The Battle of Britain Was The First Defeat For The German Luftwaffe.

[bongodriver]

it was a mere provocation, I think that opinions that we don't like reading (probably cos they're true) shouldn't be dismissed merely cos they are on a newspaper that leans towards a certain political side.

I'm serously trying to avoid provocation here, what if a person doesn't like reading something because it's NOT true.

[Bewolf]

Indeed...

Hang on....

A thought just germinated.....

HAVE THEY FIXED THE DAMN GAME YET!!!!!!! :grin:

Regards Mike

We certainly all appear a bit bored while waiting to settle the argument on the virtual battlefield, hehe

[Bewolf]

I'm serously trying to avoid provocation here, what if a person doesn't like reading something because it's NOT true.

The article had a couple good points though. So why do you think it's not true?

[bongodriver]

The article had a couple good points though. So why do you think it's not true?

do a couple of good points equate to the truth?

[bongodriver]

the main point of that article was about how Germans are used as the bad guys in video games.......I don't think the British can be held responsible for the video games industry, also I find it very offensive that people use our 'football hooligans' as the definitive ambassadors for what Britain is all about.

[Bewolf]

the main point of that article was about how Germans are used as the bad guys in video games.......I don't think the British can be held responsible for the video games industry, also I find it very offensive that people use our 'football hooligans' as the definitive ambassadors for what Britain is all about.

Uff.....

[bongodriver]

Uff.....

Can I assume this means Uff da?.....as in so what....poor you? or whatever it means

[Bewolf]

Can I assume this means Uff da?.....as in so what....poor you? or whatever it means

What else should I react like? If that is what you get out of the article...well, there's not much left to say.

[bongodriver]

What else should I react like? If that is what you get out of the article...well, there's not much left to say.

Well it was the only point with any validity with regards to an unfair image of the germans, did you not notice most of the other stuff mentioned was about Hitler and Nazism?.....or do you think that Hitler also is getting a rough deal here?

[Blackdog_kt]

Personal opinion on the matter:

Germany couldn't win, some people high up knew it and some were delusional and thought they would. (go back a few pages and read the account of that military exercise).

Overall, they made a half-hearted attempt to force the UK to sue for peace and "close" down one front before starting the second one in the East. It didn't work, they moved on.

The UK couldn't take the fight back to the Germans either for quite some time and when it tried to, it got appalling results (cross-channel raids all the way until the Dieppe fiasco).

Long story short, given the benefit of hindsight and looking at the big picture, things were on a stalemate ever since Dunkirk and until 1942 at least and even then, the turning of the tides occurred mostly in the East (Stalingrad, N.Africa and the Pacific front).

The UK can call this a German defeat because it didn't meet the stated aims (conquering Britain), the other side can call it an effort doomed from the start and they would both be correct.

My personal belief is that most of the sane people in the German high command were looking to force Britain out of the war to secure their flanks before Barbarrossa, the conquering talk was mostly intimidating bravado and propaganda. The British didn't know it at the time so they acted like it was true (better safe than sorry after all) and that's why this registers as a victory to them. The Germans were divided between those who believed their own tale and thus considered it a defeat, and those who viewed it as a side-show from the start and didn't. I think all three opinions are valid for people who were engaged in the battle in whatever capacity.

Moderating notes: I haven't read the entire thread because i was out of town for a couple of days, came back to a multi-pager and i half-knew where it was bound to end up seeing the one-liner opening post.

I've been tempted to lock it every time i take a peek throughout the last few days, but it would be a shame to lose whatever valid comments exist. I will if the slagging matches persist though. The ones so engaged, get off your high horses and agree to disagree sometime instead of getting all personal, otherwise the thread will be locked and you'll spoil it for everyone else. At the very least i see it getting moved to the pilot's lounge as a first step if this persists, then locking if things don't improve.

[Bewolf]

Well it was the only point with any validity with regards to an unfair image of the germans, did you not notice most of the other stuff mentioned was about Hitler and Nazism?.....or do you think that Hitler also is getting a rough deal here?

This article was not about the germans. It was about the british. I played enough Call of Duty like games and had too much fun flying a Tempests or Mustangs in IL2 to care too much if germans are getting killed in video games, I had too much fun doing that. It's just games, after all, and good entertainment on top.

Out of pure curiosuity..please could you explain to me your line of thought that made you attach certain criticism of british attitudes with a support for Hitler?

[ATAG_Dutch]

'It is surely time to consign the Nazis not to oblivion but at least to history'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/22/britain-nazi-obsession-insecurity-history

I'm surprised at this comment from any journalist of any nationality or political persuasion, given the ongoing battle against the neo-nazi fraternity, in many nations including the UK.

(although I knew about the 'Spoons of the Third Reich' book some months ago. Kept me laughing for days!)

[Bewolf]

'It is surely time to consign the Nazis not to oblivion but at least to history'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/22/britain-nazi-obsession-insecurity-history

I'm surprised at this comment from any journalist of any nationality or political persuasion, given the ongoing battle against the neo-nazi fraternity, in many nations including the UK.


With all due respect. You fight Nazis by removing the conditions that make their rise possible or more likely, not by showing people again and again that a man with a mustach and a swastika on his arm is bad news and using them to win an argument on a constant basis.

And now I have to go to the garage and get my car fixed. Laters no doubt =)

[bongodriver]

Out of pure curiosuity..please could you explain to me your line of thought that made you attach certain criticism of british attitudes with a support for Hitler?

When people suggest our Victory celebrations should be regarded as offensive to Germans it's easy to assume that said Germans forget what was really being fought against, so if the Germans feel so hard done by do they feel their war was just? the 'British' attitudes in regards to celebrating achievements in WWII seem no different to the celebrations of the USA's equivalents.....they just don't seem to be faced with the same criticism.

so with that in mind, could you explain to me why every time a Brit celebrates surviving a conflict and coming out on top (with help....nobody denies it), fighting against a widely aknowleged force for evil, we just get labeled as Nationalist idiots with an 'empire mentality'

[Kurfürst]

Dunkirk (and to an extent the Norwegian Campaign) shows demonstrable precedent that air superiority alone cannot be a guarantor of operational success. Despite the immense tonnage of bombs dropped by the Luftwaffe at Dunkirk, against targets which were stationary for long periods of time, and at best extremely restricted in movement by the harbour.......a paltry 4 destroyers were sunk.

Not that I disagree with the idea that air superiority , but the Dunkirk record of bombers vs ships is a bit misleading, the bombers concentrated most of the time on the beaches (with dense concentration of troops) and the twon, and not ton the ships themselves. AFAIK the ships only received their attention in the last couple of days, and there were far more than just '4 destroyers' sunk.

It was the number of RN destroyers sunk by air attack, but two more were sunk by a Schnellboot and a U-boot, three on the the 29 May and another three on the 1 June. The French also lost a destoyer to air attack on the 1st, and two others to mine/S-boot in the previous days. However, 19 other destroyers were damaged and more or less rendered inservicable in a matter of days and about 200 smaller seacraft was also sunk.

[bongodriver]

With all due respect. You fight Nazis by removing the conditions that make their rise possible or more likely, not by showing people again and again that a man with a mustach and a swastika on his arm is bad news and using them to win an argument on a constant basis.

With all due respect how is that achieveable without resorting to techniques that they were infamous for, we fought a war for democracy and freedom of speech, even if that means you choose to be a Nazi. can you explain to me what constitutes the condition for cultivating a Nazi (appart from letting the French humiliate them)

[Sternjaeger II]

Blackdog, thanks for your input (I agree on both sides), on my part I'll do my best to keep it sober and polite.

Bongo, try and imagine for a second playing a videogame where you're a Nazi officer infiltrating in England and killing Tommies, would you play it?

I'll give you another example: I have no trouble playing with a sim and shooting down another aeroplane (even if, somewhere remotely in the back of my mind, there's always a "concern" in checking that parachutes pop out, and yes, I know it's a game, but after years of reading accounts of the dreadful missions of bomber planes I just can't help it... then sometimes I find myself strafing the parachutes.. go figure..), but I remember playing Hidden and Dangerous 2, a mission in Sicily, and having to shoot at Italian soldiers there.

For the first time in my life I felt a certain discomfort, it didn't last long and I was quickly sucked back in the game again, but it was there, and it was weird indeed..

[Kurfürst]

Personal opinion on the matter:

Germany couldn't win, some people high up knew it and some were delusional and thought they would. (go back a few pages and read the account of that military exercise).

Overall, they made a half-hearted attempt to force the UK to sue for peace and "close" down one front before starting the second one in the East. It didn't work, they moved on.

The UK couldn't take the fight back to the Germans either for quite some time and when it tried to, it got appalling results (cross-channel raids all the way until the Dieppe fiasco).

Long story short, given the benefit of hindsight and looking at the big picture, things were on a stalemate ever since Dunkirk and until 1942 at least and even then, the turning of the tides occurred mostly in the East (Stalingrad, N.Africa and the Pacific front).

The UK can call this a German defeat because it didn't meet the stated aims (conquering Britain), the other side can call it an effort doomed from the start and they would both be correct.

My personal belief is that most of the sane people in the German high command were looking to force Britain out of the war to secure their flanks before Barbarrossa, the conquering talk was mostly intimidating bravado and propaganda. The British didn't know it at the time so they acted like it was true (better safe than sorry after all) and that's why this registers as a victory to them. The Germans were divided between those who believed their own tale and thus considered it a defeat, and those who viewed it as a side-show from the start and didn't. I think all three opinions are valid for people who were engaged in the battle in whatever capacity.

+1

One of the best summaries I have read about it in while..

[bongodriver]

Bongo, try and imagine for a second playing a videogame where you're a Nazi officer infiltrating in England and killing Tommies, would you play it?

if they ever made one....absolutely, but it's not that different to playing clod as a LW pilot, or day of defeat as a German......all of which I have done....your point?

[Sternjaeger II]

When people suggest our Victory celebrations should be regarded as offensive to Germans it's easy to assume that said Germans forget what was really being fought against, so if the Germans feel so hard done by do they feel their war was just? the 'British' attitudes in regards to celebrating achievements in WWII seem no different to the celebrations of the USA's equivalents.....they just don't seem to be faced with the same criticism.

so with that in mind, could you explain to me why every time a Brit celebrates surviving a conflict and coming out on top (with help....nobody denies it), fighting against a widely aknowleged force for evil, we just get labeled as Nationalist idiots with an 'empire mentality'

no, it's more a case of how selective celebrations are. Can you think of any recurrent celebrations linked to the successes in the Pacific? The Falklands or the victory against the IRA? Or any other conflicts for the matter? Not even WW1 gets as much covering and celebration than the Battle of Britain (even if poppies are ideally inspired to WW1).

Truth is that nobody (apart for the neonazi nutters) can dispute the Evil of Nazism, so it became "THE Evil" that brave Britain fought against, but it's again more done for the sake of national insecurity than anything else.

It got me thinking some time ago: out of all the European countries, Great Britain is the only one with SO much celebration about WW2, and for a buff like me and you it surely is paradise, but have you ever wondered why it doesn't happen as much in the rest of Europe?

[ATAG_Dutch]

You fight Nazis by removing the conditions that make their rise possible

Hmm... I'm sure you don't mean by daft methods like banning the swastika from plastic models and computer games, but I'm interested in how this would be achieved socially and politically without compromising democracy.

When your car's fixed that is. I'm still waiting for my new graphics card. Yesterday the driver of a reputable courier service couldn't find the address. That'll teach me to pay the extra £6.00 for next day delivery. I'm such a stingebag.

[csThor]

With all due respect how is that achieveable without resorting to techniques that they were infamous for, we fought a war for democracy and freedom of speech, even if that means you choose to be a Nazi. can you explain to me what constitutes the condition for cultivating a Nazi (appart from letting the French humiliate them)

No war was ever fought for noble intentions. That label was slapped on it but given the british behavior in their own colonies (i.e. India) I would very much doubt that the british political establishment of the 1930s and 1940 even had an idea what real democracy was about. British politics of that time could be summarized as "Old Boys Club" containing the same old elites which had been the rulers ever since William the Conqueror had set foot on the island. And, although this is a very personal opinion and contains a lot of irony on my part, Empires do not deal in democratic terms, do they? ;)

[Sternjaeger II]

if they ever made one....absolutely, but it's not that different to playing clod as a LW pilot, or day of defeat as a German......all of which I have done....your point?

my point is that as much as you are feeling comfortable, others may not. And yes, it's a matter of not playing that, but knowing that it's there and what it represents.. I dunno man..

[bongodriver]

no, it's more a case of howselective celebrations are. Can you think of any recurrent celebrations linked to the successes in the Pacific? The Falklands or the victory against the IRA? Or any other conflicts for the matter? Not even WW1 gets as much covering and celebration than the Battle of Britain (even if poppies are ideally inspired to WW1).

Well here is where you prove how resistant you are to understand, the battle of britain is celebrated by the British because we were the ones fighting for our survival, we dont force anybody else to celebrate it, it's significance to us is simply that if we hadn't survived then the war for us would have been over at that instant and we would have been under the control of the Nazis....is that not enough of a 'phew!! christ we made it and were still alive, lets rejoice the efforts our brave lads made getting us therough that one' for you?

[Kurfürst]

so with that in mind, could you explain to me why every time a Brit celebrates surviving a conflict and coming out on top (with help....nobody denies it), fighting against a widely aknowleged force for evil, we just get labeled as Nationalist idiots with an 'empire mentality'

Being concerned about maintaining colonial empires AND freedom and democracy at the same time is tended to be raise doubt, especially if in practice it means mean that a small group of privileged being have all the rights and 99% of the others don't. Being concerned about the freedm German-occupied Poles but not Soviet-occupied Poles, and state of democracy in Europe but not in India, Egypt, South Africa (... its a long list) tends to make people believe you're just another imperialist, who happened to realize he just met the bigger dog in the neighbourhood..

Probably has to do a lot with Churchill - he seems pretty concerned about maintaining the largest colonial empire at that time.

"What General Weygand has called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.

But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour."

[bongodriver]

No war was ever fought for noble intentions. That label was slapped on it but given the british behavior in their own colonies (i.e. India) I would very much doubt that the british political establishment of the 1930s and 1940 even had an idea what real democracy was about. British politics of that time could be summarized as "Old Boys Club" containing the same old elites which had been the rulers ever since William the Conqueror had set foot on the island. And, although this is a very personal opinion and contains a lot of irony on my part, Empires do not deal in democratic terms, do they? ;)

at the time the empires were being forged no, you are right, nothing democratic anout it and I have said before I am not comfortable with the means used....it is however now history, at the time of WWII, what was left of the 'empire' was largely democratic.

[bongodriver]

Colonial empire?....do people really believe we were holding them all to ransom, WWII was a perfect opportunity for the empire to say 'sod you mate youre on your own'....what the hell could we have done about it?

[Sternjaeger II]

Well here is where you prove how resistant you are to understand, the battle of britain is celebrated by the British because we were the ones fighting for our survival, we dont force anybody else to celebrate it, it's significance to us is simply that if we hadn't survived then the war for us would have been over at that instant and we would have been under the control of the Nazis....is that not enough of a 'phew!! christ we made it and were still alive, lets rejoice the efforts our brave lads made getting us therough that one' for you?

of course it is, and I understand this perfectly.

One thing though is mourning the fallen and celebrating their efforts for the defense of your country (a sentiment that should be common to ALL countries), another is celebrating the thing as if it was a victory over a football match.

It's really true that you're obsessed with this: last year for the first time I heard the (in)famous chant "Two world wars and one world cup, doo-dah doo-dah!", which might be silly to you, but it resumes pretty well the blur of it. Have you ever heard any other nation doing banter chants about any war? Probably not, cos it's out of place and context. And I'm sorry, but to me there's no excuse for it, if you really have respect for your opponents.

So yes, I accept an attitude of "well done all of us, let's remember the efforts our ancestors made 71 years ago and learn from it", but "yeeeeeah there you go you boche ba$tards, we won the battle of britain, so you can stick your nazi boots up your ar$es" is something that I could have accepted only in the 40s.

The example made in the article about Fawlty Towers "don't mention the war" (or Blackadder for the matter) skit is another example of how you have used "the war" for everything: celebration, drama, comedy, sport etc..

[Al Schlageter]

Not that I disagree with the idea that air superiority , but the Dunkirk record of bombers vs ships is a bit misleading, the bombers concentrated most of the time on the beaches (with dense concentration of troops) and the twon, and not ton the ships themselves. AFAIK the ships only received their attention in the last couple of days, and there were far more than just '4 destroyers' sunk.

It was the number of RN destroyers sunk by air attack, but two more were sunk by a Schnellboot and a U-boot, three on the the 29 May and another three on the 1 June. The French also lost a destoyer to air attack on the 1st, and two others to mine/S-boot in the previous days. However, 19 other destroyers were damaged and more or less rendered inservicable in a matter of days and about 200 smaller seacraft was also sunk.

RN
* Grafton, sunk by U-62 on 29 May;
* Grenade, sunk by air attack off the east pier at Dunkirk on 29 May;
* Wakeful, sunk by a torpedo from the Schnellboot (E-boat) S-30 on 29 May;
* Basilisk, Havant and Keith, sunk by air attack off the beaches on 1 June.

French Navy
* Bourrasque, mined off Nieuport on 30 May;
* Sirocco, sunk by the Schnellboote S-23 and S-26 on 31 May;
* Le Foudroyant, sunk by air attack off the beaches on 1 June.

sunk out of 39 Destroyers participating.

