pap

Hitler was using the obvious logic of the situation. Britain and France were in no position to wage war in Poland, as the months of the Phoney War demonstrated. He was genuinely surprised that they followed through with their war guarantee. You are correct though. It was a big miscalculation on Hitler's part and personal sentiment played a huge part, particularly public opinion. Opinions toward Germany went through a sea-change when the Nazis rolled into parts of Czechoslovakia that weren't ethnically German. You're also right in identifying Hitler as an opportunist. The reoccupation of the Rhineland was a huge gamble, as was the Anschluss. Would Hitler's ambitions have turned west had he won a 1940 Barbarossa in 1940? There's certainly some evidence to suggest that he would. France were one of the biggest champions of the then-discredited Versailles treaty. France's 1940 surrender was signed in the same train carriage as the 1918 armistice that brought such calamity to Germany. It strongly suggests unfinished business with the French. I think you have a case. That said, I do wonder whether a couple of years of rearmament and preparation would have played against Hitler's opportunism. Would a heavily-armed and well-drilled France have given him pause when glancing westward? You've also got to figure that any hypothetical Nazi victory over the Soviet Union would have involved an organised resistance, partisans and potentially years of consolidation, German settlement and forces diverted to cover the new frontiers. There was no guarantee that Hitler would have won a 1940 war with Russia. The Soviets weren't prepared in 1941 either; it cost them a lot of territory and lives. I don't think Soviet preparedness was a big factor in the overall outcome of the war. The Soviets won because they were able to simultaneously absorb their invaders and reinforce themselves. They produced more tanks and artillery than anyone else in the war. The Red Army fielded 34 million men during the conflict. A 1940 invasion might have allowed the Germans to get further than they managed in 1941, but the Germans would have run into the same supply problems that eventually sank them in the winters of '41 and '42.

That's a strong point, and coincidentally enough, one of Buchanan's key turning points in the road to war. I believe that only a few German divisions were sent in to the Rhineland with strict instructions to turn tail if they faced any resistance. Hitler knew he was weak at that point; it was the ideal time to show resolve. One of the big reasons we didn't act was guilt over the Versailles treaty. Many western politicians recognised it for what it was, a treaty signed under duress that happened to coincide with the end of a post-armistice starvation blockade on Germany. There was tacit recognition that the Versailles was harsh on Germany, and not much appetite for contesting minor border changes to restore the German-speaking lands excised from Germany in 1919. The military occupation of the Rhineland isn't quite the same, but falls into the same "restoration of something Germany had before" category that I've just created for the purposes of my argument. You are correct though - much could have been changed at that specific point in history. The French were too busy arguing amongst themselves and the opportunity was lost.

I've just finished reading a book by Patrick Buchanan, the former Republican politician who tried to get on the US Presidential ticket in 1992. Entitled "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War", the book argues that Britain should never have gotten involved in either war, and of the Second World War in particular, Britain's rush to action in 1939 not only failed in its original mandate - the protection of Polish independence, but also cost her the Empire. Buchanan is scathing of Britain and France's decision to offer Poland a war guarantee. As history proved in short order, neither country was ready or able to protect Poland. Worse than empty threat, it pushed Germany into the non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, giving them a free hand to prosecute a war on one front. Prior to that, Hitler's ambitions reportedly lay east, the direction he eventually took in 1941 when western frontiers were secured and German forces initiated Operation Barbarossa. Before the war guarantee was issued, Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia were primed for conflict. Opposing ideologies, plus the small matter of Hitler wanting "lebensraum" in the east made war between them an inevitability. Both regimes were abhorrent by the contemporary democratic standards of the day. Was there a case for letting them kick the sh*t out of each other? I don't agree with all of Buchanan's arguments or conclusions, but I do wonder whether Britain and France were wise to:- 1) dole out the war guarantee to Poland 2 ) actually make good on it. I'm not saying we should have never gone to war, but the US did very well out of the Second World War by staying out for as long as possible. They benefited financially from the war economy and were able to make huge demands on entering the war, largely on account of being the senior partner in lend lease arrangements. Post-war, empires were dismantled, rivals were diminished and the US emerged from the conflict as creditor, liberator and one of two superpowers in what used to be a multi-polar world. Did Britain enter the war too soon?

