Wigans quote watch

[Libertine Seguros]

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.

I'm not underestimating his ability as a leader - I feel you're overestimating the importance of Britain to him. In Mein Kampf and elsewhere where he talks about his philosophy, subjugating or attacking Britain is nowhere to be seen. In the most part he is quite positive in his attitude to the Brits, as a fellow Germanic race who had seemingly subjugated many parts of the world. His problem with Britain was only with Churchill, and his personal opinion was that if meddling leaders like Churchill could be removed Britain and Germany could happily coexist; I know 'happily coexist' is only happy in some respects seeing as Britain would be economically weak compared to Germany and/or have missiles pointed at it, but actually taking Britain over and making it part of Germany never appears once in Hitler's policies.

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.

Well, of course the interjection of nuclear science into it wouldn't have helped...

Well, thank you.

You're welcome. That is America's single most important contribution to the 20th Century in my opinion, and something that's often forgotten in the mudslinging.


Edited to add response to latest post:
Yes, it is true that Russia would have been the big question, and I suppose it is quite likely (nay, very likely) Britain would have, much like Poland, Czechoslovakia and so on, been turned into a Soviet satellite. But we wouldn't have been just an offshore part of Russia, more a puppet. When discussing how the USA 'saved' Britain in WWII, accepted opinion appears to be of the opinion that Britain was saved from being taken over by Germany. That is simply not true as actually taking over Britain never appears in Hitler's plans, although it would have been a logical result of victory in the (necessary for both sides) Battle of Britain. If the USA did save Britain's liberty in WWII, it was not from Germany but from the Soviet Union.

It is largely irrelevant anyway, as after the US declared war on Japan, Germany and Italy jumped the gun by declaring war on the US, which forced its hand. Apparently the US was still rather undecided on getting involved in Europe at that point.

 

[kurtinsc]

This one's no good... it doesn't follow the rest of them well enough. Yoda is way to kick *** to be lance as he's being portrayed in the pictures.

I think something like this would be more appropriate:

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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..

C'mon Dim - keep up - all this WWII speak is code for saying that if a certain rider from the US had not won then a certain German rider would have had global dominance.

The British Team - Go Team Sky - would have ended up riding in Adidas gear with strips on the side........oh, wait.

What is the German for 'dildos' anyway? (Frankfuters??)

 

[Anonymous]

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.

First, your points are predicated on the reality that we entered the war. Had we not, the time line for the war would have drawn out CONSIDERABLY because there was no way you were opening a front in eastern Europe. You had nothing to do so with, and weren't about to develop any by yourselves.

Secondly, I never said close. He didn't need "close" because there was nothing you could do to shorten the war any longer that it would have taken the Soviets to win, which would have been a significant amount of time without an eastern front.

Lastly, my suggestion lies on the fact that the Nazi state would have existed years longer, and because of that time frame, would have continued to work on a nuclear weapon. Yes, Hitler diverted scientists in 1942 away from the project, but I am trying to remember what happened at the end of 1941 that changed the whole game, and forced the Nazi's to reassess their war effort. Maybe you can help me with that?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

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!

Once it came to discussing Series 3 of The Restaurant, things had become so depressing we had to talk about more uplifting topics to serve as light relief, like international wars that cost millions of lives, or the threat of nuclear armageddon.

 

[twodimensional]

I think something like this would be more appropriate:

Yoda's a bit past his prime, so it seemed appropriate to me.

 

[Epoché]

Libertine Seguros,

i don't know how you have the patience to argue with these neocons.

 

[Anonymous]

Let me also say that while you may point out a stereotype of American attitude towards our contribution to the war, you are missing that some of us are actually educated about the war, and do not hold a bold patriotic line regarding the events of WWII.

Lastly, to my suggestion that Hitler would have eventually come after you, it is based on the supposition that Britain would not have remained passive to a Nazi dominated Europe. And within Germany, there was a significant desire for revenge because of the state of Germany following WWI. Maybe I am overplaying its importance, but it seems that a state built on conquest and subjugation, like most things in motion, continue along the same path. I do not believe it is a stretch to believe that a Nazi would have dominated your country in one way or another.

 

[Anonymous]

Libertine Seguros,

i don't know how you have the patience to argue with these neocons.

Okay, that is funny. You don't actually know what a "neocon" is, do you?

I am done.

 

[karlboss]

when we can't agree on the hypothetical outcome of the tour without a TTT how the hell do you expect to agree on various outcomes of the largest conflict in the history of man kind?