It would appear that none were lost on the open sea to air attack.

[bongodriver]

"Two world wars and one world cup, doo-dah doo-dah!",

Thats generalizing mate, have I chanted that? has anyone on this thread chanted that? have I suggested that chant is something to be proud of? have you any evidence that it is the wider view of the British public?........no

One thing though is mourning the fallen and celebrating their efforts for the defense of your country (a sentiment that should be common to ALL countries), another is celebrating the thing as if it was a victory over a football match.

Proof of ignorance, that is exactly what it was, a victory for our fight to survive....so we honour the people that made the ultimate saccrifce for it, where the hell does a football match come in to it?

[bongodriver]

It got me thinking some time ago: out of all the European countries, Great Britain is the only one with SO much celebration about WW2, and for a buff like me and you it surely is paradise, but have you ever wondered why it doesn't happen as much in the rest of Europe?


Not being funny or anything and with no disrespect to the rest of europe....it's probably to do with the fact we remained the only european country that had anything to celebrate.......is that not obvious?

[bongodriver]

The example made in the article about Fawlty Towers "don't mention the war" (or Blackadder for the matter) skit is another example of how you have used "the war" for everything: celebration, drama, comedy, sport etc..

So we can laugh at ourselves.....now I'm confused, are you saying having a sense of humour and being able to laught at our own faults is offensive, Basil Faulty is portrayed as a bufoon, Blackadder is a subject of pure comedy, and the whole series was taking the mick out of all those bad things you are highlighting.

[kendo65]

Personal opinion on the matter:

Germany couldn't win, some people high up knew it and some were delusional and thought they would. (go back a few pages and read the account of that military exercise).

Overall, they made a half-hearted attempt to force the UK to sue for peace and "close" down one front before starting the second one in the East. It didn't work, they moved on.

The UK couldn't take the fight back to the Germans either for quite some time and when it tried to, it got appalling results (cross-channel raids all the way until the Dieppe fiasco).

Long story short, given the benefit of hindsight and looking at the big picture, things were on a stalemate ever since Dunkirk and until 1942 at least and even then, the turning of the tides occurred mostly in the East (Stalingrad, N.Africa and the Pacific front).

The UK can call this a German defeat because it didn't meet the stated aims (conquering Britain), the other side can call it an effort doomed from the start and they would both be correct.

My personal belief is that most of the sane people in the German high command were looking to force Britain out of the war to secure their flanks before Barbarrossa, the conquering talk was mostly intimidating bravado and propaganda. The British didn't know it at the time so they acted like it was true (better safe than sorry after all) and that's why this registers as a victory to them. The Germans were divided between those who believed their own tale and thus considered it a defeat, and those who viewed it as a side-show from the start and didn't. I think all three opinions are valid for people who were engaged in the battle in whatever capacity.
es persist though.

I've got a few niggles with 'half-hearted attempt', but overall a fair and balanced appraisal.

Sternjaeger if you are willing to agree with this bit now:

"The UK can call this a German defeat because it didn't meet the stated aims (conquering Britain)"

then why all the arguing and defensiveness in the last 40-odd pages?! (edit: 50-odd pages. Cant keep track of this thread :) )

[csThor]

Humor is always good, being able to laugh about oneself is even better.

From a German's perspective, however, it seems to be some kind of "popular culture" to constantly harp on about "the war". It's everywhere, in football, in the yellow press, in some of these mindless chants ... To me it does leave the impression that Great Britain is nowadays nothing more than a little poor island full of sad people who have nothing to be happy about and so they bring up times long gone whenever appropriate and especially when not.

And as for the British Empire I am absolutely convinced the only reason the colonies were given independence after WW2 is that GB no longer could afford the costs (political, military and especially financially) to keep them occupied and to suppress the local drive for independence. Otherwise GB might have found itself in the same position as France with the nasty wars in Indochina and Algeria.

[kendo65]

...
It got me thinking some time ago: out of all the European countries, Great Britain is the only one with SO much celebration about WW2, and for a buff like me and you it surely is paradise, but have you ever wondered why it doesn't happen as much in the rest of Europe?

I would say the Russians could be on a similar level to the UK, and for similar reasons - finishing as victors.

All the other European countries have painful memories of defeat and occupation. Best forgotten.

For the victors (in any conflict...?) there is more of a tendency to view it as a nation-defining achievement (though how long a country should keep clinging to its past glories is a valid question to raise)

[bongodriver]

From a German's perspective, however, it seems to be some kind of "popular culture" to constantly harp on about "the war". It's everywhere, in football, in the yellow press, in some of these mindless chants ... To me it does leave the impression that Great Britain is nowadays nothing more than a little poor island full of sad people who have nothing to be happy about and so they bring up times long gone whenever appropriate and especially when not.

All I ask is that people don't generalise and use these examples as what Britain is all about, I fail to see the difference in that and what the British are accused of.

And as for the British Empire I am absolutely convinced the only reason the colonies were given independence after WW2 is that GB no longer could afford the costs (political, military and especially financially) to keep them occupied and to suppress the local drive for independence. Otherwise GB might have found itself in the same position as France with the nasty wars in Indochina and Algeria.

Quite....but what about the ones who havent become independent? what is the massive gun we are holding to their heads?

[bongodriver]

For the victors (in any conflict...?) there is more of a tendency to view it as a nation-defining achievement (though how long a country should keep clinging to its past glories is a valid question to raise)

Why?......not really going to make any difference other than history being forgotten........whats that saying again?

[kendo65]

True. I'm all for remembering and marking the sacrifices and achievements of those years.

But maybe a nation (especially one with such a grand, imperial past as GB) can define itself too much by its past achievements. Reliving the past can maybe become an unhealthy attempt to avoid difficult choices in the present (?) (aircraft carriers with no aircraft, clinging onto the nuclear club, our continued addiction to 'punching above our weight' in various foreign conflicts under the last two governments.)

That last paragraph is more throwing a question in the air than saying i necessarily subscribe to that position.

I also don't think that most Brits (with the possible exception of Daily Telegraph readers ;)) have that strong identification with Empire and glory that some of the posters in this thread seem to believe.

[Sternjaeger II]

All I ask is that people don't generalise and use these examples as what Britain is all about, I fail to see the difference in that and what the British are accused of.

Nobody is accusing the British of anything here, but a certain popular behaviour should be firmly condemned, not giggled upon or dismissed, not only because it's out of place, but because it embarrasses the British that don't think in that way. Same goes with humour: with SO many themes to joke upon, why the war one is SO recurrent!? :confused:


Quite....but what about the ones who havent become independent? what is the massive gun we are holding to their heads?

I'm not gonna go on this one, too off topic.

[Sternjaeger II]

Thats generalizing mate, have I chanted that? has anyone on this thread chanted that? have I suggested that chant is something to be proud of? have you any evidence that it is the wider view of the British public?........no

well maybe you haven't chanted it here, but you can say you NEVER chanted it, or giggled when you heard it? Come on..


Proof of ignorance, that is exactly what it was, a victory for our fight to survive....so we honour the people that made the ultimate saccrifce for it, where the hell does a football match come in to it?

that's exactly my question..

[Sternjaeger II]

I would say the Russians could be on a similar level to the UK, and for similar reasons - finishing as victors.

All the other European countries have painful memories of defeat and occupation. Best forgotten.

I don't think it's advisable to compare GB to Russia, the scales are VERY hard to match there..

For the victors (in any conflict...?) there is more of a tendency to view it as a nation-defining achievement (though how long a country should keep clinging to its past glories is a valid question to raise)

yep, how long? Is it because ww2 was probably the first well documented conflict of history and is still so vivid in our memories, and many vets are still around?

[Sternjaeger II]

I've got a few niggles with 'half-hearted attempt', but overall a fair and balanced appraisal.

Sternjaeger if you are willing to agree with this bit now:

"The UK can call this a German defeat because it didn't meet the stated aims (conquering Britain)"

then why all the arguing and defensiveness in the last 40-odd pages?! (edit: 50-odd pages. Cant keep track of this thread :) )

I thought that by now we agreed that the attempt was half-hearted?

As for the agreeing, the fact that the UK can call something a victory doesn't mean that it actually was one. So as much as I do understand why in Britain it's perceived as a victory, doesn't change the facts of the conflict.

[blackmme]

I thought that by now we agreed that the attempt was half-hearted?

As for the agreeing, the fact that the UK can call something a victory doesn't mean that it actually was one. So as much as I do understand why in Britain it's perceived as a victory, doesn't change the facts of the conflict.

I think we are absolutely back at square one. No positions have changed. We should all stop going around in circles and let people read the thread and propose their own points and arguments from here on in....

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

I think we are absolutely back at square one. No positions have changed. We should all stop going around in circles and let people read the thread and propose their own points and arguments from here on in....

Regards Mike

how about some tea and biscuits while we're at it? :mrgreen:

[JimmyBlonde]

The facts of the conflict are that no further attempts were made to invade Britain.

Whether the initial attempt was half-hearted is irrelevant, the outcome ensured that Nazi Germany ran out of time and resources to accomplish its aims due to their preoccupation with more important campaigns.

Had the Luftwaffe swept aside the RAF as intended, and as they probably could have done, that would have been a defeat for Britain whether the invasion was a success or not. There's no middle ground, a costly victory is still a victory even though it might lead to disaster further down the track which, in this case, it didn't.

Would you say that the Channel Dash was a German victory? They got their ships through the channel at a high price but, after the Channel Dash, those ships contributed practically nothing to the war effort. They basically drained resources from other areas and were eventually destroyed.

But they got through the channel.

The RAF clearly contributed greatly to the war after BoB so that compounds the miracle of their survival and, to my mind, adds weight to the argument that BoB was a defeat for the Germans and a victory for the British.

[Bewolf]

When people suggest our Victory celebrations should be regarded as offensive to Germans it's easy to assume that said Germans forget what was really being fought against, so if the Germans feel so hard done by do they feel their war was just? the 'British' attitudes in regards to celebrating achievements in WWII seem no different to the celebrations of the USA's equivalents.....they just don't seem to be faced with the same criticism.

That is your problem. Nobody ever said your victory celebrations are an offense to anybody. That was entirely your interpretation. What was said is that your victory celebrations are blinding you to an objective perspective. Once again you spin this into some kind of attack. With other words, you warp others arguments into an attack, for whatever reasons.


so with that in mind, could you explain to me why every time a Brit celebrates surviving a conflict and coming out on top (with help....nobody denies it), fighting against a widely aknowleged force for evil, we just get labeled as Nationalist idiots with an 'empire mentality'

No, can't explain that, because nobody did that but yourself. So you may want to ask yourself why you feel offended all the time. Now if you can't take what people say the way it is you should not wonder if those people go nuts eventually. And don't come up with Kongo Otto again, I am not him, neither is Stern, nor anybody else.



With all due respect how is that achieveable without resorting to techniques that they were infamous for, we fought a war for democracy and freedom of speech, even if that means you choose to be a Nazi. can you explain to me what constitutes the condition for cultivating a Nazi (appart from letting the French humiliate them)

The techniques used by the Nazis were neither new nor have not been employed later on by other nations. In fact, those means are still very much alive and kicking these days. Just look at the US and how Bush manipulated to the public into marching into Iraq. Or the picture Islam has taken in western society. Or more and more surveillance by governments to look after their citizens. Despite decades of Nazi docmentaries and debates the same things are happening right in front of our eyes with nobody caring a bit about it. So please do not tell me that using the Nazis had done naything so far to prevent developments the Nazis were famous for.

And finally, there we have this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ0mdxXw8Ac

which is just the absolute climax of anglo saxon nations dealing with the Nazis. Its nuts.

[nearmiss]

There is no doubt that the soldiers and aviators on both sides were fighting for their lives. When the fight is to the death it is never a half hearted anything. Both sides were giving up their lives every day, and you can be assured there was no half hearted effort in the cockpits of either Germany or Britain.

Goering may have been a putz, but the Luftwaffe was not.

Sadly, the German and British soldiers died because they were just in the way. Seems like it, when you realize ole Hitler just changed the war front, and effectively wasted all those people and resources in the Battle of Britain.

Thousands of people died, military and civilian and the jerk just diverted to the other side of Europe. Taking Britain was just a half effort to Hitler, and if that jerk had to fight his way out of a paper sack (personally) he couldn't have done zip. THe little coward proved it up well when he committed suicide, rather than face any kind of punishment for his debauchery.

I say Britain was the winner, because all the power of Luftwaffe was directed towards Britain and the losses were greater militarily for Germany than Britain. The Germans were getting the snot kicked out of them on a daily basis, and it didn't seem to matter how many planes they had in the air they lost huge lots of them on every raid.

Hitler thought defeating Britain would be easy. Figuratively speaking, Hitler got his hand in the mouth of a bear.

History has it's facts and distortions, which is what future generations will share.

Another 15 years and there will probably not be a single survivor left alive on either side that fought in WW2 to corroborate anything.

[Bewolf]

Hmm... I'm sure you don't mean by daft methods like banning the swastika from plastic models and computer games, but I'm interested in how this would be achieved socially and politically without compromising democracy.

When your car's fixed that is. I'm still waiting for my new graphics card. Yesterday the driver of a reputable courier service couldn't find the address. That'll teach me to pay the extra £6.00 for next day delivery. I'm such a stingebag.

Actually, no, I do not mean by that. In my opinion you can only beat the NAzis if you can beat them in open discourse, and all what a ban achieves is making them go into hiding and creating a dormant mood that can grow in peace because nobody can challenge it for lack of recongition.

No, what you need to learn is how prejudices develop, why certain gropus of people get villified. That once you start talking about "them" and "us", you already laid the foundations the Nazis can build upon. That taking away peopls dignity can result in very violent backslashes. That all people need free access to information because if they do not, then that means individuals can manipulate public opinion. Rupert Murdoch anybody?

The list goes on. It is not about the great and open mechanics that made the Nazis famous, it is about the small subtle, hardly recongizable changes in a publics mood that can result in sudden outbursts if not adressed early and can be exploited by populists. If something like the Nazis happens again, it won't be under the Nazi corporate identity, that is a given.

Actually I think all the talk about the Anzis does not serve to prevent them from comign up again, but gives them so much credit and presence that ppl will be rather hot to repeat their feats. It's by now probably the most (in)famous movement on this planet and constantly upheld everywhere. In all honesty, those gangsters could not have wished for more free air time.

[ATAG_Dutch]

...what you need to learn is how prejudices develop, why certain groups of people get villified.

Thanks mate, always nice to get someone else's take on these things.

I was joking about the swastikas of course.;)

[Bewolf]

Thanks mate, always nice to get someone else's take on these things.

I was joking about the swastikas of course.;)

you sure were ; )

[nearmiss]

All political systems have potential for failure.

The people, the sheeple are for the most part in all societies just taking care of their own lives. They are dependent upon government to take care of it's own ends. It is a fact, most people have enough problems and issues in their own lives to keep them too busy to be very politically active.

Sad truth, Hitler was elected with 98% of popular vote 1933 as chancellor of Germany. The Wiemar republic was the catylst that elevated Hitler into such a position of power. The financial reparations burden after WWI on Germany was too heavy. There was not a way to deal with it and by trying Germany was in horrendous economic state.

The US learned many lessons, and one was the debaucle of the Wiemar Republic. Dealing with Germany and Japan with adequate reparations for the cost of war on all parties after their defeat in WW2 would have been a terrible burden for the future of those countries. Afterall, the people may vote, protest and even fight... but they are under the authority of the despots who cause and prosecute the wars. Sadly, in the aftermath of war there just aren't enough surviving despots to exact adequate revenge upon. Certainly there was not enough collateral in a destroyed Germany and Japan for assured payment of the cost to all parties from WW2.

The burden of the cost of WW2 was passed off as loss to all parties, except in the Eastern Bloc where Soviet Russia exacted tribute until 1987.

Seventy years after the war and those Eastern Bloc countries are just now beginning to see hope for the future. They have had their Hitlers too, because their people have been desparate to do something. Tito comes to mind.

[bongodriver]

well maybe you haven't chanted it here, but you can say you NEVER chanted it, or giggled when you heard it? Come on..

never!! and if I ever giggled that was my business and nobody else ever got hurt of offended.

[bongodriver]

I'm not gonna go on this one, too off topic.

Like British Imperialism isn't off topic menough...

[Bewolf]

All political systems have potential for failure.

The people, the sheeple are for the most part in all societies just taking care of their own lives. They are dependent upon government to take care of it's own ends. It is a fact, most people have enough problems and issues in their own lives to keep them too busy to be very politically active.

Sad truth, Hitler was elected with 98% of popular vote 1933 as chancellor of Germany. The Wiemar republic was the catylst that elevated Hitler into such a position of power. The financial reparations burden after WWI on Germany was too heavy. There was not a way to deal with it and by trying Germany was in horrendous economic state.

The US learned many lessons, and one was the debaucle of the Wiemar Republic. Dealing with Germany and Japan with adequate reparations for the cost of war on all parties after their defeat in WW2 would have been a terrible burden for the future of those countries. Afterall, the people may vote, protest and even fight... but they are under the authority of the despots who cause and prosecute the wars. Sadly, in the aftermath of war there just aren't enough surviving despots to exact adequate revenge upon. Certainly there was not enough collateral in a destroyed Germany and Japan for assured payment of the cost to all parties from WW2.

The burden of the cost of WW2 was passed off as loss to all parties, except in the Eastern Bloc where Soviet Russia exacted tribute until 1987.

