A little about where i'm from...

[McAvoy]

Japanese and a handful of South American countries love baseball. Just saying.

[Mikey]

That's rationalizing is it? I don't think so. As far as I'm aware the only place the word Football refers to your game is in the US. Here it's referred to as 'American Football'.

What's rationalizing is that the sport is indeed called "American football" over there, but the fact that we call it "football" still - after 1-1/2 centuries - bugs you enough that you have to make jokes about calling it "hand egg." Trust me, nobody over here has ever bought a ticket to a football game and been shocked to see a soccer match instead, nor has anyone over there gone to see soccer and by some semantic mishap ended up at an American football game. So why, exactly, do you care what we call it? As I've said before, we could call it "your mom's hairy ass" but a) that name is already taken by a picnic game and b) the etymology would be rather convoluted.

I think you misunderstand, it's not that we would like to stop you. It more that we just don't give a flying fuck for a game that only the US is interested in. It's just amusing that you think the game has any importance outside of the US/Canada. I view it a little like a small child putting his address down as including 'the solar system, the milky way galaxy, the universe'.

Equally amusing is the 'Mr Universe' competition, as if it was open to extraterrestrials.

No, I understand perfectly well. I even agreed about how ridiculous the title "World Series" is. Obviously, you do give at least a fraction of a flying fuck if you bothered to write even this much on the matter. And no, trust me - we definitely do not think that the game has any importance outside of the USA. Even the pro and semi-pro leagues in Japan, South Korea, and Latin America are viewed here primarily as talent development leagues for Major League Baseball. Just because Toronto still has a team, don't make the mistake of thinking that Canada attaches any importance to the sport. The point is that we have no reason to give enough of a shit about whether anyone else cares about the game to stop calling it the World Series... even when there WAS a true world championship.

[Captain Seafort]

Guess what? If you guys won the American Revolution, you could have had all the naming rights you wanted. Things went otherwise.

So why don't you call football "football", like the guys who won that war.

[Mikey]

Guess what? If you guys won the American Revolution, you could have had all the naming rights you wanted. Things went otherwise.

So why don't you call football "football", like the guys who won that war.

Way to deflect, but I'll go ahead and answer it anyway. There were two sides that were party to that war. One side won, the other lost. True, the Colonies had valuable - perhaps even integral - assistance from the French, from certain Poles, and others. The presence of that assistance changes nothing - we are no longer British colonies, even if the French helped. The point from which you were deflecting stands - if you had won, you could name everything the way you like. You didn't.

[Captain Seafort]

The point from which you were deflecting stands - if you had won, you could name everything the way you like. You didn't.

The logical corollary to that statement is that since the French won, they get to cast the deciding vote and call things the way they like.

[Mikey]

If by logical you mean "nonsensical," then yes. The French couldn't be the victors in a war in which they weren't one of the two parties to either victory or defeat. If the limeys had won, the French would likewise not have been the losers - merely the allies of the losers. All this is, of course, an aside to the fact that you are simply attempting to overstate the importance of French assistance to the Colonies in order to deflect from the fact of who lost that particular war.

[Captain Seafort]

The French couldn't be the victors in a war in which they weren't one of the two parties to either victory or defeat.

How exactly do you draw that conclusion when the decisive battle of the war was fought entirely by British and French forces, with no American involvement whatsoever?

[Mikey]

The French couldn't be the victors in a war in which they weren't one of the two parties to either victory or defeat.

How exactly do you draw that conclusion when the decisive battle of the war was fought entirely by British and French forces, with no American involvement whatsoever?

*sigh* I draw it very simply. The outcome of the war could provide one of two things - Colonial independence or the quelling of same. Id est, the colonists get what they want (American win/British defeat) or the limeys get what they want (British win/Colonial defeat.) The fact that the colonists had assistance cannot possibly change the aforementioned situation. Clearly you are still trying to use the fact of the Americans having help to draw attention away from the fact that the Brits lost, but there it is nonetheless.

If you still insist, we will defer to technicalities. O'Hara's (Cornwallis, if you recall, didn't even have the stones to show up) surrender was accepted neither by Rochambeau nor by Washington, but by Benjamin Lincoln - an American officer.