These days it is really easy unless you're unlucky or your machine has something wrong with it. I've actually finished LA Noire on PC. It didn't run too quickly on my laptop, and when I got the gaming PC, still had some bloody weird issues with things looking too bright. My workaround was to Alt-Tab in and out. On switching back in, it was fine. So yep, it can still be a problem, but it's the exception rather than the norm these days. The machine itself is a big outlay, and it's not as easy to lug about. Those are the bad points. On the plus side, games are loads cheaper, especially in this next-gen "north of fifty quid" age. Graphics are tons better, paid console DLC is often free on PC. Mods are a good point but so too is the breadth of titles, some utterly hatstand and never likely to make their way to a console.

I've been meaning to provide a semi-intelligent response to these queries for some time (well, Jonnyboy's mainly - but bp is asking the same thing). I got a gaming PC back in February of this year. Was the first real PC I'd bought in over a decade - e.g. not a work machine re-purposed for nefarious personal enjoyment ends. Went the full hog and got (at the time) a pair of the two top graphics cards. I'd like to think I know a little about where visual fidelity is going. Graphics wise, it largely boils down to three things:- 1) Resolution How many individual pixels a machine can bang out on an average screen refresh. The more tiny dots it gets to use to produce an image, the more detailed that image will be. 2) Refresh rate How many times a screen refreshes in a second, a.k.a. frames per second. Really smooth games run at sixty games per second. A common trick on more demanding games is to run it at thirty frames per second. Because the screen is only being drawn half as much, more stuff can be processed during the game loop. Film is 24 frames per second. The benchmark for gaming is 60 frames per second. 3) Lighting Cannot stress how important this is. I'm not even going to try. A picture tells a thousand words after all. Two screenshots from Tomb Raider - one at lowest settings on my PC, the other at highest settings. Low:- Ultra:- These are only screenshots, but they show what a difference lighting makes.

So, the PS4 arrived this morning. ms pap and the girls have gone into Liverpool City Centre for Christmas shopping. Just me and the PS4, even though I am not allowed until Christmas Decided to unwrap it and check that everything works. Have spent the past four hours buggering about on it. Here is my illicit mini-review. Don't tell ms pap, as she'll only nag and believe me, the scouse accent is particularly suited to nagging and whining. First impressions. The box wasn't that big, but then, neither is the console. I think I'm right in saying that it's smaller than any PS3 out there. It's not quite as svelte as the PS2 slim, but it is surprisingly small. It's parallelipiped, which is a fancy way of saying it's like a cuboid modelled after a parallelogram. No-one remember secondary school maths? I bought a bundle, so the standard gubbins was in one box - everything else in a cardboard insert, all wrapped up in one flimsy cardboard cover. Two controllers, and the Killzone Shadow Fall game. The charger cable for your controllers is a standard phone charger cable. Basically, if you're not Essruu, you should have one of these kicking around the house. You can also charge the controller with a standard phone charger too. Doesn't have to be plugged into the PS3. The controller deserves a special mention. It may just be the greatest videogame controller of all time. Here's what I like about it. I loved the original psOne controller when it was first released. That said, I always felt that the analogue sticks on PS controllers weren't up to par. They felt bolted on, and they were. Nintendo had just released the N64's controller at the time. Sony was playing catch-up. The analog sticks, while perfectly serviceable, were an afterthought - always third best compared to Nintendo and Microsoft. The PS2 and PS3 used this same basic template for the DualShock2 and DualShock3 controllers. The PS4 controller is a great mix of innovation and familiarity. The analog sticks have been refined. They don't feel as spongy or indistinct as previous PS pads. The D-Pad has also been refined - the outer edges of each D-Pad button are on a much higher slope. It's a neat trick which I've seen used elsewhere, leaving the player in no doubt as to what is about to be pressed. Likewise the analog triggers, third best in the previous generation, are much improved - easier to find with your fingers and a much more graded feel when looking for positions between the extremities. The space between the d-pad and face buttons has a touchpad area. This can be used for mouse-like operations - haven't seen it in too many games yet. However, as good as the rest of the pad is, my favourite feature is the ability to plug a standard set of headphones into the pad, and route all your audio through that. As someone who gets asked to lower the volume of games all the time, this is a godsend. I'd previously had to snake a long extension cable into a TV or receiving equipment. The out-of-game environment is much, much zippier than the PS3, and can be accessed while you are playing a game. Comes up instantly too. You have the option to link your PSN and Facebook account, meaning that my console is now configured to show me my ugly mug when switched on. Could be a good deterrent for burglars I suppose that we should talk about the games. I got Killzone as part of my bundle. Haven't really played it too much, but had a quick blast at both single and multiplayer. Single player looks very nice, but is capped at 30 frames per second. The extra horse power looks to being used for some very nice effects on characters. Beads of sweat running down brows, close ups with characters that are supposed to mean something to you. It looks excellent. Multiplayer actually runs at 60 frames per second, which is a lot smoother. I haven't actually played any other full price retail games, but anyone with a Playstation Plus account is likely to be playing Resogun, an old skool shoot-em-up with modern graphics. It comes free to anyone who has a PS Plus subscription. Resogun is a contemporary version of 80s classic Defender. People are already touting it as one of the best games on the system. As an oldish fogey who loves seeing retro stuff kept fresh, I love it. On the whole Playstation Plus thing. My advice, particularly to PS4 players, is to get it. While you can play online without a PS Plus account on PS3, the same cannot be said for PS4. Want to play online? You need Playstation Plus. Old Sony hands may be affronted at this notion. After all, the fact that you didn't have to pay for online gaming on PS3 was a stick that Sony fanbois used to beat the XBox crowd with for six years. I still think it worth it. PS Plus is less than the cost of a game, opens up online gaming and provides lots of freebies over the course of the year. The latter offerings are so good I've had an unbroken PS Plus account for four years now. Back to games. I picked up Flower, which I'd already bought for the PS3 (was free on PS4 for me when I logged in). Flower is a beautiful enough game on PS3, even today - so this was a good opportunity to do a bit of comparison. Graphically, the big jump is the full HD visuals. However, what stood out here (again) was the pad. Flower is exclusively controlled by SixAxis on both systems. This was the feature in PS3 which does tilt detection on the game pad. The original idea was that it would be used in flying games and suchlike. It never really took off on the PS3 - mostly relegated to a few mini-games in larger titles. I think it'll work on PS4. The difference between PS3 Flower's controls and the PS4 version is like the difference between trying to do a three point turn in a oil tanker compared to the same in a Hackney Cab. Another interesting point on games; expect to see a ton more games on PS4 than you did on PS3. The PS3 used proprietary chipsets for most of its architecture, the most infamous being the "Cell" processors used to drive it. While the "Cell" was nice and all, it was a beast for coders to get the most out of it. It's one of the reasons that the PS3 normally came up short in side-by-side comparisons - developers were able to get more out of the 360 with less effort. That's changed in PS4 - the architecture is very similar to the PC, and the implications are apparent from day one. There are two free-to-play games available on the system. Fair enough, DC Universe Online was out on PS3, but War Thunder is a very recent PC game. I was surprised to see it on PS4, but I really shouldn't have been. Now, I'm of the opinion that we'll see most PC stuff ported over to PS4 with very little fuss. Overall, I am very impressed with what looks to be a very capable gaming machine. It won't be challenging my PC for visual fidelity anytime soon, if ever - but for anyone who wants a gaming machine without the bi-annual 2K Gaming PC tax, it comes highly recommended at £350.