Yoda seems appropriate, he's old and I can remember him striking a killing blow, ie winning.

 

[Epoché]

when we can't agree on the hypothetical outcome of the tour without a TTT how the hell do you expect to agree on various outcomes of the largest conflict in the history of man kind?

Yoda seems appropriate, he's old and I can remember him striking a killing blow, ie winning.

Well it doesn't take much for the neocons to come out of the woodwork.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Okay, that is funny. You don't actually know what a "neocon" is, do you?
I am done.

Team Garmin??

 

[Mambo95]

Cant namedrop McCartney, calling him "Sir Paul" in unctuous twitterage, and then excuse the dildos, the DiLuca, the swanny ballsack comments.

'Sir Paul' is Sir Paul Smith, who's a complete cycling nut and a bit of a groupie for Cav and Wiggins amongst others.

He even invites them round for tea sometimes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81cmP6CBexA

But you've never been one to let facts get the way of your mumblings, so carry on.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Let me also say that while you may point out a stereotype of American attitude towards our contribution to the war, you are missing that some of us are actually educated about the war, and do not hold a bold patriotic line regarding the events of WWII.

Of course - but as history is written by the winners, certain key elements will never be available to us. Not all Americans are wrapped up in the flag the same as not all Britons have bad teeth. The problem is, such stereotypes of opinions do exist for a reason, and to Epoché, exceptions to said stereotypes are necessary for conversation and reasonable debate to even happen. Myself and TFF appear to be of different opinions regarding some things, but reasonable debate can be had with people you disagree with as long as there is some respect for reasoned viewpoints. And hell, even those who are educated about the war will have facts missing because even WWII historians haven't been able to cover all of the available evidence. And what we learn in the UK about it - even when it comes to higher education - is different to what is learnt in the US about it, and both are different to what is learnt about it in Germany and Russia.

Lastly, to my suggestion that Hitler would have eventually come after you, it is based on the supposition that Britain would not have remained passive to a Nazi dominated Europe. And within Germany, there was a significant desire for revenge because of the state of Germany following WWI. Maybe I am overplaying its importance, but it seems that a state built on conquest and subjugation, like most things in motion, continue along the same path. I do not believe it is a stretch to believe that a Nazi would have dominated your country in one way or another.

It is a supposition that Britain would not have remained passive to a Nazi-dominated Europe, and one I remain unconvinced about since I would like to think Britain would be a bit more pragmatic than that since unassisted aggression against a Nazi super-state would have been insane and suicidal. Hitler's Germany was built on conquest and subjugation until they had their sufficient 'Lebensraum' (a key concept to the Nazi ethos). Of course, once the population grew to fill that they'd want more, but the idea was always to increase to the East. We'd be looking a LONG way into the future before they ran out of territory to the East. It's similar to the policy regarding the 'undesirables'. The long-standing policy was to put them in concentration camps, which were so called because they were places where many 'undesirables' were concentrated ready to basically be chucked unceremoniously over the border when Germany had its chosen Lebensraum; this was always the plan, and 'concentration camps' only begat 'death camps' when Germany's progress was halted and reversed and they no longer had any viable boundary to throw them over. The East was Hitler's main goal, since Russia had vast tracts of land with little occupying people, and Hitler was very scathing in his opinion of the Slavs, as opposed to the Germanic Brits who he was quite positive towards. Britain would not have been politically taken over, but economically dominated was perhaps an inevitability. However, as that's not an assault on sovereignty and liberty (in the sense of right to self-rule), I don't really count that as anything we were rescued from per se. Economically weak states have the right to self-rule, though their economic weakness may interfere somewhat with the exercising of said rule.

 

[Epoché]

Libertine Seguros,

I'd forget it. This ultra right Bush-loving warmonger will never accept any version of history that doesn't have America saving the world without anybody else's help. Best leave him to his own deluded neocon fantasies.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I'd best not alert him to my forthcoming publication "Ché, Hugo, Fidel, Minh and me: How Communism saved the world while the West acted smug" then

 

[blackcat]

'Sir Paul' is Sir Paul Smith, who's a complete cycling nut and a bit of a groupie for Cav and Wiggins amongst others.

He even invites them round for tea sometimes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81cmP6CBexA

But you've never been one to let facts get the way of your mumblings, so carry on.

well, Sir Paul aint a Weller. Paul Smith a cycling nut? Since when, just this Cav and Beijing era that has come onstream recently.