(BTW, the decisive battles of the war - Freeman's Farm and Bemis Heights, collectively known as the Battles of Saratoga - were fought by Americans with some small support from Taddeusz Kosciuszko against British and German forces, and initially some Native American recon on the Brits' behalf.)

[Captain Seafort]

The outcome of the war could provide one of two things - Colonial independence or the quelling of same.

The European theatre WW2 could have resulted in one of two things: Nazi domination of the continent to the Urals or the liberation of the continent (or its obliteration if we'd given up). Ergo the war was won by the USSR, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, etc. Leaving aside the fact that the USSR more or less did win the war, does this sound like a reasonable conclusion?

(BTW, the decisive battles of the war - Freeman's Farm and Bemis Heights, collectively known as the Battles of Saratoga - were fought by Americans with some small support from Taddeusz Kosciuszko against British and German forces, and initially some Native American recon on the Brits' behalf.)

Saratoga did not lead to a British withdrawal from the colonies, Yorktown did, and given the disparity between the forces available the outcome of the siege was a foregone conclusion once Cornwallis was deprived of the option of a withdrawal by sea. The decisive action was therefore the Battle of the Chesapeake.

[Mikey]

The European theatre WW2 could have resulted in one of two things: Nazi domination of the continent to the Urals or the liberation of the continent (or its obliteration if we'd given up). Ergo the war was won by the USSR, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, etc. Leaving aside the fact that the USSR more or less did win the war, does this sound like a reasonable conclusion?

It sounds absolutely and eminently reasonable, and is at complete odds with your assessment of the American Revolution. Here you say that the war was in essence won by dint of the Russian effort, but that victory belongs to the parties with a vested interest in the Nazi defeat. In your other position, you say that the war was won by France - which had a secondary interest, not primary, in the outcome of the war - because it was won by dint of French effort (about which you are, of course, being hyperbolic in order to avoid speaking about the reality of the British defeat.) If you are correct in the logic of your WW2 example (which I think you are,) then you cannot be correct in the opposing logic of your position on the American Revolution.

Saratoga did not lead to a British withdrawal from the colonies, Yorktown did, and given the disparity between the forces available the outcome of the siege was a foregone conclusion once Cornwallis was deprived of the option of a withdrawal by sea. The decisive action was therefore the Battle of the Chesapeake.

Well, speaking of TR-116... this is one of those things about which we probably shouldn't get too deep, because there is no way to determine anything other than subjectively. While we'll obviously agree on historical facts - them being facts and all - to "answer" this question would require an epistemological dissection of the meaning of "decisive" and the term's practical applications. You say that Chesapeake was the decisive battle, and use its effect on Yorktown to buttress that position. Very well, but one may say that the need to describe Chesapeake by its effects on Yorktown means that Yorktown was in fact the decisive battle. In my statement, I mentioned my tenet that the Battles of Saratoga were decisive: if Burgoyne hadn't lost a third of his army, been forced to surrender the rest, and been sent running back to Quebec with his tail between his legs, the future of the war would very probably have gone much worse for the colonists. Further, the outcome of Saratoga was instrumental in securing the help of the French, which as you say was instrumental to the American cause. Lastly, Saratoga set the framework for the American use of assymmetrical forces like Morgan's men at Freeman's Farm. There was a highlight for the British, though - because of the undue credit given him, Gates was given a command all the way through Camden... and having the Americans promote Gates was as much a help to the redcoats as you could have wanted.

[Captain Seafort]

It sounds absolutely and eminently reasonable, and is at complete odds with your assessment of the American Revolution.

The question was rhetorical, and the answer (which you got wrong) is "no". While not dismissing out of hand the contribution of the nations of continental Europe to the allied forces, those contributions were not critical to the allied victory - those of the US, the UK, and above all the USSR were.

You say that Chesapeake was the decisive battle, and use its effect on Yorktown to buttress that position. Very well, but one may say that the need to describe Chesapeake by its effects on Yorktown means that Yorktown was in fact the decisive battle.