Seventy years after the war and those Eastern Bloc countries are just now beginning to see hope for the future. They have had their Hitlers too, because the people were desparate. Tito comes to mind.

First of all, Hitler did not get elected chancellor. In the last free lection In November 1932 the national socialists got 33.1% of the votes. As per Wikipedia:

The results were a great disappointment for the Nazis, who once more emerged as the largest party by far but failed to form a government coalition, while again both anti-democratic parties, Nazis and Communists, together obtained the majority of seats in the Reichstag parliament. So far Chancellor Franz von Papen, a former member of the Catholic Centre Party (today CDU, Merkel is from that one), had governed without parliamentary support relying on legislative decrees promulgated by Reich President Paul von Hindenburg according to Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. However, on 12 September 1932 Papen had to ask Hindenburg to dissolve the parliament in order to preempt a motion of no confidence tabled by the Communist Party that met with approval by the Nazis. The DNVP MPs had backed Papen, which earned them a gain of 15 seats.

Chancellor Papen urged Hindenburg to further on govern by emergency decrees, nevertheless on December 3 he was superseded by his Defence Minister Kurt von Schleicher who in talks with the left wing of the Nazi Party led by Gregor Strasser tried to build up a Third Position (Querfront) strategy. These plans failed when in turn Hitler disempowered Strasser and approached Papen who reached Hindenburg's consent to form the Cabinet Hitler on 30 January 1933.

[bongodriver]

No, can't explain that, because nobody did that but yourself. So you may want to ask yourself why you feel offended all the time. Now if you can't take what people say the way it is you should not wonder if those people go nuts eventually. And don't come up with Kongo Otto again, I am not him, neither is Stern, nor anybody else.

Mainly because my first post in this was responded to with an accusation of being a Nationalist, nothing to do with Kongo.

[bongodriver]

Nobody is accusing the British of anything here, but a certain popular behaviour should be firmly condemned, not giggled upon or dismissed, not only because it's out of place, but because it embarrasses the British that don't think in that way. Same goes with humour: with SO many themes to joke upon, why the war one is SO recurrent!?


is it?.......one sketch in a Faulty towers episode and a series of Blackadder based on WWI and it's repetitive?.......oh ok and there was that awfull 'alo alo' series years ago.

[#402FOX]

how about some tea and biscuits while we're at it? :mrgreen:

Its Tea & Crumpets old boy :-P

[csThor]

is it?.......one sketch in a Faulty towers episode and a series of Blackadder based on WWI and it's repetitive?.......oh ok and there was that awfull 'alo alo' series years ago.

If I may remind you of the tasteless headlines and photos on british newspapers before the Euro 96 semi-finals, the equally tasteless "10 little Spitfires" chants propagated by british online communities before World Cup 2006 and actually sung by some (admittedly drunken) idiots in german city centers ... It's not just that the yellow press is so besotted with the topic but it's actually worse that it returns again and again and no voice is raised that tells 'em to STFU. Silent agreement or silent disagreement aren't distinguishable from the outside, you know. ;)

[blackmme]

If I may remind you of the tasteless headlines and photos on british newspapers before the Euro 96 semi-finals, the equally tasteless "10 little Spitfires" chants propagated by british online communities before World Cup 2006 and actually sung by some (admittedly drunken) idiots in german city centers ... It's not just that the yellow press is so besotted with the topic but it's actually worse that it returns again and again and no voice is raised that tells 'em to STFU. Silent agreement or silent disagreement aren't distinguishable from the outside, you know. ;)

Idiots are idiots worldwide and I can only utterly apologise for anyone on the receiving end of such ignorance. I can't apologise on behalf of the whole British population but I can on behalf of my 1/60,000,000 of it.

Regards Mike

[blackmme]

is it?.......one sketch in a Faulty towers episode and a series of Blackadder based on WWI and it's repetitive?.......oh ok and there was that awfull 'alo alo' series years ago.

Of course the whole point of Blackadder the 4th was to take the merciless mickey out of ourselves. The only vaguely anti German thing in Blackadder Goes Forth was the Red Baron (and that was kinda funny, reminds me of Michael Schumacher)

:grin:

Regards Mike

[bongodriver]

If I may remind you of the tasteless headlines and photos on british newspapers before the Euro 96 semi-finals, the equally tasteless "10 little Spitfires" chants propagated by british online communities before World Cup 2006 and actually sung by some (admittedly drunken) idiots in german city centers ... It's not just that the yellow press is so besotted with the topic but it's actually worse that it returns again and again and no voice is raised that tells 'em to STFU. Silent agreement or silent disagreement aren't distinguishable from the outside, you know. ;)

I concur...that wasn't me, nor will I ever condone it, it is not the mentality of all British, the red top newspapers cater for a very 'niche' section of our society......please don't generalise.

it's not like we 'can' do much about these idiots, have them rounded up and shot?

[bongodriver]

who exactly is being paranoid now?

[ATAG_Dutch]

If I may remind you of the tasteless headlines and photos on british newspapers before the Euro 96 semi-finals, the equally tasteless "10 little Spitfires" chants propagated by british online communities before World Cup 2006 and actually sung by some (admittedly drunken) idiots in german city centers ... It's not just that the yellow press is so besotted with the topic but it's actually worse that it returns again and again and no voice is raised that tells 'em to STFU. Silent agreement or silent disagreement aren't distinguishable from the outside, you know. ;)

You should try being English, living in Liverpool and telling people you 'don't follow football'.

One bloke said to me 'what? You don't follow football? Are you gay? You're not from Liverpool either, are you?'.

Which demonstrates more than one brainless prejudice in one easy lesson.

Suffice to say I managed to give him a verbal barrage and didn't have to resort to evisceration for him to apologise. Sheesh.

Sorry, way off topic. ;)

[Bewolf]

You should try being English, living in Liverpool and telling people you 'don't follow football'.

One bloke said to me 'what? You don't follow football? Are you gay? You're not from Liverpool either, are you?'.

Which demonstrates more than one brainless prejudice in one easy lesson.

Suffice to say I managed to give him a verbal barrage and didn't have to resort to evisceration for him to apologise. Sheesh.

Sorry, way off topic. ;)

well, I think you just won this thread. hehe

[arthursmedley]

The techniques used by the Nazis were neither new nor have not been employed later on by other nations. In fact, those means are still very much alive and kicking these days. Just look at the US and how Bush manipulated to the public into marching into Iraq.

Hmm..interesting. I can't help noticing the parallels between 9/11 and the Reichstag
fire. Both used the destruction of prominent public buildings to push through legislation subverting their citizens basic constitutional rights.

[ATAG_Dutch]

well, I think you just won this thread. hehe

I just think that if anything can bring out the worst in anyone, it's that bloody 'game'.

[Bewolf]

Hmm..interesting. I can't help noticing the parallels between 9/11 and the Reichstag
fire. Both used the destruction of prominent public buildings to push through legislation subverting their citizens basic constitutional rights.

Göring is an eye opener. From an interview in 1946

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

[bongodriver]

I just think that if anything can bring out the worst in anyone, it's that bloody 'game'.

The conduct 'on' the pitch ain't much better sometimes

[nearmiss]

First of all, Hitler did not get elected chancellor. In the last free lection In November 1932 the national socialists got 33.1% of the votes. As per Wikipedia:

The results were a great disappointment for the Nazis, who once more emerged as the largest party by far but failed to form a government coalition, while again both anti-democratic parties, Nazis and Communists, together obtained the majority of seats in the Reichstag parliament. So far Chancellor Franz von Papen, a former member of the Catholic Centre Party (today CDU, Merkel is from that one), had governed without parliamentary support relying on legislative decrees promulgated by Reich President Paul von Hindenburg according to Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. However, on 12 September 1932 Papen had to ask Hindenburg to dissolve the parliament in order to preempt a motion of no confidence tabled by the Communist Party that met with approval by the Nazis. The DNVP MPs had backed Papen, which earned them a gain of 15 seats.

Chancellor Papen urged Hindenburg to further on govern by emergency decrees, nevertheless on December 3 he was superseded by his Defence Minister Kurt von Schleicher who in talks with the left wing of the Nazi Party led by Gregor Strasser tried to build up a Third Position (Querfront) strategy. These plans failed when in turn Hitler disempowered Strasser and approached Papen who reached Hindenburg's consent to form the Cabinet Hitler on 30 January 1933.


Hitler Becomes Dictator
After the elections of March 5, 1933, the Nazis began a systematic takeover of the state governments throughout Germany, ending a centuries-old tradition of local political independence. Armed SA and SS thugs barged into local government offices using the state of emergency decree as a pretext to throw out legitimate office holders and replace them with Nazi Reich commissioners.
Political enemies were arrested by the thousands and put in hastily constructed holding pens. Old army barracks and abandoned factories were used as prisons. Once inside, prisoners were subjected to military style drills and harsh discipline. They were often beaten and sometimes even tortured to death. This was the very beginning of the Nazi concentration camp system.
At this time, these early concentration camps were loosely organized under the control of the SA and the rival SS. Many were little more than barbed-wire stockades know as 'wild' concentration camps, set up by local Gauleiters and SA leaders.
For Adolf Hitler, the goal of a legally established dictatorship was now within reach. On March 15, 1933, a cabinet meeting was held during which Hitler and Göring discussed how to obstruct what was left of the democratic process to get an Enabling Act passed by the Reichstag. This law would hand over the constitutional functions of the Reichstag to Hitler, including the power to make laws, control the budget and approve treaties with foreign governments.
The emergency decree signed by Hindenburg on February 28th, after the Reichstag fire, made it easy for them to interfere with non-Nazi elected representatives of the people by simply arresting them.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/hitler-potsdam-opening.jpg


March 21, 1933 - With the eyes of Germany and the whole world on him - a respectful stroll by Hitler toward the Garrison Church in Potsdam for ceremonies opening the new Reichstag session. Below: Reassuring to all - Hitler greets President Hindenburg in the manner of the age-old German custom - hand outstretched and head bowed. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/hitler-greets-hinden.jpgBelow: Inside the Garrison Church - Hitler speaks as President Hindenburg (lower right) and Germany's old guard listen. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/hitler-inside-garrison.jpgBelow: Outside the church, a bemused Chancellor Hitler chats with the Kaiser's son and heir, Crown Prince Wilhelm.http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/hitler-prince.jpgBelow: Two days later - March 23rd - Hitler appears before the Reichstag in Berlin to reassure them that - if granted - his new powers under the Enabling Act will be used sparingly.


http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/hitler-speaks-enabling.jpg


As Hitler plotted to bring democracy to an end in Germany, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels put together a brilliant public relations display at the official opening of the newly elected Reichstag.
On March 21st, in the Garrison Church at Potsdam, the burial place of Frederick the Great, an elaborate ceremony took place designed to ease public concern over Hitler and his gangster-like new regime.
It was attended by President Hindenburg, foreign diplomats, the General Staff and all the old guard going back to the days of the Kaiser. Dressed in their handsome uniforms sprinkled with medals, they watched a most reverent Adolf Hitler give a speech paying respect to Hindenburg and celebrating the union of old Prussian military traditions and the new Nazi Reich. As a symbol of this, the old Imperial flags would soon add swastikas.
Finishing his speech, Hitler walked over to Hindenburg and respectfully bowed before him while taking hold of the old man's hand. The scene was recorded on film and by press photographers from around the world. This was precisely the impression Hitler and Goebbels wanted to give to the world, all the while plotting to toss aside Hindenburg and the elected Reichstag.
Later that same day, Hindenburg signed two decrees put before him by Hitler. The first offered full pardons to all Nazis currently in prison. The prison doors sprang open and out came an assortment of Nazi thugs and murderers.
The second decree signed by the befuddled old man allowed for the arrest of anyone suspected of maliciously criticizing the government and the Nazi Party.
A third decree signed only by Hitler and Papen allowed for the establishment of special courts to try political offenders. These courts were conducted in the military style of a court-martial without a jury and usually with no counsel for the defense.
On March 23rd, the newly elected Reichstag met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler's Enabling Act. It was officially called the "Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich." If passed, it would in effect vote democracy out of existence in Germany and establish the legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.
Brown-shirted Nazi storm troopers swarmed over the fancy old building in a show of force and as a visible threat. They stood outside, in the hallways and even lined the aisles inside, glaring ominously at anyone who might oppose Hitler's will.
Before the vote, Hitler made a speech in which he pledged to use restraint.
"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one,"Hitler told the Reichstag.
He also promised an end to unemployment and pledged to promote peace with France, Great Britain and Soviet Russia. But in order to do all this, Hitler said, he first needed the Enabling Act. A two-thirds majority was needed, since the law would actually alter the constitution. Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi votes to pass it. He got those votes from the Catholic Center Party after making a false promise to restore some basic rights already taken away by decree.
Meanwhile, Nazi storm troopers chanted outside:"Full powers – or else! We want the bill – or fire and murder!!"
But one man arose amid the overwhelming might. Otto Wells, leader of the Social Democrats stood up and spoke quietly to Hitler.
"We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No enabling act can give you power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible."
Hitler was enraged and jumped up to respond.
"You are no longer needed! The star of Germany will rise and yours will sink! Your death knell has sounded!"
The vote was taken – 441 for, and only 84, the Social Democrats, against. The Nazis leapt to their feet clapping, stamping and shouting, then broke into the Nazi anthem, the Hörst Wessel song.
Democracy was ended. They had brought down the German Democratic Republic legally. From this day onward, the Reichstag would be just a sounding board, a cheering section for Hitler's pronouncements.
Interestingly, the Nazi Party was now flooded with applications for membership. These latecomers were cynically labeled by old time Nazis as 'March Violets.' In May, the Nazi Party froze membership. Many of those kept out applied to the SA and the SS which were still accepting. However, in early 1934, Heinrich Himmler would throw out 50,000 of those 'March Violets' from the SS.
The Nazi Gleichschaltung now began, a massive coordination of all aspects of life under the swastika and the absolute leadership of Adolf Hitler.
Under Hitler, the State, not the individual, was supreme.
From the moment of birth one existed to serve the State and obey the dictates of the Führer. Those who disagreed were disposed of.
Many agreed. Bureaucrats, industrialists, even intellectual and literary figures, including Gerhart Hauptmann, world renowned dramatist, were coming out in open support of Hitler.
Many disagreed and left the country. A flood of the finest minds, including over two thousand writers, scientists, and people in the arts poured out of Germany and enriched other lands, mostly the United States. Among them – writer Thomas Mann, director Fritz Lang, actress Marlene Dietrich, architect Walter Gropius, musicians Otto Klemperer, Kurt Weill, Richard Tauber, psychologist Sigmund Freud, and Albert Einstein, who was visiting California when Hitler came to power and never returned to Germany.
In Germany, there were now constant Nazi rallies, parades, marches and meetings amid the relentless propaganda of Goebbels and the omnipresent swastika. For those who remained there was an odd mixture of fear and optimism in the air.
Now, for the first time as dictator, Adolf Hitler turned his attention to the driving force which had propelled him into politics in the first place, his hatred of the Jews. It began with a simple boycott on April 1st, 1933, and would end years later in the greatest tragedy in all of human history.

----------------------

My point is... Hitler was not opposed as he should have been, and with his cronies, backroom diplomacy turned the tide for Nazis. Governments can be overthrown, regardless of what seems insurmountable odds against it.

[Bewolf]

My point is... Hitler was not opposed as he should have been, and with his cronies, backroom diplomacy turned the tide for Nazis. Governments can be overthrown, regardless of what seems insurmountable odds against it.



In general, I agree to you as not agreeing would mean ppl get a free ticket to sit idle in a similiar position. However, there are enough examples, from other countries (western included) where the people should have acted and did not.

Specifically, I adisagree in sofar as the Nazis, as your own article suggest, killed or imprisioned all people capable of forming active resistance. The Nazis had one major advantage in Germany they did not have anywhere else. They simply knew everybody and knew where everybody stood in the political sptectrum. Identifying, arresting and imprisoning or killing political opposition was much much easier in Germany then anywhere else when you had to deal with those people in the Weimar Republic in the decades before.

It also did not help that the Allies refused any help to any german resistance group.

Btw, I am an active social democrat.

[bongodriver]

In general, I agree to you as not agreeing would mean ppl get a free ticket to sit idle in a similiar position. However, there are enough examples, from other countries (western included) where the people should have acted and did not.

Specifically, I adisagree in sofar as the Nazis, as your own article suggest, killed or imprisioned all people capable of forming active resistance. The Nazis had one major advantage in Germany they did not have anywhere else. They simply knew everybody and knew where everybody stood in the political sptectrum. Identifying, arresting and imprisoning or killing political opposition was much much easier in Germany then anywhere else when you had to deal with those people in the Weimar Republic in the decades before.

It also did not help that the Allies refused any help to any german resistance group.

Btw, I am an active social democrat.

Thank you for editing British with Allies....

[Kurfürst]

Göring is an eye opener. From an interview in 1946

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Did not know that one. Actually, Göring seems to be most likeable Nazi character. He wasn't anti-semitic or dogmatic, a fatalist like Hitler, fanatic like Himmler or a ruthless b@stard like Heidrich, or as naive nationalist like Hess.. he seemed to have a view on things what we call in these parts "sober farmer's intellect', meaning seeing things just as they are. Gilbert comment is extremely naive as well - it may be that only the Congress had the right to declare war, but this didn't quite stop the President from de facto waging a war on the seas on his own initiative from the spring of 1941, or to drive the US into war with any possible means.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Göring seems to be most likeable Nazi character. He wasn't anti-semitic or dogmatic.

Good Grief.

[xnomad]

Good Grief.