 

[Anonymous]

Of course - but as history is written by the winners, certain key elements will never be available to us. Not all Americans are wrapped up in the flag the same as not all Britons have bad teeth. The problem is, such stereotypes of opinions do exist for a reason, and to Epoché, exceptions to said stereotypes are necessary for conversation and reasonable debate to even happen. Myself and TFF appear to be of different opinions regarding some things, but reasonable debate can be had with people you disagree with as long as there is some respect for reasoned viewpoints. And hell, even those who are educated about the war will have facts missing because even WWII historians haven't been able to cover all of the available evidence. And what we learn in the UK about it - even when it comes to higher education - is different to what is learnt in the US about it, and both are different to what is learnt about it in Germany and Russia.


It is a supposition that Britain would not have remained passive to a Nazi-dominated Europe, and one I remain unconvinced about since I would like to think Britain would be a bit more pragmatic than that since unassisted aggression against a Nazi super-state would have been insane and suicidal. Hitler's Germany was built on conquest and subjugation until they had their sufficient 'Lebensraum' (a key concept to the Nazi ethos). Of course, once the population grew to fill that they'd want more, but the idea was always to increase to the East. We'd be looking a LONG way into the future before they ran out of territory to the East. It's similar to the policy regarding the 'undesirables'. The long-standing policy was to put them in concentration camps, which were so called because they were places where many 'undesirables' were concentrated ready to basically be chucked unceremoniously over the border when Germany had its chosen Lebensraum; this was always the plan, and 'concentration camps' only begat 'death camps' when Germany's progress was halted and reversed and they no longer had any viable boundary to throw them over. The East was Hitler's main goal, since Russia had vast tracts of land with little occupying people, and Hitler was very scathing in his opinion of the Slavs, as opposed to the Germanic Brits who he was quite positive towards. Britain would not have been politically taken over, but economically dominated was perhaps an inevitability. However, as that's not an assault on sovereignty and liberty (in the sense of right to self-rule), I don't really count that as anything we were rescued from per se. Economically weak states have the right to self-rule, though their economic weakness may interfere somewhat with the exercising of said rule.

All very good and reasonable points. I jumped in a bit hard on the Nazi dominated Britain line, and your points are persuasive on that topic. I also need to note that in your first post, you admitted you were going to go "over-the-top" for comedic effect, and I didn't take that post as an absolute reflection of your more nuanced opinion.

As to this new incarnation (Epoche) of the mentally ill troll BPC, well at least I caught it early and will have him on ignore immediately following this post.

 

[Anonymous]

I'd best not alert him to my forthcoming publication "Ché, Hugo, Fidel, Minh and me: How Communism saved the world while the West acted smug" then

On the contrary, I look forward to its reading.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Libertine Seguros,

I'd forget it. This ultra right Bush-loving warmonger will never accept any version of history that doesn't have America saving the world without anybody else's help. Best leave him to his own deluded neocon fantasies.

How can you say that - Bob Stapelton and Jonathan Vaughters saved us all!

 

[Mambo95]

well, Sir Paul aint a Weller. Paul Smith a cycling nut? Since when, just this Cav and Beijing era that has come onstream recently.

Since he was a kid. He raced and wanted to be a pro, but had a really bad accident which finished him

He talks about it all here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOEcAzRJcAY

 

[Epoché]

Well in the end it didn't take much for him to roll up the white flag.

These yanks are all bark and no bite.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I'd best not alert him to my forthcoming publication "Ché, Hugo, Fidel, Minh and me: How Communism saved the world while the West acted smug" then

You and TFF might want to consider having this discussion in PM's. Not because it isn't an interesting discussion about which you both have good opinions, but just so that you won't be interrupted by morons.

 

[Anonymous]

You and TFF might want to consider having this discussion in PM's. Not because it isn't an interesting discussion about which you both have good opinions, but just so that you won't be interrupted by morons.

"Epoche" has to be Greek for "syphilis"...or "douchebag." Take your pick.

 

[blackcat]

Since he was a kid. He raced and wanted to be a pro, but had a really bad accident which finished him

He talks about it all here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOEcAzRJcAY

thanks I know his eponymous label did a limited edition partnership with Rapha

http://hypebeast.com/image/2007/06/paul-smith-rapha-2.jpg

dont know if he still owns that company, as all of those designers are slowly bought out in the last decade but the bigger groups.