*Please note this is a windup (although with what i may say later my gang of groupies will say no no no).
I saw an interview with the young lady whose father was shot in the head, by Bird (the basttard - this shows my attitude), and what she said was nothing short of amazing and completely christian. She said i feel no anger towards Bird as he was a sick man and i forgive him.
Now i know i've already said it, but i'll say it again - that is amazing - what a really nice lady.
So now for the WUM bit - as playing devils advocate does often get debates down to the nitty gritty (although sadly there are very few posters who can debate properly, i.e play the ball, but simpy attack the player, so zoom back to a point a poster called Stanley made - whose views are misinterpretted although he may have been a bit racist. The latter semtence is however utterly and completely irrelevent to debating because if someone is a bit racist they still have a view and there would be no debate nor democracy with one party comunism. I know for a fact i'll be attacked for the WUMMY point i will eventually suggest as a theory (not a fact as you cannot talk factually about suposition and theory) but that will be a shame. Not only for me, but for the point of the lounge which is or should be about conversation with a degree of adultness. I love knowledge and thrive on it, so if you believe i'm wrong i really would love to hear why you think as much. That said most of us are adults and as such have ingrined beliefs. ESB says leopards can never change their spots - ESB is partly right, but not completely because indisputeable fact is indisputeable fact.
So looking back to the remarkable lady in Cumbria do you think that Britain would be better or worse off in 2010 (not in the intervening years) if we'd sided with Hitler. The objective words are "do you think" and to be able to think you do need a grasp of historical knowledge. History shows that Britain did what Germany did on the continent and held not only an empire, but the greatest empire the world has ever seen and will ever see (as far as is humanly possible to forsee at present although that's a very uneducated view to take - therfore on second thoughts i retract that comment but cannot be arsed to delete it because it may well add something that i'm failing to see. I digress - would Britain be better if we'd sided with the nazis - and i've mention pur colonial heritage, but we did not have gas chambers. Well I would suggest that this is because zyclon b had not been invented because you'd have to be very optimistic not to believe that when putting down rebbelions and punishing tribes and groups that opposed us we wouldn't have wished and endeavered to erradicate them. It is a fact, not a well lnown fact because the victors of war the ruling classes control the national curriculum and the not so free press, but from 1950 - 1960 100,000 mau mau terrorists and rebels (or freedom fighters and patriots) were murdered through starvation, ill treatment, torture which was turned a blind eye to by those at the highest levels (they probably even discreatly encouraged it). And the nationb responsible was Britain, the perpetrators were the British Army, the political wing was the foreign office (called something else in those days) and the British general public (although obviously unaware of the extent of the attrocities) would, i'd wager, think the acts not nice, but they (and when i say they i mean most Brits) would have had the attitude that the preservation of what was rightfully ous(again a common view then and still a view held by some still - cue abuse but again that's boring and water off a ducks back) was to be defended. Sp to go back yet again to the wummy point in the thread the similarities because ours and germanys actions are .... er.... starkly similar. That is without going into the similarities between us and the Germans (note none of that ayrian crap because an ayran in this day and age is as feasible an finding a member of the Jewish race (which died out at the time of tutankhamun give or take a few thousand years ha ha (covers me from the smartsres). As Northern Europeans we are very more more alike not only in our accents and languages, but in our attitides and this is why the British and the Dutch were so good at empire building. So were the europeans so that point is actually utter ********, but we built our sucess on land that wasn't so ripe dor civilisation to flourish so what we did was more remarkable. Yes Britain is a green and pleasant land, but before the days of mechanisation they had it easier and in places such as spain desertification hadn't began in those days. It was our stoic and resilient ingrained attitude (enforced by the ruling elite) and the French threat, and farmer geroge and others, that fuelled the need for the industrial revoltion. It can be argued that Germany/Prussia has always been more militaristic in the attitudes of it's people, but being continental that was as necessary as our naval defence. At waterloo Wellington only defeated Boneparte because by chance the Prussian army found the battle site and provided reinforcements and were it not for the Germans/Prussians we would all speaking French but that doesn't mean that we'd have public guilloting at the Bargate to watch while shopping, just like Me Whippy wouldn't have his ice cream dispenser loaded with zyclon b and a quick release hatch to net the children with big noses pr ginger hair.
Therefore I put to everyone that had we sided with the nazis britain today wouldn't necessarily be any worse than it is today and it could quite possibly (although i'm by no means suggesting possibly means positively) be better.