I remember seeing something similar about the Nuremberg trials that the captors, prosecutors etc had trouble trying not to get caught up by his (Goering's) charm.

Apparently he was quite a likable person and had a great character. This is also probably the reason he ended up getting cyanide to kill himself, wasn't it the US guard that gave it to him after he became a bit chummy with Hermann?

[csThor]

I, actually, think a statement Göring was heard to utter when he was arrested does characterize him much better: "At least 12 years of decent life." ("Wenigstens 12 Jahre anständig gelebt.")

He was greedy, he was pompous, he was boasting, a coward and absolutley ruthless in pursuing his own ambitions. As such he fit into the shark pool that was Hitler's inner circle.

[Rickusty]

If I may remind you of the tasteless headlines and photos on british newspapers before the Euro 96 semi-finals, the equally tasteless "10 little Spitfires" chants propagated by british online communities before World Cup 2006 and actually sung by some (admittedly drunken) idiots in german city centers ... It's not just that the yellow press is so besotted with the topic but it's actually worse that it returns again and again and no voice is raised that tells 'em to STFU. Silent agreement or silent disagreement aren't distinguishable from the outside, you know. ;)

As has been said, idiots are everywhere, in every corner of this sad world.

It's not war-related, by I still remember some of the offenses directed at the italian soccer team and at italians in general, in the 2006 FIFA world cup, made by some german newspapers.
IIRC they were written by some german tabloids, a-la "The Sun" ("Bild" and "Der Spiegel" I seem to recall), but still...
Some of them were reported even by our newspapers, and caused quite a little bit of a "national case".

Same as that lame "Nur Italien nicht!" song. I wonder really how many find that crap funny tbh.
Chanting "It doesn't matter who will win the world cup, as long as it is not Italy", or "pushes, spits and insults: that's the italian soccer" is astonishing.

No nation is immune to idiots, be that Italy, Germany, Uk or whatever.

As we say here:
"The mother of the imbeciles is always pregnant"

Cheers
Rick

[kendo65]

I thought that by now we agreed that the attempt was half-hearted?

As for the agreeing, the fact that the UK can call something a victory doesn't mean that it actually was one. So as much as I do understand why in Britain it's perceived as a victory, doesn't change the facts of the conflict.

And presumably the 'facts' = what is taken to constitute 'objective reality' is to be determined by you with the rest of our opinions relegated to those of propaganda-besotted dupes.

You haven't addressed my criticism of this stance of yours - the so-called 'facts' that you keep marshalling in your arguments appear to most here as opinion and interpretation, of equal value as the perspectives of other posters but not inherently different in evidence or weight.

Once again your refusal to acknowledge this or reply with massive overwhelming evidence (that is not open to either counter-interpretation or that can be contradicted by other quotes, opinions or 'facts' from the other side) strikes me as a little arrogant.

Until you can deliver incontrovertible 'facts' and evidence and not just resort to constantly saying you are right you won't change opinions.

[kendo65]

In general, I agree to you as not agreeing would mean ppl get a free ticket to sit idle in a similiar position. However, there are enough examples, from other countries (western included) where the people should have acted and did not.

Specifically, I adisagree in sofar as the Nazis, as your own article suggest, killed or imprisioned all people capable of forming active resistance. The Nazis had one major advantage in Germany they did not have anywhere else. They simply knew everybody and knew where everybody stood in the political sptectrum. Identifying, arresting and imprisoning or killing political opposition was much much easier in Germany then anywhere else when you had to deal with those people in the Weimar Republic in the decades before.

It also did not help that the Allies refused any help to any german resistance group.

Btw, I am an active social democrat.

On the subject of resistance to thuggery and evil, as a resident of Northern Ireland I will say that resisting organised and violent paramilitary-style organisations is not something that is either easy to do or in most cases advisable.

Such people may constitute only a small percentage of the population but their level of organisation and willingness to inflict extreme violence on any challenge to their authority is enough to ensure that the masses learn quickly to keep alternative opinions to themselves.

[csThor]

As has been said, idiots are everywhere, in every corner of this sad world.

It's not war-related, by I still remember some of the offenses directed at the italian soccer team and at italians in general, in the 2006 FIFA world cup, made by some german newspapers.
IIRC they were written by some german tabloids, a-la "The Sun" ("Bild" and "Der Spiegel" I seem to recall), but still...
Some of them were reported even by our newspapers, and caused quite a little bit of a "national case".

Same as that lame "Nur Italien nicht!" song. I wonder really how many find that crap funny tbh.
Chanting "It doesn't matter who will win the world cup, as long as it is not Italy", or "pushes, spits and insults: that's the italian soccer" is astonishing.

No nation is immune to idiots, be that Italy, Germany, Uk or whatever.

As we say here:
"The mother of the imbeciles is always pregnant"

Cheers
Rick

Bold part marked for truth.

As for BILD (or BLÖD = STUPID, as many people call it) ... it's Germany's foremost example of Yellow Press. Many people read it but denounce it as bad and claim not to read it. I don't read any newspaper (except when I visit my home village as my parents have subscribed to a local paper) and can proudly state I have never bought a BLÖD and never will. I am actually appalled by this type of media, regardles off its name, makeup and whether it's a print media, online or TV. They're all despicable IMO.

[Rickusty]

Hi Thor,
same as me: I don't read any newspapers. It's been like this for maybe 2 years by now.
I don't even like football tbh, so I'm an atypical italian in the end.

[Bewolf]

Bold part marked for truth.

As for BILD (or BLÖD = STUPID, as many people call it) ... it's Germany's foremost example of Yellow Press. Many people read it but denounce it as bad and claim not to read it. I don't read any newspaper (except when I visit my home village as my parents have subscribed to a local paper) and can proudly state I have never bought a BLÖD and never will. I am actually appalled by this type of media, regardles off its name, makeup and whether it's a print media, online or TV. They're all despicable IMO.

Unluckily, imho, we have a bit of a degeneration of all major newspaers into Bild style reporting. Stern, Spiegel, Focus, especially in regards to Greece went the opinionated emotional route. We can only hope this is not a long living trend.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Haha, while I agree with the sentiment, Goering's position during the Nuremburg trials is quite intellegent and rational. I was surprised thinking I would be reading frothing at the mouth, bombastic statements based off the impressions we've always been fed about the Nazi leaders. His quotes above are more true than what most politicians are willing to admit in public.

I wasn't disputing the man's evident 'charm', more the statement that he 'wasn't anti-semitic or dogmatic'.

Although I saw one documentary about his brother who apparently assisted thousands of Jewish people to flee.

[Kurfürst]

AFAIK Göring wasn't particularly anti semitic, he was pragmatic about not going the party line though.

IIRC there is a story about when Erhard Milch was being put under the magnifying glass for his - allaged - Jewish ancestry. Göring stepped in told Himmler along the lines that 'Dear Heinrich, it is I who decide who is jewish in the Luftwaffe and who is not'. As for dogmatic... I don't know, he strikes me as a rather pragmatic, and opportunistic character, rather than the fanatic nazis like Hess, Hitler or Himmler. Politics probably only interested him as long as it was practical. At least this is my take on him.

Personally, after the war I think many LW commanders simply pointed fingers to the 'fat man' and blamed their own failures on him, much like the infallible Wehrmacht generals did after the war when saying: '...it was all Hitler's fault'. I mean Galland especially. I like Galland a lot a man and a fighter pilot, but I am realistic about that he only tells his side of the story, and there were plenty of people who did not like his leadership, and whom Galland did not like either. But Galland got to wrote his memoir and others did not. IMHO he probably wasn't as good as a staff officer as he was a Gruppe or Geschwader commander. His failure in Italy and the naivity of his 'big blow' plan are striking examples imho, but he always had Fat Hermann as an excuse. IMHO Molders was classes better for that role.

In reality, Göring was interfering very little with the Luftwaffe during the war, he was more of a political connection to the nazi party, rather than a real actor; Milch was the actual man who was behind organisation and such, Göring did little more than preside over GL meetings.

[JimmyBlonde]

And presumably the 'facts' = what is taken to constitute 'objective reality' is to be determined by you with the rest of our opinions relegated to those of propaganda-besotted dupes.

You haven't addressed my criticism of this stance of yours - the so-called 'facts' that you keep marshalling in your arguments appear to most here as opinion and interpretation, of equal value as the perspectives of other posters but not inherently different in evidence or weight.

Once again your refusal to acknowledge this or reply with massive overwhelming evidence (that is not open to either counter-interpretation or that can be contradicted by other quotes, opinions or 'facts' from the other side) strikes me as a little arrogant.

Until you can deliver incontrovertible 'facts' and evidence and not just resort to constantly saying you are right you won't change opinions.


Sternjaeger wants to have his cake and eat it too, if you give him facts he says that they're misinterpreted. If you give him logically sound and well thought out interperatations he wants facts.

[Al Schlageter]

Sternjaeger wants to have his cake and eat it too, if you give him facts he says that they're misinterpreted. If you give him logically sound and well thought out interperatations he wants facts.

There is an old saying, 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink the water, even if it is the sweetest water'.

[Theshark888]

It got me thinking some time ago: out of all the European countries, Great Britain is the only one with SO much celebration about WW2, and for a buff like me and you it surely is paradise, but have you ever wondered why it doesn't happen as much in the rest of Europe?

Maybe that's because GB was the only European country on the "good" side who fought from the beginning to end, without changing sides, and actually landed up on the winning side. Also, maybe you should look up some of the celebrations in Poland sometime!

Who else would celebrate their performance/actions during WW2; Germany? Italy? France? Belgium? Netherlands? Romania? Finland? Russia? Hungary? Austria? etc.

As for the importance of the BOB, compare the losses in the BOF to BOB...you will really get enlightened:)

[xnomad]

Who else would celebrate their performance/actions during WW2; Germany? Italy? France? Belgium? Netherlands? Romania? Finland? Russia? Hungary? Austria? etc.


I reckon Russia, and they do don't they?

[bongodriver]

The last hurrah of an ancient empire. Given all they gave up to ensure capitalism, they have the right to celebrate.

No there's no sarcasm in that at all, Germany must be forgiven WWII, but Britain can never be forgiven for once being the worlds largest empire.

[bongodriver]

I reckon Russia, and they do don't they?

They very much do......it's just apparently less offensive than The way Brits celebrate.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

No there's no sarcasm in that at all, Germany must be forgiven WWII, but Britain can never be forgiven for once being the worlds largest empire.

There is a difference. Germans themselves (at least most of them) are aware that ww2 was a terrible thing and German guilt is recognized. Go to Berlin and look at the HUGE memorial in plain town centre to the memory of the dead of the Holocaust. A picture for you (On the top left corner you see the Reichstag-building):

http://ais.badische-zeitung.de/piece/00/50/d0/a5/5296293-w-600.jpg

Another perspective:
http://www.attraktionen.info/images/berlin/holocaust-mahnmal.jpg

Where are your memorials on the dark spots in British history?

Remember: one can only be forgiven when one recognizes one's guilt.

[bongodriver]

There is a difference. Germans themselves (at least most of them) are aware that ww2 was a terrible thing and German guilt is recognized. Go to Berlin and look at the HUGE memorial in plain town centre to the memory of the dead of the Holocaust. A picture for you:

http://ais.badische-zeitung.de/piece/00/50/d0/a5/5296293-w-600.jpg

On the top left corner you see the Reichstag-building

Another perspective:
http://www.attraktionen.info/images/berlin/holocaust-mahnmal.jpg

Where are your memorials on the dark spots in British history?

I am not denying the 'dark spots' in our history (no country doesn't have any), but why does everyone need to bring it up in a thread about WWII?, our colonial past has nothing to do with it.

[Bewolf]

I am not denying the 'dark spots' in our history (no country doesn't have any), but why does everyone need to bring it up in a thread about WWII?, our colonial past has nothing to do with it.

Well, I guess that is because lots of british always are bringing up other's dark spots. Most folks I know do not like to be lectured by people that have their own issues.

I mean, look at it this way. From a continental perspecitve, in general the british ran the largest conquest in history all over the world, they invented the concentration camps, they have a history of putting down resistance to their empirial ambitions in sometimes brutal ways and specifically in regards to WW2, they allied with the Russians, who were at least as agressive as the germans, they've had no problems with reducing all german cities above 100.000 citiziens to rubble and a lot of even smaller towns and villages (sometimes for the single reason that and old rugged road ran through them which made them "strategic important".) and put their inhabitants to the cruelest of deaths. And after the war there is the Rheinwiesen issues and the lack of support for german resistance goups.

If you were living on the continent and constantly, I mean constantly had to listen to rather one sided blames, you'd be quite miffed as well, eventually. Germany, after all, is not the only country that falls victim to british self rightousness. It's not about having a go at the british, a people I personally and many many others have a lot of respect for, it's just about being fed up by the enduring and in your face hypocrisis, really.

If the UK was celebrating the victory like the Russians, for example, as matter of national survival and eventual victory, nobody would complain. But it's always in connection with a certain morale highground and contempt for others that simply is out of place, especially in a Europe that is marked by ever greater cooperation instead of national quarrels.

[bongodriver]

Well, I guess that is because lots of british always are bringing up other's dark spots. Most folks I know do not like to be lectured by people that have their own issues.

I mean, look at it this way. From a continental perspecitve, in general the british ran the largest conquest in history all over the world, they invented the concentration camps, they have a history of putting down resistance to their empirial ambitions in sometimes brutal ways and specifically in regards to WW2, they allied with the Russians, who were at least as agressive as the germans, they've had no problems with reducing all german cities above 100.000 citiziens to rubble and a lot of even smaller towns and villages (sometimes for the single reason that and old rugged road ran through them which made them "strategic important".) and put their inhabitants to the cruelest of deaths. And after the war there is the Rheinwiesen issues and the lack of support for german resistance goups.

If you were living on the continent and constantly, I mean constantly had to listen to rather one sided blames, you'd be quite miffed as well, eventually. Germany, after all, is not the only country that falls victim to british self rightousness. It's not about having a go at the british, a people I personally and many many others have a lot of respect for, it's just about being fed up by the enduring and in your face hypocrisis, really.

If the UK was celebrating the victory like the Russians, for example, as matter of national survival and eventual victory, nobody would complain. But it's always in connection with a certain morale highground and contempt for others that simply is out of place.

This is all a fair point....but the waters got very muddied in this thread, it stated as a question on how the Luftwaffe took defat in the battle, then some very one sided oppinions came in saying there was no victory, this was argued with no proof of any such case, but anybody British who contributed was attacked for being 'Nationalist', and the rest of the thread became a slanging match and anti-british witch hunt.....the original topic fell by the wayside.
In the interest of fairness why doesn't someone start a thread on everything the British need to be ashamed of.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

You know what I think about "feeling ashamed of" some deeds of ancestors.

I for my part I am very happy that we have this huge memorial. It is like a huge salt grain in a wound. And yes, it may hurt sometimes. But I think by this pain staking needle constantly remembering us what is wrong one can improve and do the right thing and thus better oneself. Looking straight into the truth just can help you to make the right decisions. Ignoring truth only may lead to repeat the same mistakes.

PS: And I agree: there had been some awful posts here directed at the British. I ignored them on purpose as they really spoke for themselves. Some ppl just are so *** that it is useless to argue with them as there is no hope that they can learn. You on the contrary appear like somebody that is able to learn and not as somebody dumb. So take it as a compliment that people argue with you :)

[bongodriver]

You know what I think about "feeling ashamed of" some deeds of ancestors.

I for my part I am very happy that we have this huge memorial. It is like a huge salt grain in a wound. And yes, it may hurt sometimes. But I think by this pain staking needle constantly remembering us what is wrong one can improve and do the right thing and thus better oneself. Looking straight into the truth just can help you to make the right decisions. Ignoring truth only may lead to repeat the same mistakes.

Exactly a point I made before, I can't help it if the British have no such equivalent, perhaps it is because our colonialist campaigns all happened so far back in history in a time when those kind of actions were 'less' frowned upon and the people who need apologising to are long gone, the events of WWII are still in the memories of living people and happened at a time when it was very much frowned upon, the British don't claim to be on a moral high ground.....we just did the right thing at that time.

[Xilon_x]

This is ITALIAN fascist propaganda to Churchill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvwxigxeMv0

[Bewolf]

This is all a fair point....but the waters got very muddied in this thread, it stated as a question on how the Luftwaffe took defat in the battle, then some very one sided oppinions came in saying there was no victory, this was argued with no proof of any such case, but anybody British who contributed was attacked for being 'Nationalist', and the rest of the thread became a slanging match and anti-british witch hunt.....the original topic fell by the wayside.
In the interest of fairness why doesn't someone start a thread on everything the British need to be ashamed of.

Well, that is not quite false as well. It all really developed when Stern jumped in and did not call it a victory. In the course of that debate a lot of the old clichés came out, and that is what got this debate now kick started.

On the other hand, aside some very personal insults thrown by some in this thread by both sides of the argument, I think this thread was highly interesting and quite beneficial in understanding where ppl come from. Not a bad result at all, imho.

[Skoshi Tiger]

I don't really care if it was a battle, a campaign, an offensive or how ever you want to name it, Britain can be very justly proud of it's achievements during the Battle of Britain.

Imagine how different our would would be today if there hadn't been 20 miles of water seperating Britain from the continent and the bravery of all those who stood up against Nazi Gemany and it's attempt to dominate Europe in those dark days.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Well, I guess that is because lots of british always are bringing up other's dark spots. Most folks I know do not like to be lectured by people that have their own issues.

