predicated on an invasion of mainland Europe. I freely accept that the invasion of mainland Europe would never have happened without the US. It was on the 'liberty' question, and Britain's sovereign status has nothing to do with the D-Day landings and the liberation of Europe, which of course the US had a central role in. Hitler had no reason to come for Britain as, in his opinion, the only sticking block was Churchill and without him he'd have been satisfied to make peace with Britain. Sure I recall the Treaty of Versailles, I've done a lot of study of the Weimar Republic, but 'taking' Britain was never in Hitler's plans. Hell, he never really wanted to take France, because his plans were mostly about living space to the East, but being at war with Britain and France made fighting them a necessity, and fighting against a force that you're superior than leads to victory. If Britain had been prepared to leave him alone he'd have reciprocated. It was about overthrowing Versailles, not revenge. Britain may have been in a rather limited position, with a terrifying German super-state over the water, but that was revenge enough, and after 1940 there is little if anything to show that coming after Britain with invasion or subjugation in mind was part of Nazi plans.

The USA was an invaluable and important part of winning the war. But they do not shoulder the sole responsibility, if any at all, for Britain's current status as a sovereign state. They didn't rescue Britain, as Britain itself was not under threat of invasion or destruction at any time from the Battle of Britain onwards. However, while it is possible that the Allies would have won the war without the USA, they certainly would never have won it so soon and with so little loss of life (which seems a preposterous thing to say, but so many more would have died in a more protracted war) as they did with the USA on their side.

Now, where the USA really excels, and its biggest contribution, is with the Marshall Plan and the funding of reparations, which prevented the same situation as that post-WWI happening post-WWII, which would have left open the possibility of Germany rising as a hurt power feeling they'd been wronged again. The USA must shoulder much of the credit for the economic revival in Europe post-war, especially that in Germany.

 

[Hawkwood]

Might want to check the ship manifests on that one sparky. From 1941 on, those ships had a significant amount of American necessities of war on-board.

I honestly can barely believe the drivel you guys are passing as "history' regarding these points. Yes, there is a certain amount of "Hollywood" content in the American narrative regarding the war, but to suggest that things would have been just fine without us is ignorant. You would have had to deal with a Nazi state on mainland Europe or a Soviet one, and neither would have been all that thrilled about you sitting over there on your island.

Again, think mushroom clouds or an enormous communist state, and consider where you would be had either a Nazi or Soviet state existed across the English Channel. Because there was nothing you were going to do to stop one of those two things from happening. Period.

Sorry by 1940 a Nazi state did exist on the other side of the Channel so what point are you trying to make? The USA had done nothing to prevent his happening.

 

[Anonymous]

W.....t......f??????

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry I don't get it. He couldn't invade in 1940 due to not having a navy, landing crafts, etc, but you think he might have gone nuclear? The British went after his heavy water plants, and his secret weapons installations. It was one of the reasons some of the really big bombs, i.e. `Tall-boys' and `Grand-Slams' were developed by the British. there was also the slight problem that having developed no real heavy bomber for example Lancaster, Halifax or Superfortress he had no delivery system for such a weapon. Yes Germany developed the V2, but this couldn't carry a sufficient payload, and yes they tried to build a `super-gun' but this was bombed by the RAF.

You forget that all of this was happening WHILE US FORCES were helping fight the battle. Had they not been there, do you seriously believe he would have had the same frustrations? I think you underestimate the speed the war would have progressed without our intervention. In fact, your hypotheses is clearly fraught with problems. The heavy water was not taken out until 1943, and by then you would have had many other problems. I almost cannot believe you seriously believe the revisionist narrative you are spouting.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry by 1940 a Nazi state did exist on the other side of the Channel so what point are you trying to make? The USA had done nothing to prevent his happening.

I am sorry, you are forgetting the fact that we provided the main force and material for the invasion of said Nazi state, and without us, it wouldn't have occurred. Fact.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Yes, there is a certain amount of "Hollywood" content in the American narrative regarding the war, but to suggest that things would have been just fine without us is ignorant. You would have had to deal with a Nazi state on mainland Europe or a Soviet one, and neither would have been all that thrilled about you sitting over there on your island.

Again, think mushroom clouds or an enormous communist state, and consider where you would be had either a Nazi or Soviet state existed across the English Channel. Because there was nothing you were going to do to stop one of those two things from happening. Period.

1 - things wouldn't have been just fine without you. The Allies may still have won (predominantly thanks to Russia, Britain wouldn't have contributed much) but it would have been a longer, slower and more violent war.

2 - true, neither a Nazi state or Soviet state would have been thrilled about us, but both would have been in the position to economically dominate us and therefore physically taking us over would no longer be necessary, especially as we'd probably have been forced to decolonise as we would no longer have the resources to deal with any troubles in the colonies

3 - and the threat of mushroom clouds would keep us quiet. But the Nazi state would not really threaten British sovereignty, especially if we were economically weak compared to a Nazi superstate. Hitler quite liked the British people, a mostly Germanic race, and felt that were it not for meddling, troublesome leaders, they would have got on just swimmingly with us. A Communist state? That's different. Russia would probably have put a lot of pressure on us for a revolution. But Russia was not the question. Germany was.