Yeah, I was going to delay the purchase until after Chrimbo, but the missus has been hassling me to decide on a present. In truth, my PC already kicks the crap out of this when it comes to graphical fidelity - but Sony does make nice hardware and this is easier to bung under the big screen. I am looking forward to the next gen version of FIFA 14 though - the PC version is still using the old engine, unfortunately.

Keep up trousers. The article I linked said that Cameron was unlikely to have been involved. Apparently, he wasn't that political back in the day.

Apologies if posted before. I've been too depressed to visit the mainboard lately. I follow Southampton Crown Court's Twitter proceedings to see how my mates are getting on. Saw this:- Southampton Courts ‏@cSouthampton1h #ICD Artur Boruc, Southampton Room: 5 at 10:51 Any ideas?

I was made to wait for my 360 one Christmas too. Was actually pretty awesome. Felt like being a kid getting an Amiga 500 again. Yours is a good point though. I shall take it under advisement, but will probably tough it out. In the meantime, I can have a good ding dong with Nolan speaking from the perspective of being a PS4 owner, even though I'll probably get an XBox One if it ever gets any good games. C'mon, Nolan. Give it your worst!

Where has that happened on this thread exactly? You are the first user of the term. I did a Ctrl-F and everything to make sure

I wonder how many of the current Conservative crop were involved in the "Hang Mandela" posters? http://descrier.co.uk/politics/2013/12/cameron-involved-hang-mandela-posters-1980s/

F*ck a duck.

Towering figure. Don't really have much time for UB40 these days, but became aware of Mandela's plight through this song as a young teenager. Recorded at the Free Nelson Mandela concert in 1988. A mere 25 years ago. Mandela's achievements should be held up as proof that huge change is possible.