I mean, look at it this way. From a continental perspecitve, in general the british ran the largest conquest in history all over the world, they invented the concentration camps, they have a history of putting down resistance to their empirial ambitions in sometimes brutal ways and specifically in regards to WW2, they allied with the Russians, who were at least as agressive as the germans, they've had no problems with reducing all german cities above 100.000 citiziens to rubble and a lot of even smaller towns and villages (sometimes for the single reason that and old rugged road ran through them which made them "strategic important".) and put their inhabitants to the cruelest of deaths. And after the war there is the Rheinwiesen issues and the lack of support for german resistance goups.

If you were living on the continent and constantly, I mean constantly had to listen to rather one sided blames, you'd be quite miffed as well, eventually. Germany, after all, is not the only country that falls victim to british self rightousness. It's not about having a go at the british, a people I personally and many many others have a lot of respect for, it's just about being fed up by the enduring and in your face hypocrisis, really.

If the UK was celebrating the victory like the Russians, for example, as matter of national survival and eventual victory, nobody would complain. But it's always in connection with a certain morale highground and contempt for others that simply is out of place, especially in a Europe that is marked by ever greater cooperation instead of national quarrels.

they have a history of putting down resistance to their empirial ambitions in sometimes brutal ways

Just like Germany, then. ;) I sometimes wonder how much Germans (and many other peoples) are actually aware of their own countries Imperial and Colonial activities. Germany had many colonial interests around the world (including African and the Pacific colonies, and the only reason they were not more extensive is that they had effectively been left behind in the race to plunder other countries natural resources. Something which Kaiser Wilhelm II himself actually lamented, stating that "Germany has begun her colonial enterprise very late, and was, therefore, at the disadvantage of finding all the desirable places already occupied." Hmmmm.

What is now modern day Namibia was a former German Colony (with a greater landmass than Germany itself), and also the setting for the first (German perpetrated) Genocide of the 20th Century. Rebellions by the Namaqua and Herero tribes were ruthlessly and violently quashed, resulting in some 120,000 deaths. There are also allegations that desert wells were systematically poisoned by the German colonial army.

So, the fact that Germany was a little 'late to the party' is the reason we are not now talking more about its colonialism, they 'missed the boat' as it were.

There are many shameful and abhorrent episodes of British colonialism, slavery in particular (and which I personally was educated about as a child at school) but the point being is that Britain was hardly 'alone' in this vile enterprise, they were just ahead of the game.

I do not blame modern day young Germans for perhaps feeling that they are being unfairly vilified ('the son cannot be held guilty for the sins of the father'), but this 'other countries did it too' moral relativism is a little off the mark.

The British Empire never had a systematic, centralised, organised bureaucracy and infrastructure dedicated to and formed with the sole and express purpose of murdering each and every race on Earth different to them, or all other groups who did not conform to some perverse 'ideal'. All of them. Each and every one. Man, woman and child. That is the key difference.

More on 'concentration camps' later maybe, I'm off to the pub lol. Have fun peeps. :)

Err, maybe not. Was this thread ever on topic? LOL. Waaaaaay OT.

Cheers.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Well, I guess that is because lots of british always are bringing up other's dark spots. Most folks I know do not like to be lectured by people that have their own issues.

I mean, look at it this way. From a continental perspecitve, in general the british ran the largest conquest in history all over the world, they invented the concentration camps, they have a history of putting down resistance to their empirial ambitions in sometimes brutal ways and specifically in regards to WW2, they allied with the Russians, who were at least as agressive as the germans, they've had no problems with reducing all german cities above 100.000 citiziens to rubble and a lot of even smaller towns and villages (sometimes for the single reason that and old rugged road ran through them which made them "strategic important".) and put their inhabitants to the cruelest of deaths. And after the war there is the Rheinwiesen issues and the lack of support for german resistance goups.

If you were living on the continent and constantly, I mean constantly had to listen to rather one sided blames, you'd be quite miffed as well, eventually. Germany, after all, is not the only country that falls victim to british self rightousness. It's not about having a go at the british, a people I personally and many many others have a lot of respect for, it's just about being fed up by the enduring and in your face hypocrisis, really.

If the UK was celebrating the victory like the Russians, for example, as matter of national survival and eventual victory, nobody would complain. But it's always in connection with a certain morale highground and contempt for others that simply is out of place, especially in a Europe that is marked by ever greater cooperation instead of national quarrels.

Remember that 52 of those ex-collonies have opted to remain within the Commonwealth. Maybe one of the reason was that Britian was into 'Building an Empire', not just martial conquest like other European powers.

[bongodriver]

The Spanish, Portugese, French, Germans, Italians, Dutch and Belgians were all in the 'race' for colonialism and some others were major Imperialist powers too, no point singleing any one country out, let's draw the line at the beginning of the 20th century and argue about what's happened this side of that line.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

they have a history of putting down resistance to their empirial ambitions in sometimes brutal ways

Just like Germany, then. ;) I sometimes wonder how much Germans (and many other peoples) are actually aware of their own countries Imperial and Colonial activities. Germany had many colonial interests around the world (including African and the Pacific colonies, and the only reason they were not more extensive is that they had effectively been left behind in the race to plunder other countries natural resources. Something which Kaiser Wilhelm II himself actually lamented, stating that "Germany has begun her colonial enterprise very late, and was, therefore, at the disadvantage of finding all the desirable places already occupied." Hmmmm.

What is now modern day Namibia was a former German Colony (with a greater landmass than Germany itself), and also the setting for the first (German perpetrated) Genocide of the 20th Century. Rebellions by the Namaqua and Herero tribes were ruthlessly and violently quashed, resulting in some 120,000 deaths. There are also allegations that desert wells were systematically poisoned by the German colonial army.

So, the fact that Germany was a little 'late to the party' is the reason we are not now talking more about its colonialism, they 'missed the boat' as it were.

There are many shameful and abhorrent episodes of British colonialism, slavery in particular (and which I personally was educated about as a child at school) but the point being is that Britain was hardly 'alone' in this vile enterprise, they were just ahead of the game.

I do not blame modern day young Germans for perhaps feeling that they are being unfairly vilified ('the son cannot be held guilty for the sins of the father'), but this 'other countries did it too' moral relativism is a little off the mark.

The British Empire never had a systematic, centralised, organised bureaucracy and infrastructure dedicated to and formed with the sole and express purpose of murdering each and every race on Earth different to them, or all other groups who did not conform to some perverse 'ideal'. All of them. Each and every one. Man, woman and child. That is the key difference.

More on 'concentration camps' later maybe, I'm off to the pub lol. Have fun peeps. :)

Err, maybe not. Was this thread ever on topic? LOL. Waaaaaay OT.

Cheers.

Very sensitive post and I agree to most of it.

On one thing I would like to comment though. You rightly say that by pointing out British atrocities with the purpose to relativise German atrocities is wrong. I strongly support this.

But just a few lines later you start to compare British atrocities to German ones suggesting that whatever the Brits came up with is on a lower scale than what the Germans did. I do not make a statement about the content itself but you do exactly the same that you blame others to do: relativise by comparison. Relativism goes both ways and should be refuted both ways.

An injustice remains an injustice and hence uncomparable. They stand there and should be all regarded and considered independently without going into: country X or country y has done worse. Because this is what relativism is about. The same holds for instance for all the comparison between Nazi Germany's crimes and Soviet crimes. Both are there. Both are outrageously horrible. The existance of one does not make the other one smaller.

Just because Jack the Ripper killed five people does not make killing one man "only" a lesser crime.

So even if country x had no extermination scheme or killed only 10% of those killed by country y does not make it having less darker spots in history.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

The Spanish, Portugese, French, Germans, Italians, Dutch and Belgians were all in the 'race' for colonialism and some others were major Imperialist powers too, no point singleing any one country out, let's draw the line at the beginning of the 20th century and argue about what's happened this side of that line.

Let's draw a line on 21st century :)

[Bewolf]

Very sensitive post and I agree to most of it.

On one thing I would like to comment though. You rightly say that by pointing out British atrocities with the purpose to relativise German atrocities is wrong. I strongly support this.

But just a few lines later you start to compare British atrocities to German ones suggesting that whatever the Brits came up with is on a lower scale than what the Germans did. I do not make a statement about the content itself but you do exactly the same that you blame others to do: relativise by comparison. Relativism goes both ways and should be refuted both ways.

An injustice remains an injustice and hence uncomparable. They stand there and should be all regarded and considered independently without going into: country X or country y has done worse. Because this is what relativism is about. The same holds for instance for all the comparison between Nazi Germany's crimes and Soviet crimes. Both are there. Both are outrageously horrible. The existance of one does not make the other one smaller.

Just because Jack the Ripper killed five people does not make killing one man "only" a lesser crime.

So even if country x had no extermination scheme or killed only 10% of those killed by country y does not make it having less darker spots in history.

That is basically the gist of it. I am not trying to justify german crimes in any way and take them at face value. The problem really is that whenever british misdeeds come up, it's attempted to justify them (we also brought a lot of good to the world, others were worse then us, we were forced to take drastic measures to bring victory, etc). You won't find this kind of relativism in Germany, at least not in a way to justify the actions of the people back then and make them "right". Just irritation that others still try to justify their own actions in such a way. Crimes are crimes. Maybe a major problem is that a lot of the british perspective comes from a mindset that for many people in Europe already is considered a bit of an anachromism, that nationality defines who you are and what you are accountable for. That is purely speculative, however.

[Feathered_IV]

63 pages in just one week. This must surely be the troll thread of the year. Well done.

[Bewolf]

63 pages in just one week. This must surely be the troll thread of the year. Well done.

bwahaha, and it took you 63 pages to come in and leave a mark? ;)

[bongodriver]

Actually as Bewolf pointed out this thread has miraculously avoided actual trolling, bar the few insults thrown around (more to do with personal sensitivities)

But I would like to see evidence of anybody 'justifying' past actions in terms of colonialism.

[Al Schlageter]

I mean, look at it this way. From a continental perspecitve, in general the british ran the largest conquest in history all over the world, they invented the concentration camps, they have a history of putting down resistance to their empirial ambitions in sometimes brutal ways and specifically in regards to WW2, they allied with the Russians, who were at least as agressive as the germans, they've had no problems with reducing all german cities above 100.000 citiziens to rubble and a lot of even smaller towns and villages (sometimes for the single reason that and old rugged road ran through them which made them "strategic important".) and put their inhabitants to the cruelest of deaths. And after the war there is the Rheinwiesen issues and the lack of support for german resistance goups.

It was a Spanish general, Valeriano Weyler, who established the first reconcentrados or “concentration centers” in Cuba in his drive to suppress the 1895 rebellion. Britain introduced concentration camps on a massive scale during the Boer War from 1899 to 1902. To deny the Boer guerrillas food and intelligence, Gen. Lord Kitchener ordered the British Army to sweep the Transvaal and Orange River territories of South Africa “clean.” Civilians—women, children, the elderly, and some men of fighting age—were herded from their homes and concentrated in camps along railway lines, with a view to their eventual removal from the territory. The Boers, to whom these camps became a symbol of genocide, called them laagers.

Polish historian Władysław Konopczyński has suggested the first concentration camps were created in Poland in the 18th century, during the Bar Confederation rebellion, when the Russian Empire established three concentration camps for Polish rebel captives awaiting deportation to Siberia.

The earliest of these camps may have been those set up in the United States for Cherokee and other Native Americans in the 1830s; however, the term originated in the reconcentrados (reconcentration camps) set up by the Spanish military in Cuba during the Ten Years' War (1868–1878) and by the United States during the Philippine–American War (1899–1902).

The CCs in South Africa were not established with the sole purpose of exterminating the inmates like the CCs established 40 years later in Germany. Were the conditions in the SA CCs atrocious? Yes but when it became known there was an effort to improve the conditions which certainly not the case in the German CCs.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Very sensitive post and I agree to most of it.

On one thing I would like to comment though. You rightly say that by pointing out British atrocities with the purpose to relativise German atrocities is wrong. I strongly support this.

But just a few lines later you start to compare British atrocities to German ones suggesting that whatever the Brits came up with is on a lower scale than what the Germans did. I do not make a statement about the content itself but you do exactly the same that you blame others to do: relativise by comparison. Relativism goes both ways and should be refuted both ways.

An injustice remains an injustice and hence uncomparable. They stand there and should be all regarded and considered independently without going into: country X or country y has done worse. Because this is what relativism is about. The same holds for instance for all the comparison between Nazi Germany's crimes and Soviet crimes. Both are there. Both are outrageously horrible. The existance of one does not make the other one smaller.

Just because Jack the Ripper killed five people does not make killing one man "only" a lesser crime.

So even if country x had no extermination scheme or killed only 10% of those killed by country y does not make it having less darker spots in history.

Hallo Crow. You are absolutely correct, and I couldn't agree more.:) I was unable to finish my post and had in fact begun a final paragraph beginning 'however' in concurrence with what you have just posted (had to dash for a bus and so aborted it). It is indeed also relative, (relativism itself however being multifaceted and taking many forms in its philosophical context too).

There are those who maintain that there are universal 'moral' truths, going back to the age of Socrates and Plato. Few people here would argue for example, that the theft of an apple has any moral equivalence to the premeditated murder of an individual. Thus, most modern legal-punitive systems will have a curious blend of both moral absolutism ('murder is unquestionably wrong in any circumstance') as well as relativism ('murder is not as serious a crime as theft') with both being penalised accordingly.

The comparison made was not any attempt to validate or in any way mitigate a wrong ( 'The existence of one does not make the other one smaller.') I agree absolutely. The intent was to show how these observations are perceptual and indeed relative, and dependent on many variables. Others however would argue that they are comparable in terms of immorality. The concept of 'Morality' is a very murky area, and worthy of its own thread. I understand how this was not clear from my post, as it was unfinished and did not represent my views in their entirety. Really, I should not have posted it in that form.

So, no real disagreement here Crow.......'Two wrongs' most certainly do not make a right, and neither can diminish nor mitigate the other. Agreed (had a few lagers so sorry for any spelling mistakes if there is). Bottom line, we are all the same......end of story. What happened in Germany could conceivably happen anywhere, given a similar or identical set of conditions.

Interesting stuff, but we should probably get back to the BoB. LOL @Feathered's comment, yes a 'Troll nade' was successfully detonated. :grin: Evidence being Avro has not made a single contribution to the thread, he's just watching the small arms fire and artillery strikes, whistling away innocently from a nearby hill. :grin: Avro successfully started a ROF vs COD war at the Zoo, too. A master of his art. :grin:

Cheers. :)

[Kurfürst]

Interesting stuff, but we should probably get back to the BoB. LOL @Feathered's comment, yes a 'Troll nade' was successfully detonated. :grin: Evidence being Avro has not made a single contribution to the thread, he's just watching the small arms fire and artillery strikes, whistling away innocently from a nearby hill. :grin: Avro successfully started a ROF vs COD war at the Zoo, too. A master of his art. :grin:

Yeah a great chap indeed. But I find this discussion much to my interest. There is actually discussion, exchange of ideas, and its much more civilized than it used to be at the zoo.

I am pretty much just read only in it, largely because Thor, Beo' and 41SC already described, probably better than I could, the thoughts I can agree with the most.

[McFeckit]

All this talk of which country did what etc.....pointless. Humans did things, period. If you like you can hide behind pourous fluctuating boundaries waving flags of identity, but in reality we're just monkeys with elaborate ideas.

The day we cast of these false ideas of Nationhood and simply evolve together is long overdue. :rolleyes:

[fruitbat]

...... but in reality we're just monkeys with elaborate ideas.



lol:grin:

[bongodriver]

Even monkeys still fling poo at each other.......

[Bewolf]

Even monkeys still fling poo at each other.......

That's the point of it =)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

So I am standing in line at the auto parts store when this guy walks in carrying a box of candy..

Whoops

Wrong thread.. Or is it? ;)

[NedLynch]

Nah, Ace, it's the right thread.
Are you sure it wasn't a box of donuts?........uhhh, doooonuts....

I may not have the same skincolor as Homer but at least I have the same haircut.

[Triggaaar]

It's my opinion that the biggest factor in the outcome of the Battle was the existence of a stretch of water called the 'English Channel'. Were it not for this, Blitzkrieg would have overrun Britain just as it had the largest military power in Europe, which at the time was France.;)Er, if it wasn't for the English Channel, England wouldn't have been England, history would be different all together.

[adonys]

actually, the biggest real difference for the outcome of the BoB would have been to delay it for a couple of months in order to wait for the 109's fuel droptank.

[Triggaaar]

Wow, just found this thread and read the first couple of pages. I'm amazed the thread has made it to 64 pages without being closed.

[Triggaaar]

guys, there is no need to get aggressive on each other over a matter that was resolved 65 years ago.immediately followed by:
living in England has taught me that Britons are probably one of the most stubborn populations on this planet (if not the Solar System)
...
Some Britons can't be objective: characters like Dowding, Harris and above all Montgomery (a pompous imbecile, nothing more nothing less) embody a military ineptitude that, again hadn't the Americans joined, would have been fatal to them.Wow, Pot Kettle.
You Sir are an asshole! Not more and not less!!Classy.
from Wikipedia so it must be true
The total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion Marks (then $31.4 billion, £6.6 billion) in 1921 which is roughly equivalent to US $442 billion and UK £217 billion in 2011, a sum that many economists at the time, notably John Maynard Keynes, deemed to be excessive and counterproductive and would have taken Germany until 1988 to pay.Britain has only recently stopped paying for the wars. If the treaty was unfair, Germany should have concentrated on renegotiating it. Going to war again was hardly the solution was it.
it is my opinion that but for the Channel and the existence of the Royal Navy, Germany's land and airforces combined would've stuffed us.As above, that's a pointless comparison. Were it not for the channel, world history would be completely different.