The siege of Yorktown was a composite action rather than a single battle, and the Chesapeake was the crucial aspect of that, as it wasn't the fall of Yorktown per se that led to the British withdrawal, but the surrender of Cornwallis' army. If de Grasse hadn't driven off Graves' fleet, Yorktown would still have fallen, but Cornwallis would have been able to evacuate, and the defeat would not have been decisive.

if Burgoyne hadn't lost a third of his army, been forced to surrender the rest, and been sent running back to Quebec with his tail between his legs, the future of the war would very probably have gone much worse for the colonists. Further, the outcome of Saratoga was instrumental in securing the help of the French, which as you say was instrumental to the American cause.

Indeed, but that simply means that a British victory at Saratoga would likely have been decisive. As it actually turned out it was an important victory, and with hindsight the turning point in the war, but it did not in and of itself lead to a British withdrawal.

[Mikey]

those contributions were not critical to the allied victory - those of the US, the UK, and above all the USSR were.

Here's where we're at loggerheads: you're conflating "critical to the victory" with "being the victors of record." While we may say colloquially that "Russia really won the war for us" or you may say (hyperbolically) that "France really won the war for the colonies," meaning that the critical effort was provided by those named, the fact of being the actual victor of record is separate from that.

The siege of Yorktown was a composite action rather than a single battle, and the Chesapeake was the crucial aspect of that, as it wasn't the fall of Yorktown per se that led to the British withdrawal, but the surrender of Cornwallis' army. If de Grasse hadn't driven off Graves' fleet, Yorktown would still have fallen, but Cornwallis would have been able to evacuate, and the defeat would not have been decisive.

I tend to think that the fall of Yorktown would have directly precipitated O'Hara's surrender and British withdrawal, even if such hadn't occurred immediately following the loss. Any further discussion on the matter is, of course, speculation. As it is, one may say equally that Yorktown wouldn't have been undertaken successfully, even if Graves' fleet had triumphed, without a the successful assault on Redoubts #9 and #10.

Indeed, but that simply means that a British victory at Saratoga would likely have been decisive.

Thusly, averting a decisive defeat is in itself decisive.

As it actually turned out it was an important victory, and with hindsight the turning point in the war,

Indeed - a being a turning point in the war is the pinnacle of decisiveness.

but it did not in and of itself lead to a British withdrawal.

The Battles of Saratoga did not independently and immediately lead to a British withdrawal - but such is not a criterion for naming them "decisive victories."

[Captain Seafort]

Here's where we're at loggerheads: you're conflating "critical to the victory" with "being the victors of record." While we may say colloquially that "Russia really won the war for us" or you may say (hyperbolically) that "France really won the war for the colonies," meaning that the critical effort was provided by those named, the fact of being the actual victor of record is separate from that.

No, it isn't. Other nations may benefit from the outcome, but the victors are those whose contribution was decisive.

Thusly, averting a decisive defeat is in itself decisive. Indeed - a being a turning point in the war is the pinnacle of decisiveness. The Battles of Saratoga did not independently and immediately lead to a British withdrawal - but such is not a criterion for naming them "decisive victories."

Saratoga was important, certainly, but the identification of it as a turning point only comes with hindsight - it was far from clear at the time that the long-term effect of the battle would be British withdrawal, and therefore the actions cannot be said to have decided the central issue of the war.

[stitch626]

Here's where we're at loggerheads: you're conflating "critical to the victory" with "being the victors of record." While we may say colloquially that "Russia really won the war for us" or you may say (hyperbolically) that "France really won the war for the colonies," meaning that the critical effort was provided by those named, the fact of being the actual victor of record is separate from that.

No, it isn't. Other nations may benefit from the outcome, but the victors are those whose contribution was decisive.

So does that mean Hitler won the war for you guys, by being a decisive egomaniac/idiot?

[Captain Seafort]

So does that mean Hitler won the war for you guys, by being a decisive egomaniac/idiot?

No, because there was still a lot of hard fighting to be done despite the advantage gained through Hitler's incompetence - as I said earlier, the key contributor was the Red Army.