 

[karlboss]

What do you mean the russians won, I haven't seen that in any movies. I thought Tom Hanks saved private ryan and he was the aim of the war so yay we won...no?

 

[Anonymous]

I am sorry, you are forgetting the fact that we provided the main force and material for the invasion of said Nazi state, and without us, it wouldn't have occurred. Fact.

Of course the americans did a good job of helping build the nazi war effort in the first place..

And dont even get me started on coca cola and their involvement

What happened to wiggins quotes? This thread has gone seriously seriously off track.. What is it with blackcats threads that they all end in chaos..

 

[Anonymous]

But the very point was not predicated on an invasion of mainland Europe. I freely accept that the invasion of mainland Europe would never have happened without the US. It was on the 'liberty' question, and Britain's sovereign status has nothing to do with the D-Day landings and the liberation of Europe, which of course the US had a central role in. Hitler had no reason to come for Britain as, in his opinion, the only sticking block was Churchill and without him he'd have been satisfied to make peace with Britain. Sure I recall the Treaty of Versailles, I've done a lot of study of the Weimar Republic, but 'taking' Britain was never in Hitler's plans. Hell, he never really wanted to take France, because his plans were mostly about living space to the East, but being at war with Britain and France made fighting them a necessity, and fighting against a force that you're superior than leads to victory. If Britain had been prepared to leave him alone he'd have reciprocated. It was about overthrowing Versailles, not revenge. Britain may have been in a rather limited position, with a terrifying German super-state over the water, but that was revenge enough, and after 1940 there is little if anything to show that coming after Britain with invasion or subjugation in mind was part of Nazi plans.

I simply do not believe you realistically portray the desire of Hitler to dominate your country. He knew he couldn't invade, but if you believe a nuclear weapon of several would not have come your way had he had the time to perfect them, then you clearly underestimate him as a leader.

The USA was an invaluable and important part of winning the war. But they do not shoulder the sole responsibility, if any at all, for Britain's current status as a sovereign state. They didn't rescue Britain, as Britain itself was not under threat of invasion or destruction at any time from the Battle of Britain onwards. However, while it is possible that the Allies would have won the war without the USA, they certainly would never have won it so soon and with so little loss of life (which seems a preposterous thing to say, but so many more would have died in a more protracted war) as they did with the USA on their side.

No, we may not have saved you at that point, but a protracted war would have had far graver consequences than greater loss of life. I believe that is quite short sighted, and logically flawed in many ways.

Now, where the USA really excels, and its biggest contribution, is with the Marshall Plan and the funding of reparations, which prevented the same situation as that post-WWI happening post-WWII, which would have left open the possibility of Germany rising as a hurt power feeling they'd been wronged again. The USA must shoulder much of the credit for the economic revival in Europe post-war, especially that in Germany.

Well, thank you.

 

[Hawkwood]

What `revisionist narrative', Hitler did the one thing German stategists had warned against be at war against two enemies, one in the east and one in the west at the same time. I think it's the first time I've read anything about WWII in which someone has suggested that Hitler was close to developing a credible nuclear weapon that could be delivered to a distant target. The RAF, and I believe the Norwegians took out a number of German plants, but I don't think the Germans were anywhere near developing such a weapon.

 

[Hawkwood]

Of course the americans did a good job of helping build the nazi war effort in the first place..

And dont even get me started on coca cola and their involvement

What happened to wiggins quotes? This thread has gone seriously seriously off track.. What is it with blackcats threads that they all end in chaos..

I thought the thread was going along quite nicely, but then someone mentioned Series 3 of The Restaurant and it all seemed to kick off after that!

 

[Anonymous]

1 - things wouldn't have been just fine without you. The Allies may still have won (predominantly thanks to Russia, Britain wouldn't have contributed much) but it would have been a longer, slower and more violent war.

2 - true, neither a Nazi state or Soviet state would have been thrilled about us, but both would have been in the position to economically dominate us and therefore physically taking us over would no longer be necessary, especially as we'd probably have been forced to decolonise as we would no longer have the resources to deal with any troubles in the colonies

3 - and the threat of mushroom clouds would keep us quiet. But the Nazi state would not really threaten British sovereignty, especially if we were economically weak compared to a Nazi superstate. Hitler quite liked the British people, a mostly Germanic race, and felt that were it not for meddling, troublesome leaders, they would have got on just swimmingly with us. A Communist state? That's different. Russia would probably have put a lot of pressure on us for a revolution. But Russia was not the question. Germany was.

But in your scenario, Russia is the real question. The greatest probability is that the Soviets would have defeated the Nazi's (according to you as well as I), and I believe, and in that scenario, you eventually come under Soviet rule based on Stalin's record. As for the rest of what you say, I agree. We didn't save you in the actual history of what happened, but I do believe that moving forward in a world where either a Nazi dominate mainland (less likely) or a Soviet dominated mainland (most likely), you would have lost your nation.

 

[twodimensional]