[Triggaaar]

Had the Germans not been humiliated like they were after WW1, their morale wouldn't have been so down (let's not forget that in the 20s German industry was back with its pre-war glory), their economy wouldn't have been crippled, so they wouldn't have needed a political and military revengeAre you a modern day Nazi? (I'm not even being tongue in cheek)

Yes you can argue that the treaty wasn't fair, but WW1 itself was hardly fair was it - millions of people (on all sides) died, so it's understandable that nice and cute fairness has been lost. To then use an unfair treaty as an excuse for the mass genocide in WWII is laughable. We can look at the treaty to see why Germany went to war, but if you think that economic hardship excuses the slaughter of millions of people you need help.

[Triggaaar]

Europe is bound together for the better! Germans are fine, as are Italians, Brits, Russians, the whole lot. Sad to see some of the comments TBH.Agreed.

[senseispcc]

In these days/years there was to must blood (people) and to little money so the solution was war.
Is it not the same these days?!

:evil:

[robtek]

What agenda are you driving Triggaaar???

Nobody tried to excuse anything!!

Your position/self-image must be poor to be swinging the "Nazi-bludgeon" so early in this thread. :D

[Triggaaar]

Hitler was extremely short tempered, had he arranged things better, making sure that a suitable invasion flottilla was ready, he would have steamrolled his way all the way up North.. Let's not forget how much they advanced in Russia and how close they got to Moscow, do you really think that, had they really wanted to invade Britain, the Channel or the Royal Navy would have stopped them? Yes, that is what I think.
The Battle of Britain was a draw. Nobody ever won it.You are clearly deluded.

[Triggaaar]

What agenda are you driving Triggaaar???I am interested in reality and understanding. I just stumbled on this thread and was amazed at the posts in the first 6 pages.

Nobody tried to excuse anything!!That's not how it looks to me.
Your position/self-image must be poor to be swinging the "Nazi-bludgeon" so early in this thread. :DNo, pretty modest and self effacing self image. Just can't get my head around a couple of the views here, one of which basically says that if you make a country pay for their crime then it's your fault when they commit another.

[Sternjaeger II]

Are you a modern day Nazi? (I'm not even being tongue in cheek)

Yes you can argue that the treaty wasn't fair, but WW1 itself was hardly fair was it - millions of people (on all sides) died, so it's understandable that nice and cute fairness has been lost. To then use an unfair treaty as an excuse for the mass genocide in WWII is laughable. We can look at the treaty to see why Germany went to war, but if you think that economic hardship excuses the slaughter of millions of people you need help.

Thank you so much for your intelligent and accurate analysis.

I should have been offended when I read you calling me a modern day Nazi, fortunately it's evident that you're not capable to endure a mature historical conversation, so I won't even bother giving it any consideration.

[kendo65]

You're unfortunately a little late to the party Triggaaar.

The first 6 pages are probably the worst - it improves a lot after Page 36 or so :)

By the way Sternjaeger is apparently Italian and lives in the UK. edited: cheapshot

[Triggaaar]

You're unfortunately a little late to the party Triggaaar. I must be american ;)
The first 6 pages are probably the worst - it improves a lot after Page 36 or so :)Yes it must get better - only read the first dozen pages.

Thank you so much for your intelligent and accurate analysis. You're welcome.
I should have been offended when I read you calling me a modern day Nazi, fortunately it's evident that you're not capable to endure a mature historical conversation, so I won't even bother giving it any consideration.I find your ealier posts shocking:
So Germany invading the rest of europe was not an act of war?
Bongo, the Treaty of Versailles is considered THE long term cause of WW2, the impositions were just ridiculous (mostly imposed by France)
Considered by whom? the Germans.......
the German empire had a long, glorious heritage, and the German pride was a transversal feeling that put together the peasant with the noble. The humiliation and the impossible economic demands of Versailles were a provocative humiliation. Germany went to war and killed millions on innocent people, including genocide, and in your posts you don't blame Germany, you blame the Treaty of Versailles (and I'm aware that other nations have waged war over the years too, but here we're just discussing WW1 & 2).

I can't get my head round that. Justilfying or defending what happened led to me thinking of you as a modern day Nazi.

It's one thing to say that looking back you can see how the treaty was so restrictive that Germany would become unstable, but to actually say that the cause of the war was the treaty rather than evil people is ridiculous, and if people were taught that at school you can see how it could lead to radical movement.

[Bewolf]

I must be american ;)
Yes it must get better - only read the first dozen pages.

You're welcome.
I find your ealier posts shocking:



Germany went to war and killed millions on innocent people, including genocide, and in your posts you don't blame Germany, you blame the Treaty of Versailles (and I'm aware that other nations have waged war over the years too, but here we're just discussing WW1 & 2).

I can't get my head round that. Justilfying or defending what happened led to me thinking of you as a modern day Nazi.

It's one thing to say that looking back you can see how the treaty was so restrictive that Germany would become unstable, but to actually say that the cause of the war was the treaty rather than evil people is ridiculous, and if people were taught that at school you can see how it could lead to radical movement.

I strongly, strongly suggest you read the whole thread before posting and warming up arguments that have been discussed ad infitintum and throwing around insults. So far you did not provide anything that has not been said before.

[Sternjaeger II]

Germany went to war and killed millions on innocent people, including genocide, and in your posts you don't blame Germany, you blame the Treaty of Versailles (and I'm aware that other nations have waged war over the years too, but here we're just discussing WW1 & 2).

I can't get my head round that. Justilfying or defending what happened led to me thinking of you as a modern day Nazi.

It's one thing to say that looking back you can see how the treaty was so restrictive that Germany would become unstable, but to actually say that the cause of the war was the treaty rather than evil people is ridiculous, and if people were taught that at school you can see how it could lead to radical movement.

erm, blaming Nazi Germany for the killing of millions of innocent people is one thing I completely I agree on (as much as I hope you agree the Allies did the same), but the conditions for the outburst of WW2 were caused by a series of long and short term causes, which can't simply be tagged under "Germany", and this is not just me saying this..

You have to bear in mind that after the horrors of WW1, nobody was really too keen in the start of a new war, and the German public opinion had mixed reactions at first regarding the invasion of Poland. It was started in a clever(ish) way though, with the annexing of Austria and "peaceful" invasion of Czechoslovakia as a claim for the lost territories of the Empire, and the escalation to the proper conflict was skillfully fed to the people by the propaganda.

It's not like every German was a Nazi and wanted to conquer the world, that's a somewhat naive view me thinks..

[Triggaaar]

I strongly, strongly suggest you read the whole thread before posting and warming up arguments that have been discussed ad infitintum and throwing around insults. So far you did not provide anything that has not been said before.It's just too long a thread to read it all, then go back and start again, quoting bits that jump out at you. No doubt this has all been discussed a million times before, and no one here will say anything that hasn't been said before, so if you don't want to read the same thing again, don't read the thread.

erm, blaming Nazi Germany for the killing of millions of innocent people is one thing I completely I agree on (as much as I hope you agree the Allies did the same)The allies certainly killed millions of innocent people. The differences are in justification. When bombing enemy civilians you may be trying to encourage the enemy to chance their tactics, or weaken their resolve. Or they may be casualties among military targets. None of it is nice, but if you are fighting to ultimately defend your country it can be understandable. There is no such way to defend the holocaust.

The danger of writing history is that you need to be careful not to follow at all costs the doctrine of "we won, we're the good ones".

Don't ever forget that if they won the war, they would be the good ones and the Allies would be the baddies.. This is so wrong I don't know where to start. While over the centuries there has been truth in the saying that the victors write the history, you should not give up on finding the truth. If they had won the war, they would still have been the baddies (as you put it), we just might not know they were.

The Romans took over Europe, they won - they were not the goodies.
The Brits took over half the world - they were not the goodies.
The Crusaders went on a killing spree under the name of god - they were not the goodies.

It's not like every German was a Nazi and wanted to conquer the world, that's a somewhat naive view me thinks..No of course they weren't. It was your view that the war was not Germany's fault (the country, not every individual) that I am shocked by.

[Sternjaeger II]

It's just too long a thread to read it all, then go back and start again, quoting bits that jump out at you. No doubt this has all been discussed a million times before, and no one here will say anything that hasn't been said before, so if you don't want to read the same thing again, don't read the thread.

I'm sorry but that's a bit lazy: you get in a conversation while it's been running for a while and start blurting out sentences and calling people names just because you don't understand, how should one take this?

The allies certainly killed millions of innocent people. The differences are in justification. When bombing enemy civilians you may be trying to encourage the enemy to chance their tactics, or weaken their resolve. Or they may be casualties among military targets. None of it is nice, but if you are fighting to ultimately defend your country it can be understandable. There is no such way to defend the holocaust.

so you are shocked about what I said, whereas justifying the killing of innocents to stop a war is acceptable?! Double standards anyone?!?! How can you even begin to think that and consider yourself mature enough for this conversation?!?! I am shocked, seriously shocked.

Ah and FYI, check out how the Geneva convention was changed in 1949 regarding civilians...


This is so wrong I don't know where to start. While over the centuries there has been truth in the saying that the victors write the history, you should not give up on finding the truth. If they had won the war, they would still have been the baddies (as you put it), we just might not know they were.

Yeah, well good luck with that. And yes, if they won the war, on an absolute principle they would have been the baddies, but you reckon they would have said this or were aware of being the baddies?! Nobody thinks of themselves as the baddies.. I'm still shocked about your partial acceptance of the killing of civilians, how do you classify the invasion of Iraq after 9/11? Was the killing of all those civilians justified?


The Romans took over Europe, they won - they were not the goodies.
The Brits took over half the world - they were not the goodies.
The Crusaders went on a killing spree under the name of god - they were not the goodies.

your analysis is pointless. History is not a court, it's a chronicle. Historical analysis on the other hand is a form of judgement, but it can be bent and adapted to the different perspectives.

No of course they weren't. It was your view that the war was not Germany's fault (the country, not every individual) that I am shocked by.
excuse me, what's a country made of, land only? It's the majority of people of a country that decide for the fate of it.

[Bewolf]

It's just too long a thread to read it all, then go back and start again, quoting bits that jump out at you. No doubt this has all been discussed a million times before, and no one here will say anything that hasn't been said before, so if you don't want to read the same thing again, don't read the thread.


lol, wtf?

[Al Schlageter]

your analysis is pointless. History is not a court, it's a chronicle. Historical analysis on the other hand is a form of judgement, but it can be bent and adapted to the different perspectives.

Yes, we all see that you do that.

[MD_Titus]

Hais triggaaar

I'd leave stern's comments alone and ignore them, it's like nailing a jellyfish to water. And makes about as much sense.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Oh no.

It's all kicked off again.

Sorry chaps, just thought I'd say hello again.:)

[blackmme]

Oh no.

It's all kicked off again.

Sorry chaps, just thought I'd say hello again.:)

If they could just get the patch released we would have something else to talk about!

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Yes, we all see that you do that.

well I'm sorry but my logic is pretty simple: I look at the dates, numbers, statistics before and after (up to at least two years in each direction), which are incontrovertible facts, then draw my personal conclusions, which I expose with no national sentiment, but keeping into account other's (if present).

[Sternjaeger II]

Hais triggaaar

I'd leave stern's comments alone and ignore them, it's like nailing a jellyfish to water. And makes about as much sense.

so you too think that killing enemy innocent civilians is fine? Nice, I'm starting to delineate what sort of mentality goes on here among a certain bunch of people.

Un-frigging-believable :!:

[swiss]

Britain has only recently stopped paying for the wars.

In October 2010 Germany paid the last rate of reparation for WWI - after 92 years.

If the treaty was unfair, Germany should have concentrated on renegotiating it. Going to war again was hardly the solution was it.

LOL. That like negotiating with your own kidnapper.
Hint: As he's in power he doesn't give a sh1t.


The Romans took over Europe, they won - they were not the goodies.
The Brits took over half the world - they were not the goodies.
The Crusaders went on a killing spree under the name of god - they were not the goodies.

They were not? Who says that? You?
What's right or wrong lies in the eye of the beholder, end of story.
I for one dont agree with your judgment.
-We learned a lot from the Romans-> good thing
-Brits: same thing, most of their colonies were better of while being part of the empire.
-Crusader: Those guys conquered a good part of the Roman empire 500 years before that. Europe being part of the caliphate would have been the better option, right?


There is no such way to defend the holocaust.

Correct - only you can't use to justify the bombing of civilians as no one knew about it at the time.

[MD_Titus]

so you too think that killing enemy innocent civilians is fine? Nice, I'm starting to delineate what sort of mentality goes on here among a certain bunch of people.

Un-frigging-believable :!:

Lol! Where do I say anything like that?

So, by your judgment stern, I am a bnp supporting advocate of the slaughter of civilians.

My statement stands.

[Al Schlageter]

well I'm sorry but my logic is pretty simple: I look at the dates, numbers, statistics before and after (up to at least two years in each direction), which are incontrovertible facts, then draw my personal conclusions, which I expose with no national sentiment, but keeping into account other's (if present).

Yes we see your logic. Germany attempted to knock GB out of the war and failed, therefore it was a draw. Right, if you say so. :rolleyes:

[Sternjaeger II]

Lol! Where do I say anything like that?

So, by your judgment stern, I am a bnp supporting advocate of the slaughter of civilians.

My statement stands.

u r supporting triggaaar and his position, hence, you think like him..

or has this become an alliance of people that don't like me and find any good excuse to have a go? :confused:

Motivate your points and bring valid arguments to support your theory, I'm sure you can do it.

[Sternjaeger II]

Yes we see your logic. Germany attempted to knock GB out of the war and failed, therefore it was a draw. Right, if you say so. :rolleyes:

how can you even begin to think about simplifying a complicated matter such as WW2 with such a statement?! Are you guys even taking this thread seriously anymore?! :confused:

[MD_Titus]

Failure to meet objectives? Check
Loss of irreplaceable experienced crews? Check
Tactical defeat? Check
Ultimate strategic hammering by failing to meet objectives which would have led to capitulation of the UK? Check

Simplistic I know, but hey.

[Sternjaeger II]

Failure to meet objectives? Check
Loss of irreplaceable experienced crews? Check
Tactical defeat? Check
Ultimate strategic hammering by failing to meet objectives which would have led to capitulation of the UK? Check

Simplistic I know, but hey.

erm, it's kinda hard to keep on repeating the same things over and over, but hey...

Loss of irreplaceable experienced crews? They had losses, but learned a lot from the experience, if you look at the pilot organic numbers, by 1941 they recovered the lost pilot with new ones and had learned an immense lesson in terms of tactics. Don't really see it as much of a "defeat" there. Loss of personnel and material is an evaluated risk in warfare.

Tactical defeat? Hardly, it was more of a tactical stalemate. No changes in the frontline, only war of attrition between air forces and extra damage to civilian targets with thousands of civilian casualties. The Battle of Britain was followed by months of bombing offensive, and up until 1945 the Germans used their V1s and V2s. I really struggle to consider that a "victory".. Operation Sea Lion was never cancelled, only postponed.

Ultimate strategic hammering by failing to meet objectives which would have led to capitulation of the UK? Really? Have you read about the historical analysis that was published a few pages ago? The Germans didn't really have the same take on the whole Battle of Britain affair..

You see what I mean? You're judging a historical event from your side, not from an impartial point of view.

As for the damage GB sustained:

loss of many pilots (more or less experienced)? Mega check. By the end of the big aerial offensive, the RAF was on its knees, they had pilot with as little as 25 hours on the Spit that took off to engage bombers and fighters.

extended damage to civilian and military targets? Tens of thousands of civilian casualties, whole cities and factories turned into rubble, interruption of primary services. The situation was pretty grim by the end of the bomber offensive, it was obvious that mentioning a "victory in repelling the attacks" was of paramount importance back then. What they failed to say to the population obviously is that it wasn't a case of the RAF having crippled the Luftwaffe for good, but that the German forces were concentrating their efforts on a new frontline.

[adonys]

BoB was rather a skirmish, nothing more, nothing less. A first phase in the operation Sealowe, not a battle per-se.

You think that if Germany wouldn't have really wanted to start and carry the war in the east, could have not dispose of the english?!! By that time, or shortly after, they've got their droptanks, and that would have changed everything in a BoB phase 1 operation.

Simply, they've stopped it because there was no point in trying to enforce it at that time: Britain was in no way a threat for the continental Europe, and they've rather go east, as the Lebensraum doctrine was stating it. And after that, the russian bear gave them too much trouble to care about the silly brits and their island anymore.. until the americans came decided they want to have a go visit Paris..

[MD_Titus]

u r supporting triggaaar and his position, hence, you think like him..

or has this become an alliance of people that don't like me and find any good excuse to have a go? :confused:

Motivate your points and bring valid arguments to support your theory, I'm sure you can do it.

No, I was simply offering advice, nor was there any mention of the rather OT issue of bombing the bejaysis out of enemy manufacturing/civilian centres in my post, nor of the wholesale slaughter of ones own civilian population. Although I think that little distinction is very important to remember in terms of justifying acts undertaken in times of war.

