[taildraggernut]

whoa whoa whoa, easy tiger, I think you got it all wrong.. let's try and keep it civilised and I will be glad to answer your points..

I think the example of Vietnam exemplifies your confusion on the concept of "winning": Vietnam was divided in two parts, and as much as there was an anti-American feeling, many others didn't really like the idea of living under a Communist regime. Talking about "Vietnamese winning the war" doesn't actually make any sense because of the socio-political implications of the Vietnam war.

Ok, answer my point then, is history as we know it a lie? did the holocaust happen and was it perpetrated by the Nazis? if none of that is a lie then why should the Battle of britain speciffically be a lie?

again, double standards. How can you justify joining forces and arming a mass murderer of the size of Stalin and live with the fact that he killed and persecuted millions more than Hitler and for more futile reasons at times is something I really wanna hear.
I'm not justifying Nazism, I'm just appalled by double standards set up for personal interests "yeah good ol' uncle Joe has a bit of rough hand with his folks, but hey, if this helps us winning against Hitler, let him on board!"
As for area bombing, go look for the other thread on it, justifying area bombing is as valid as justifying a war crime, and funnily enough it's only after that that the Geneva convention cared about the well being of civilians..

I never brought the Soviets into the argument, they have nothing to do with the Battle of Britain directly, I personally don't think there was any choice with that regard, my enemy's enemy is my friend until such time the immediate threat is over, hence why immediately after the second world war the 'cold war' started, do you really think there was a chance of a good outcome had the allies decided to fight the Russians too? Fighting the nazis was the best decision because they were the 'worst' of a bad lot and they started the bloody war in the first place, the Russians didn't, Look, if you start a fight with me and start gouging my eyes out I'm going to kick you in the nuts.....this is a hypothesis both are dirty tactics, which one is worse?
I'm not justifying area bombing, I'm just trying to stop you from using it as a validation for your arguments, it wouldn't have happened if Germany hadn't started the war, I don't care how many alternate views on History you have managed to read, it's just simple fact and you don't have to be British to understand the Germans started the war.

Are you calling me a Nazi? Seriously?

No but I am saying you are a Nazi appologist, based on what I'm reading here, it's just the study material I'm being provided to blame.

that's your view, the rest of the world on the other hand thought that racing without opponents, when in the past the races had been called off for the lack of participants, was puerile and grotesquely silly, and aimed merely at wanting to keep the Cup.. but hey, fair enough, if that's the way you like to win..

and why exactly were there no opponents? oh yes, something to do with nobody else being competent enough to complete the challenge, so we just turned up....no biggie, it was a very prestigious prize and everybody else just effectively chickened out, and apparently this makes the Brits look bad, typical, the Brits get good at something and everybody else just goes home with a right cob on complaining and saying it's just a stupid game and they don't want to play any more.

so were Dresden, Bremen, Hiroshima, Nagasaki... ah no sorry, those were for a good cause!

Maybe, I don't personally know but I think they were aimed at ending the worst global conflict since the first one, as far as I know germany still exists, had things gone the other way I don't think many ethnicities and cultures would even be in history books, and hiroshima and Nagasaki you can blame on the Amricans not the British.

my point was that appearances can be deceiving, and if a German politician has enough carisma to enchant British ones, then it doesn't surprise me he managed to drag the whole of Europe to hell with his talk.

Well we have common ground perhaps, let's just blame it all on Hitler and accept what happened was because of him, certainly thats how the British feel about it, no animosity towards Germany per se but there wasn't much else that could be done other than fight a war with germany because Hitler pushed them into it, if only Germany had allowed the allies to march through Germany straight to his door so we could take him out it could have avoided alot of unpleasantness.

well hey, that's what happens when you study history, you get to know about these things called facts. Your comparison shows how intelligently you're facing the topic here..

you like to use this line alot, apparently you are infallible and beyond question, and like to question anybody who disagrees with you's intelligence, I'll let it slide as i'm pretty comfortable with my understanding of things, but if you are going to use lines like 'let's try and keep it civilised and I will be glad to answer your points.. ' then please extend a similar courtesy.

we were talking about the odds of being saved and brought back to fight when being closer to your territory... jesus, are you actually reading the other people's posts or are on a flag waving mission?

Ah yes, I did predict eventually I would get slammed as a Union flag waving looney by you.