Yay. PS4 is arriving tomorrow*. Quite a few units at Amazon if anyone interested. http://www.stockinformer.co.uk/checker-ps4-playstation-4 Went for "Gamer" pack, which comes with an extra controller and a camera. £434 with next day postage. Same thing on eBay going for around £600. * Due to ms pap's cruel matriarchal yuletide tyranny, I will be unable to play said PS4 until Christmas morn. Mwah.

The glamour of modding often goes to their heads, y'know. It can't be easy. Apparently, when they whip out their SaintsWeb Mod Badges in public, it's nosh o' clock from all the impressionable ladies in the vicinity. It's a rockstar life. That's why TheDellbat is always after the gig.

Yeah, it's most unpleasant up here. I turned the car alarm off after it went off for the fifth time, doors are rattling. New Brighton, just over the water near the tip of the Wirral peninsula, is flooded. Some good pictures here:- http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/live-merseyside-hit-high-winds-6375437

I cannot agree with this campaign. I have fought for the Bear's existence on this site before. I did pie charts and everything. Can we change the option so that we keep Bear and vote for Barry to be placed in West Derby Village stocks* so he can be fruited by the locals? * if the village no longer has any working stocks, I am happy for Barry to be tied to a lamp-post adjacent to a deep, dingy puddle.

Ok, this vid is pretty new, and pretty funny. Internet flaming humourously dignified by a couple of actors.

I think it'd help immeasurably if you defined what socialism is. You keep speaking of millions dying, which can only really point to events like Stalin's purges or Mao's Cultural Revolution. If you're framing socialism in those terms, then you're using extremes to make a general case. Lenin, Stalin and Mao all operated brutal dictatorships. They may have been guided by collectivist principles, but they were still dictatorships. With that in mind, I can confirm that I don't fancy living in a dictatorship. So let's robustly deal with the cherry-picking points and the millions dead point at the same time. Do you have an example of a "socialist" government that killed millions that wasn't a dictatorship?

Number one on the list of priorities? Change the mission. As far as I can make out, humanity's raison d'etre seems to be endless production for a profit motive. To me, and I suspect others, that's an entirely unsatisfactory enterprise for the dominant species on the planet, especially as the chief proponents of this mission country-wise have done so poorly out of it. Take a look at that national debt list. Those most invested in the system are those most crippled by it. What would happen to the US if the debts were ever called in? Why is the US in so much debt in the first place? I'd sooner be aiming for a society based on Roosevelt's Four Freedoms; freedom of speech, of worship, from want and from fear - something every society fails on to some degree. To do that, I guess you'd have to ensure that keeping everyone fed, housed and healthy was a priority. You'd need food and energy security. Ultimately, you'd need something autonomous and self-sufficient. I think the biggest problem people face when trying to set the world to rights is the sheer size of the task. As someone who professionally copes with enormous volume, I'd offer this from my expertise - every large problem I've solved started by solving a smaller version of the problem first. Things are tested on a small scale and ramped up once proven. I'd like to see something similar tried in relation to sustainable living. Try to solve the problem of being able to keep say, 10K people alive in a purpose-built environment - then scale it up in whatever works best. To me, that'd be a far loftier endeavour for human effort than getting a slightly faster iPhone out of a Chinese factory door each year.

Britain receives "foreign aid" every day. We call it "borrowing", and unlike genuine altruistic aid, we have to pay it back.

Do me a favour and source some of your assertions. Show me figures for this mass exodus of people from Cuba and Bolivia, and then show me that those people are leaving to pursue capitalism. From this net migration chart, what you say is true, but not very. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate In Bolivia, net migration is at -0.84 per thousand people. Cuba is slightly higher at -3.59 per thousand people. By your brilliant net migration standards, Iraq is a better place to live. As for foreign aid, what on earth do you think our debts are?

Ok, 1) Cuba. Revolution. Lot of people moved away for fear of their lives, or to be near relatives who fled, or to enjoy the numerous individual fruits that one gets living in Florida that one might not necessarily get in Castro's Cuba. 2) Bolivia. Landlocked country in South America with a relatively high proportion of people who can claim indigenous roots. Not exactly top of anyone's "I'm going to move there forever" list. I'm not missing any point. The Thatcher/Attlee comparison is utterly ridiculous. Thatcher's legacy still lives with us today. It's why "unprofitable" state-owned industries are creaming billions in profits at the UK taxpayer's expense, the only real difference being the nation that money goes to. Enjoy giving your money to France, do you? Given that Thatcher was willing to have millions on the dole in order to destroy British industry, I wouldn't be at all surprised if government spending went up during that period, financed with the short term gains from selling off the crown jewels.

The status quo that has us as second most in debt in the world, with each person owing $160,000 to the worlds' central bankers?