[Sternjaeger II]

No, I was simply offering advice, nor was there any mention of the rather OT issue of bombing the bejaysis out of enemy manufacturing/civilian centres in my post, nor of the wholesale slaughter of ones own civilian population. Although I think that little distinction is very important to remember in terms of justifying acts undertaken in times of war.

there is NO justification whatsoever in the bombing of innocent civilians, as it was discussed and approved in the 1949 Geneva convention (after the lesson learned with the strategic bombing of German cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

The fact that you still believe there was a justification for those bombing is abhorrent to say the least, it's like justifying the Blitz or the concentration camps.

[MD_Titus]

Adonys, leaving a huge aircraft carrier off the french coast counts as a huge strategic failing. I mean really. Hitler was huffing glue when he conceived of the fatally flawed seelowe, and started on the speedballs when he went for russia having left the western front unfinished. An idiot can see this, with the 20/20 vision afforded to historians. Although you get the impression, wrongly or rightly, that teutonic knight wannabees don't grasp such self evident truths.

Stern, i'm judging from how it panned out.
Those losses in bob were incurred with no tactical or strategic benefit. I would add that, as a defender, you WANT the lines to stay the same. That represents victory over an attacking force.

Anyway, enough of your "logic" for now.

Tattybyes.

[Al Schlageter]

By your logic, again, then the U-boat war in the Atlantic, sinking civilian ships, was also not justifiable.

[MD_Titus]

there is NO justification whatsoever in the bombing of innocent civilians, as it was discussed and approved in the 1949 Geneva convention (after the lesson learned with the strategic bombing of German cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

The fact that you still believe there was a justification for those bombing is abhorrent to say the least, it's like justifying the Blitz or the concentration camps.

Lol. Continued attempts to derail from battle of britain being a defeat for the luftwaffe.

No, after 1949 there was no justification. Hasn't beem another shooting war like it since, but as ever civilian deaths still outstrip combatant deaths by several orders of magnitude. Also the luftwaffe and ija bombed civilian centres, just to add to your list of guilt.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Although you get the impression, wrongly or rightly, that teutonic knight wannabees don't grasp such self evident truths.

Cheers, man. I nearly p*ssed meself laughing. :grin::grin::grin:

War. Fail. Epic. War fail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CwfCBa6PSM

:D

[Sternjaeger II]

Adonys, leaving a huge aircraft carrier off the french coast counts as a huge strategic failing. I mean really. Hitler was huffing glue when he conceived of the fatally flawed seelowe, and started on the speedballs when he went for russia having left the western front unfinished. An idiot can see this, with the 20/20 vision afforded to historians. Although you get the impression, wrongly or rightly, that teutonic knight wannabees don't grasp such self evident truths.


You're applying hindsight again. Hitler had NO idea whatsoever that Japan was going to attack the USA in 1941, and even if he did, he was sure that the Russian offensive wouldn't have lasted more than a year.


Stern, i'm judging from how it panned out.
Those losses in bob were incurred with no tactical or strategic benefit. I would add that, as a defender, you WANT the lines to stay the same. That represents victory over an attacking force.

Anyway, enough of your "logic" for now.

Tattybyes.

if you say so..

By your logic, again, then the U-boat war in the Atlantic, sinking civilian ships, was also not justifiable.

Absolutely! There are no good or bad causes for the killing of undefended, innocent civilians!

Lol. Continued attempts to derail from battle of britain being a defeat for the luftwaffe.

No, after 1949 there was no justification. Hasn't beem another shooting war like it since, but as ever civilian deaths still outstrip combatant deaths by several orders of magnitude. Also the luftwaffe and ija bombed civilian centres, just to add to your list of guilt.

I am still motivating what I say, you talk insanity. After 1949 there was no justification? Is that how you feel to explain that? According to your theory then there's probably a way to justify the holocaust as well, isn't it? Or maybe yo're saying that the life of a Jew is worth more than a Russian OST battallion soldier, or one of the thousands German women raped by the Red Army soldiers, or maybe the thousands of children that perished in Germany and Japan under the Allied bombs..

Never said that the Luftwaffe or IJA didn't commit a war crime.

[adonys]

By your logic, again, then the U-boat war in the Atlantic, sinking civilian ships, was also not justifiable.

civilian ships transporting war materials? there were cases in which civilian ships were indeed sunk, and there's no excuse for that, but it wasn't a BDO policy.

[Sternjaeger II]

Although you get the impression, wrongly or rightly, that teutonic knight wannabees don't grasp such self evident truths.

Cheers, man. I nearly p*ssed meself laughing. :grin::grin::grin:

War. Fail. Epic. War fail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CwfCBa6PSM

:D

r u back into this with your off topic contributions? Thought that the mod message was quite clear..

[adonys]

Adonys, leaving a huge aircraft carrier off the french coast counts as a huge strategic failing. I mean really. Hitler was huffing glue when he conceived of the fatally flawed seelowe, and started on the speedballs when he went for russia having left the western front unfinished. An idiot can see this, with the 20/20 vision afforded to historians. Although you get the impression, wrongly or rightly, that teutonic knight wannabees don't grasp such self evident truths.

you seem to forget Dunkerque, and the fact that Germany want to solve the war with britain amiably, in order to deal with the real enemy. that's why Germany let the british army evacuate the 300k soldiers from there, and haven't started the actual fight with britain immediately as france fell. they were still hoping Britain will submit.

at the moment, it was not. the plan was to finish with russians quick, with the help of Japan, and then get back to resolve britain problem. the plans are yet only humans, and they might fail, as it was actually the case.

[MD_Titus]

You're applying hindsight again. Hitler had NO idea whatsoever that Japan was going to attack the USA in 1941, and even if he did, he was sure that the Russian offensive wouldn't have lasted more than a year.
no, i'm not actually, i'm putting myself in a position of occupying europe and keeping it. to do that i wouldn't leave a belligerent country off my shores.

I am still motivating what I say, you talk insanity. After 1949 there was no justification? Is that how you feel to explain that? According to your theory then there's probably a way to justify the holocaust as well, isn't it? Or maybe yo're saying that the life of a Jew is worth more than a Russian OST battallion soldier, or one of the thousands German women raped by the Red Army soldiers, or maybe the thousands of children that perished in Germany and Japan under the Allied bombs..

Never said that the Luftwaffe or IJA didn't commit a war crime.

after 1949 it became fact that bombing civilian population centres was unjustifiable. you're applying hindsight here. on the other hand it was always considered a bit unsporting to abuse or kill large sections of your own population, the occupants of invaded lands (to some degree anyway) or prisoners of war.

i do like the way you switch between contextual "fact" and historical revisionism, and all the while taking it off the simple topic of "was the battle of britain a defeat for the luftwaffe" and putting words into people's mouths that they simply did not say.

so, to sum up - yes. it was. it was not a draw either at the time or in retrospect.

jesus man, why did BoB veterans in the luftwaffe show each other their appendix scars? is that the act of a force that drew, that was not pressed into a shoddy plan beyond it's capability, that on the biggest day of operations was appalled to see the supposedly shattered and destroyed RAF put many times it's reported strength into the air against them... how is that not a defeat of the tactical and strategic aims of seelowe?

you don't deny that the axis committed war crimes, and boy were some of them BIGGIES. but you do a hell of a lot to gloss over them and instead discuss the allies war crimes. and don't do the "won't somebody think of the children" schtick, it's pathetically transparent.
civilian ships transporting war materials? there were cases in which civilian ships were indeed sunk, and there's no excuse for that, but it wasn't a BDO policy.
how about bombing factories that happen to be in the middle of population centres? surely that's justifiable by your standards?
you seem to forget Dunkerque, and the fact that Germany want to solve the war with britain amiably, in order to deal with the real enemy. that's why Germany let the british army evacuate the 300k soldiers from there, and haven't started the actual fight with britain immediately as france fell. they were still hoping Britain will submit.

at the moment, it was not. the plan was to finish with russians quick, with the help of Japan, and then get back to resolve britain problem. the plans are yet only humans, and they might fail, as it was actually the case.

solve the war amiably? by subjugating the country with military might and an invasion? that's amiable?? oh just lol.

"hey boys they let us escape, let's make friends! those bombs they were dropping on our boats and the strafing runs were just some friendly joshing about, no harm done eh lads"!

as for enlisting the help of the japanese to attack russia... um, seeing as they had a sound thumping at the hands of the red army freshly in their minds, and pretty much ignored the soviets for the length of the war.

seriously.

the plans were the work of a madman with all the strategic and logistical sense of a woodlouse, who enlisted a heroin addicted transvestite to conduct a reduction of british aircover over the channel to allow an unprecedented and unprepared for amphibious invasion, and operated a divide and rule strategy amongst his own staff officers that was inefficient at best, and at worst downright destructive. if you want to convince yourself that it was a case of getting drop tanks in time, or being able to knock russia out of the war in a year then fine, i'll leave you to your teutonic knights fantasy.

[swiss]

So the expedition force was just too fast for the Germans. ok.

[MD_Titus]

So the expedition force was just too fast for the Germans. ok.

No. not what i said.

however, nor were they let go to help further a peace settlement. Part tactical bungle in not encircling and destroying the panicked and fleeing BEF, part speedy reaction on the part of the navy and the often over emphasised little boats, and part luck - didn't some pursuing wehrmacht units run too low on fuel to press on - as well as the wehrmacht's desire to deny us port access to evacuate.

[MD_Titus]

as a side note, is it a general tactic for teutonic fantasists to bring up defeats that the british (in this case) or the allied (in general) forces suffered when they faced with an incontrovertible defeat of their beloved? i'm seeing a certain theme... you know, "well, maybe you think that happened but you see this was done/happened to/carried out by [insert name here], and worse too! so there, we still won". as if it's a game of one-up-manship in atrocities or defeats suffered.

[Kurfürst]

No. not what i said.

however, nor were they let go to help further a peace settlement. Part tactical bungle in not encircling and destroying the panicked and fleeing BEF, part speedy reaction on the part of the navy and the often over emphasised little boats, and part luck - didn't some pursuing wehrmacht units run too low on fuel to press on - as well as the wehrmacht's desire to deny us port access to evacuate.

It also had a bit to do that there was still a largely intact French army south of the Benelux. The Wehrmachts main and most immidiate concern was them, not 250 000 odd British troops who were leaving for good and would be out of the game for a good time, wheter they were encircled & destroyed or not. The French had in comparison IIRC had about 2 million troops mobilized who were not going to home. France was not yet defeated.

Either way, the British would be neutralized, destroying them would be a bonus, but at the cost of entering into a bloody vernichtungschlact in the Dunkerque pocket, that would certainly lead to significant losses, most importantly amongst the armored units, fighting on unfavourable terrain. They were needed intact for future operations. In the end it would risk the victorious outcome of the whole campaign - and this was the main concern of Rundstedt, who order the stop of units, and Hitler who approved it. Any political consideration at the time was secondary to military ones - France had to be defeated first.

[MD_Titus]

It also had a bit to do that there was still a largely intact French army south of the Benelux. The Wehrmachts main and most immidiate concern was them, not 250 000 odd British troops who were leaving for good and would be out of the game for a good time, wheter they were encircled & destroyed or not. The French had in comparison IIRC had about 2 million troops mobilized who were not going to home. France was not yet defeated.

Either way, the British would be neutralized, destroying them would be a bonus, but at the cost of entering into a bloody vernichtungschlact in the Dunkerque pocket, that would certainly lead to significant losses, most importantly amongst the armored units, fighting on unfavourable terrain. They were needed intact for future operations. In the end it would risk the victorious outcome of the whole campaign - and this was the main concern of Rundstedt, who order the stop of units, and Hitler who approved it. Any political consideration at the time was secondary to military ones - France had to be defeated first.

of course! i was forgetting that massive elephant in the room there, my gratitude kurfurst.

[Sternjaeger II]

no, i'm not actually, i'm putting myself in a position of occupying europe and keeping it. to do that i wouldn't leave a belligerent country off my shores.

you are giving assessments of the situation as if you were playing Risk, the situation was a tad more complicated than that.


after 1949 it became fact that bombing civilian population centres was unjustifiable. you're applying hindsight here. on the other hand it was always considered a bit unsporting to abuse or kill large sections of your own population, the occupants of invaded lands (to some degree anyway) or prisoners of war.

ah ok, so you're confirming what I was saying: the killing of civilians before 1949 was ok, so you're implying that the killing of Jews was right? All in all the Nazis considered them their enemy, and to pursue their cause they wanted to eliminate them.. Do you realise the nonsense you're saying to justify the killing of civilians perpetrated by the Allies? :confused:


i do like the way you switch between contextual "fact" and historical revisionism, and all the while taking it off the simple topic of "was the battle of britain a defeat for the luftwaffe" and putting words into people's mouths that they simply did not say.

hey, I was going on topic, your friends then start changing topic and then blame me for going off topic. Read my comments re. the BoB, I've exposed them more than once.


so, to sum up - yes. it was. it was not a draw either at the time or in retrospect.

you're summing it up on assumptions, not on facts.


jesus man, why did BoB veterans in the luftwaffe show each other their appendix scars? is that the act of a force that drew, that was not pressed into a shoddy plan beyond it's capability, that on the biggest day of operations was appalled to see the supposedly shattered and destroyed RAF put many times it's reported strength into the air against them... how is that not a defeat of the tactical and strategic aims of seelowe?

apart for the scar thing which I didn't get, you're making assumptions again. The Germans fought until 1945 even when they really were doing it against all odds, do you reckon that the situation in 1940 was such a blow for morale? Who's delusional now?


you don't deny that the axis committed war crimes, and boy were some of them BIGGIES. but you do a hell of a lot to gloss over them and instead discuss the allies war crimes. and don't do the "won't somebody think of the children" schtick, it's pathetically transparent.

yeah, you already said that killing kids is fine, if it's a good cause. I don't see how this puts you in a better position than Nazis frankly.


how about bombing factories that happen to be in the middle of population centres? surely that's justifiable by your standards?

one thing is collateral damage, another is intentional attack of civilian targets. Do you know that the Americans refused to bomb Germany civilian targets when Harris asked for help?


solve the war amiably? by subjugating the country with military might and an invasion? that's amiable?? oh just lol.

"hey boys they let us escape, let's make friends! those bombs they were dropping on our boats and the strafing runs were just some friendly joshing about, no harm done eh lads"!

you might have heard that there were secret meetings and tentative agreements between Germany and some of your political and royal family members. Germany was hoping to find another Quisling in the UK, and occupy it like they did with Norway.

Saving the life of 300k soldiers was a huge sign of wanting a truce: the Stukas could have made a slaughterhouse of Dunkirk.


as for enlisting the help of the japanese to attack russia... um, seeing as they had a sound thumping at the hands of the red army freshly in their minds, and pretty much ignored the soviets for the length of the war.

seriously.

the plans were the work of a madman with all the strategic and logistical sense of a woodlouse, who enlisted a heroin addicted transvestite to conduct a reduction of british aircover over the channel to allow an unprecedented and unprepared for amphibious invasion, and operated a divide and rule strategy amongst his own staff officers that was inefficient at best, and at worst downright destructive. if you want to convince yourself that it was a case of getting drop tanks in time, or being able to knock russia out of the war in a year then fine, i'll leave you to your teutonic knights fantasy.

you obviously aren't capable of a sober view on the matters. Calling historical character names or disputing renown theories and possible scenarios is just banter, you have no idea how close you were to a very different scenario in the end of 1940.

[MB_Avro_UK]

Hi all,

I'm the creator of this thread.

A couple of German posters have decided to post that the British Army in WW2 was not as 'good' as the German Army.

I'm pleased to hear it.

The British and Commonwealth armies were drawn from volunteers and eventually conscripts.They were not products of the fanatical Hitler Youth.

The German Army of today has thankfully no resemblance to the German soldiers of 1940. In fact, they resemble the British Army of 1940.

Democratic soldiers are not fanatics.


The Battle of Britain enabled pilots from democracies across the world to give the Nazis a 'bloody nose'. And that's a fact.

And thanks to these pilots, we are free to post what we like.

Another German comment here is that Britain and France caused WW2 by declaring war on Germany in September 1939. Hmmm...let's examine the facts shall we?

Who invaded Poland? Who caused the death of 20% of the Polish population?

Who invaded the rest of Europe?

Was it America?

Was it England?

No. It was Germany.

And which country (Shall we guess?) invaded Russia and killed 10 million + of their people.

In other words, try not to take the moral high ground.


Now, let's have as beer. Prost!



Best Regards,
MB_Avro

[arthursmedley]

Avro, at last! How do you do it? Sixty-nine pages in nine days!

Legendary!!!!!

[Skoshi Tiger]

Another German comment here is that Britain and France caused WW2 by declaring war on Germany in September 1939. Hmmm...let's examine the facts shall we?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro
+1
Lets go back to original British declaration of war

""I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room at 10, Downing Street. This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.
You can imagine what a bitter blow it is to me that all my long struggle to win peace has failed.

Yet I cannot believe that there is anything more or anything different that I could have done and that would have been more successful. Up to the very last it would have been quite possible to have arranged a peaceful and honourable settlement between Germany and Poland.

But Hitler would not have it. He had evidently made up his mind to attack Poland whatever happened; and although he now says he put forward reasonable proposals which were rejected by the Poles, that is not a true statement. The proposals were never shown to the Poles nor to us; and though they were announced in the German broadcast on Thursday night, Hitler did not wait to hear comments on them, but ordered his troops to cross the Polish frontier next morning.

His action shows convincingly that there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force and we and France are to-day, in fulfilment of our obligations, going to the aid of Poland, who is so bravely resisting this wicked and unprovoked attack upon her people.

We have a clear conscience. We have done all that any country could do to establish peace, but a situation in which no word given by Germany's ruler could be trusted and no people or country could feel themselves safe had become intolerable. And now that we have resolved to finish it, I know that you will all play your part with calmness and courage."




Britain and France were bound in a treaty with Poland and were obliged to come to their aide. Hitler and the German high command knew this. They either hoped that Britain and France would not honour their alliance OR they were provoking them into war. Which one was it?

[Theshark888]

How could the Germans make the same mistake as 20 years before by opening a two-front war? Instead of blaming the victorious allies or the Jews, hitler should have known that what he was doing was recreating the same war/same result again!!!

Bismarck was rolling in his grave twice during the twentieth-century!:rolleyes:

Stern-
Americans refused to join Harris, not because of being noble, but because the USAAF was trained to bomb pinpoint targets, not population centers. The weather in Europe would modify this somewhat.

Avro-
Don't get me started on the behavior/actions of the German Army in Afghanistan

[Kobold10]

Hi all,

I'm the creator of this thread.

A couple of German posters have decided to post that the British Army in WW2 was not as 'good' as the German Army.

I'm pleased to hear it.

The British and Commonwealth armies were drawn from volunteers and eventually conscripts.They were not products of the fanatical Hitler Youth.

The German Army of today has thankfully no resemblance to the German soldiers of 1940. In fact, they resemble the British Army of 1940.

Democratic soldiers are not fanatics.


The Battle of Britain enabled pilots from democracies across the world to give the Nazis a 'bloody nose'. And that's a fact.

And thanks to these pilots, we are free to post what we like.

Another German comment here is that Britain and France caused WW2 by declaring war on Germany in September 1939. Hmmm...let's examine the facts shall we?

Who invaded Poland? Who caused the death of 20% of the Polish population?

Who invaded the rest of Europe?

Was it America?

Was it England?

No. It was Germany.

And which country (Shall we guess?) invaded Russia and killed 10 million + of their people.

In other words, try not to take the moral high ground.


Now, let's have as beer. Prost!



Best Regards,
MB_Avro

True words.... WW 2 was a total bloody mess and a clash of ideologies! And it was Germany starting the war. We shall never forget that Europe was very close to disapear as a center of culture and innovation. (Beside the fact that we were very innovative in killing each other!) The roots of conflict of WW 2 was WW1, ore to mention it with Brithish words the 2nd 30 years war. Especially the phase after WW I was the "trigger-phase" that enabled the NAZIS to start with their dirty work. -planning a new war-
I think we all should respect each other and do what flight enthusiasts can do best: Fly on our PC´s and respect those who had to suffer and pay the ultimate prize for freedom. The battle of Britain was fore shure the first major defeat of NAZI Germany-Austria. But it was not a fatal defeat. It paved the way for all the things that happened afterwards. From the perspective of the pilots of that time there was no right or wrong. All served their country with great enthusiasm. It was the fault of the politicans to find a sollution of jumping out the road that led to war. - And they failed- I totally agree that we all should have a beer and stop sensless discussions who was wrong or right. Let´s start playing and thank god that whenever we shoot at each other nobody is hurt, because it´s simply a game. Prost!

[ZaltysZ]

Britain and France were bound in a treaty with Poland and were obliged to come to their aide. Hitler and the German high command knew this. They either hoped that Britain and France would not honour their alliance OR they were provoking them into war. Which one was it?

I think it was both. Munich agreement could have created a hope that Poland may be happily fed to Germany too, and that other counties would be reluctant to enter the war or at least they would want to hold active actions for some time. Pre war territorial gains of Germany were almost like probing of willingness of other countries to fight: take something; no opposition, then take more.

[SNAFU]

Good that the tread opener jumped back in and brought the discussion back to the main esscence, which fed the plebs for the last 69 pages:
Us and them!

And someone still wonders, how the 2nd WW was possible? :rolleyes:

[Sternjaeger II]

I am frankly disconcerted about the fact that people had an "us vs them" perspective on most of the posts of this thread, I really think it's either a huge case of "lost in translation" or approach to the topic in an incorrect manner.

[adonys]

Yes, the war actually started with both Germany AND Russia invading Poland.

No, Germany haven't invaded the rest of Europe, in case you've forgot, both Britain and France declared war against Poland invaders (though not on Russia..), so actually Germany was in a state of war with France and Britain.. so, that's not an invasion (as in we've invaded them over night), but a legit part of the war actions.

Yet.. DO you know about this little declaration?!! Read it carefully please, and go dig it into the war magazines archives in case you think it's forged:

"Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to." (Polish Marshal Rydz-Smigly as reported in the Daily Mail, August 6th, 1939)

What if actually Poland was acting as the small thug, knowing it has binding treaties with other two BIG thugs (read France and Britain) to jump in for it, no matter what?!!

There are voices saying that actually Poland was salying german population from the german territories taken from Germany and given to Poland at the end of WWI, and that was actually the reason for which Germany invaded Poland.. read Polish Atrocities Against the German Minority in Poland (http://www.jrbooksonline.com/polish_atrocities.htm), and read it full, not just the main article in there


Things are much more complicated than they are presented to us by "official history"..

PS: also, there's another thing I keep hearing in this "if Germany would have won, history would have been very different".. implying it would have been much worse than the actual outcome.. yet.. I find this disturbing.. are you VERY SURE things wold have been much worse?

have any of your big-mouths-stating-this-bold-declaration countries spent the past 50 under the paw of the communist russian bear?!! do you have any idea what was like to live in eastern Europe from 1945 to 1990?!! Germany killed 6 millions in concentration camps, official record (which actually might be a much pumped-up number), but do you have ANY IDEA how many of my eastern europe fellows died in russian gulags?! the 50 millions number tells you anything?!! do you have any idea what happened in the countries and towns occupied by the soviets at the end of WWII?!! has the word mass rape any meaning to you?!! do you know that whole industries were dismantled from these countries and went to the brother russian as war compensations, leaving east european countries with nothing?! and then enslaved for the following 50 years to pay ten times the named war compensations (namely at the "fair" prices imposed by the russians)?!!

I'll tell you just one story, I've heard it countless times from all the elders I've talked with which were living those times.. when germans came, if you had two pigs, they would have taken one, and eventually give you something (no matter how symbolic) in exchange for it, and leave you the other.. when russian came, they would have taken both pigs, rape your wife and daugthers, take anything which could be carried away and eventually set everything remaining on fire..

THIS was your better alternative..

[kendo65]

Yes, the war actually started with both Germany AND Russia invading Poland.

No, Germany haven't invaded the rest of Europe, in case you've forgot, both Britain and France declared war against Poland invaders (though not on Russia..), so actually Germany was in a state of war with France and Britain.. so, that's not an invasion (as in we've invaded them over night), but a legit part of the war actions.

Yet.. DO you know about this little declaration?!! Read it carefully please, and go dig it into the war magazines archives in case you think it's forged:

"Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to." (Polish Marshal Rydz-Smigly as reported in the Daily Mail, August 6th, 1939)

What if actually Poland was acting as the small thug, knowing it has binding treaties with other two BIG thugs (read France and Britain) to jump in for it, no matter what?!!

There are voices saying that actually Poland was salying german population from the german territories taken from Germany and given to Poland at the end of WWI, and that was actually the reason for which Germany invaded Poland.. read Polish Atrocities Against the German Minority in Poland (http://www.jrbooksonline.com/polish_atrocities.htm), and read it full, not just the main article in there


Things are much more complicated than they are presented to us by "official history"..

You may not be aware of the history of The Daily Mail in the 1930s under proprietor Lord Rothermere. It had well-publicised Nazi sympathies. In the context of the other rubbish they were publishing then the above 'story' should not be relied on as necessarily true.

Just a brief search on this as I don't have the time at the moment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

Lord Rothermere was a friend and supporter of both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, which influenced the Mail's political stance towards them during the 1930s.[25][26] Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them.[27]

Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists.[28] Rothermere wrote an article entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine".

“ The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing on Germany (1933). ”

—Lord Rothermere, publisher


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1484647/When-Rothermere-urged-Hitler-to-invade-Romania.html

http://peterblack.blogspot.com/2010/04/daily-mail-nick-clegg-and-nazis.html

http://conservapedia.com/Daily_Mail

"In the 1930s, the Daily Mail was politically sympathetic to fascism, and Lord Rothermere wrote articles praising the British Union of Fascists and their leader Oswald Mosley in particular for showing “sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine”. One headline notoriously read "Hurrah for the Blackshirts". However, he toned down his support after the Fascist party was involved in street violence. The Mail’s political stance was also influenced by Rothermere’s personal friendship with both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party – the only newspaper to support them both consistently. Rothermere sent Hitler a telegram of congratulations after Germany invaded the Sudetenland in 1938. The paper also published The Protocols of The Elders of Zion in serial form, and ran inflammatory articles about Jewish immigrants.[4]

Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy was supported by the Daily Mail until after the Munich Agreement, but the newspaper changed its stance after the Nazi invasion of Hungary in 1939. This change of attitude may have been influenced by Chamberlain’s threat to close them down."

[Bewolf]

It most definately would have been much, much worse had Germany won. I am glad the Nazis lost in many ways.
Those stories about german minorites being persectued is most likely Propaganda. However, Poland indeed acted very, very agressivly towards Germany during the days of the Weimar Republic, after WW1 even tried to grab more land from Germany militarily.

Funny, however, how some individuals once again try to deflect this debate about Britain at Germany, as usual hiding behind Poles, Jews, Gypsies and other victims who they did not lift one finger for during the war. The usual hypocrisis.

[kendo65]

It most definately would have been much, much worse had Germany won. I am glad the Nazis lost in many ways.
Those stories about german minorites being persectued is most likely Propaganda. However, Poland indeed acted very, very agressivly towards Germany during the days of the Weimar Republic, after WW1 even tried to grab more land from Germany militarily.

Funny, however, how some individuals once again try to deflect this debate about Britain at Germany, as usual hiding behind Poles, Jews, Gypsies and other victims who they did not lift one finger for during the war. The usual hypocrisis.

Before talking about people 'deflecting' debate maybe you could refamiliarise yourself with the title of this thread!!

And then ask which individuals broadened the discussion initially.

edit: sorry Bewolf. Bit of an over-reaction

[adonys]

I'm not so sure.. Even if Germany won, I'm sure the german nazi scums would have been removed from the history's scene much faster and with less casualties than the soviet ones.. The german nation was at that time much more educated than the russian one

but of course, we can never be sure, and things went as they went..

[Bewolf]

Before talking about people 'deflecting' debate maybe you could refamiliarise yourself with the title of this thread!!

And then ask which individuals broadened the discussion initially. :rolleyes:

I was not aiming at you, Kendo, I consider your posts quite sensible, though I can see how one feels targeted by association. And you are right about the initial topic, but that was left a long time ago.

[Bewolf]

I'm not so sure.. Even if Germany won, the german nazi scums would have been removed from the history's scene much faster and with less casualties than the soviet ones..

but of course, we can never be sure, as things went as they went..

That is purely speculative. I'd not have wanted to take that risk, to be honest.

[Sternjaeger II]

and to all the people saying how it went off topic, it's probably the natural progression of a discussion on this thread, don't think for a minute there's intention in derailing the original topic.

What emerges though is that there is still a lot of misconceptions and different takes on how things went.

[ZaltysZ]

I'll tell you just one story, I've heard it countless times from all the elders I've talked with which were living those times.. when germans came, if you had two pigs, they would have taken one, and eventually give you something (no matter how symbolic) in exchange for it, and leave you the other.. when russian came, they would have taken both pigs, rape your wife and daugthers, take anything which could be carried away and eventually set everything remaining on fire..

Sounds so familiar (minus the raping). What country were those elders from?

Soviets were not beasts per se, however there should be a distinction made: behavior is very different when soldiers are on offensive side, which hasn't suffered much losses, and when soldiers are retreating with lots of casualties or are back on offensive after lots of defeats. Germans were less nice while they were retreating, and Soviets were constantly fed with ideas of revenge by propaganda. Sadly it takes not much for war to make beast from human.

[adonys]

Romania

we were occupied by the Germans, both when victorious and when defeated, and also as allies and enemies.. and by the russians, both when defeated as enemies and victorious as allies.. and the only difference was between germans and russian, not if victorious or defeated, not if allies or enemies.. russian soldiers at that time were simply steppe barbarian hordes, leaving a trail of rape, death, fire and destruction behind them..

[Kurfürst]

Democratic soldiers are not fanatics.

How do Spartans fit into this theory? :p

[Al Schlageter]

How do Spartans fit into this theory? :p

Sparta was an Oligarchy.

Democracy is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.

Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. Throughout history, most oligarchies have been tyrannical, relying on public servitude to exist, although others have been relatively benign.

[Al Schlageter]

The Führer and Supreme Commander
of the Armed Forces


Führer Headquarters,
16th July 1940.
7 copies

Directive No. 16 On preparations for a landing operation against England

Since England, in spite of her hopeless military situation, shows no signs of being ready to come to an understanding, I have decided to prepare a landing operation against England and, if necessary, to carry it out.

The aim of this operation will be to eliminate the English homeland as a base for the prosecution of the war against Germany and, if necessary, to occupy it completely.

I therefore order as follows :

1. The landing will be in the form of a surprise crossing on a wide front from about Ramsgate to the area west of the Isle of Wight. Units of the Air Force will act as artillery, and units of the Navy as engineers.

The possible advantages of limited operations before the general crossing (e.g. the occupation of the Isle of Wight or of the county of Cornwall) are to be considered from the point of view of each branch of the Armed Forces and the results reported to me. I reserve the decision to myself.

Preparations for the entire operation must be completed by the middle of August.

2. These preparations must also create such conditions as will make a landing in England possible, viz:

(a) The English Air Force must be so reduced morally and physically that it is unable to deliver any significant attack against the German crossing.

(b) Mine-free channels must be cleared.

(c) The Straits of Dover must be closely sealed off with minefields on both flanks; also the Western entrance to the Channel approximately on the line Alderney-Poitland.

(d) Strong forces of coastal artillery must command and protect the forward coastal area.

(e) It is desirable that the English Navy be tied down shortly before the crossing, both in the North Sea and in the Mediterranean (by the Italians)1. For this purpose we must attempt even now to damage English home-based naval forces by air and torpedo attack as far as possible.

Stern, 2.a was not even close to being met and you still want to call it a draw. :rolleyes:

[adonys]

Democracy was what it was in ancient Greece, in which everyone's word had the same weight when taking a decision regarding's city's policy.

It is not the case anymore with XX century's "democracies"

I'll give you a single example about what american XX century democracy is: The Gulf of Tonkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident) incident (the pretext which actually started the Vietnam war).. How is this different than what they officially say Germany did to Poland? In only one aspect.. Germany didn't won..

[adonys]

...
(a) The English Air Force must be so reduced morally and physically that it is unable to deliver any significant attack against the German crossing.
...

Stern, 2.a was not even close to being met and you still want to call it a draw. :rolleyes:

Hmm.. in this case, you need to re-read the memories of the WWII british fighter pilots, which were brought on (or even over) the very edge of mental and physical collapse at that time..

[robtek]

EVERY soldier is a fanatic when psyched up by propaganda!

[Sternjaeger II]

Stern, 2.a was not even close to being met and you still want to call it a draw. :rolleyes:

whatever the plan was, it was suspended for other matters. At the time of the suspension of major aerial operation over the Channel the RAF was at the brink of collapse, the Luftwaffe could have won the war of attrition, had they persevered.

Let's give you an example: you're playing football with your friends, at some point the other team needs to leave because more urgent matters require their presence, and so far the score is a draw, but you've been struggling and you know that if they didn't have to leave you might have lost that game. I would understand your enthusiasm for having got away with it, but would you really consider that a victory, or one to celebrate anyway? :rolleyes:

[Al Schlageter]

Hmm.. in this case, you need to re-read the memories of the WWII british fighter pilots, which were brought on (or even over) the very edge of mental and physical collapse at that time..

Yet they still kept flying and fighting, so not even close to your statement.

[Sternjaeger II]

Yet they still kept flying and fighting, so not even close to your statement.

of course they did, what else could they do? They were pushed to the max: the RAF gave their pilots amphetamines, the Luftwaffe benzedrine.. there were cases of nervous breakdown and accidents due to tiredness on both factions.

[Al Schlageter]

whatever the plan was, it was suspended for other matters. At the time of the suspension of major aerial operation over the Channel the RAF was at the brink of collapse, the Luftwaffe could have won the war of attrition, had they persevered.

Let's give you an example: you're playing football with your friends, at some point the other team needs to leave because more urgent matters require their presence, and so far the score is a draw, but you've been struggling and you know that if they didn't have to leave you might have lost that game. I would understand your enthusiasm for having got away with it, but would you really consider that a victory, or one to celebrate anyway? :rolleyes:

Sure Stern, what ever you say. The Lw abandoned the daylight phase which was to defeat the RAF and switched to night terror attacks on civilians.

As for the war of attrition, the number of Spitfires and Hurricanes increased during the daylight phase of the battle while the Lw's numbers continually declined from the numbers at the start of the battle in July.

13 Aug 40
Strength Summary
Number Type Strength/Svcble
42 1/3 Kampfgruppen 1482/ 1008
9 Stukagruppen 365/286
1 Schlachtgruppe 39/31
26 Jagdgruppen 976/853
9 Zerstrergruppen 244/189
3 Nachtjagdgruppen 91/59
14 Seefliegerstaffeln 240/125

7 Sept 1940
Strength Summary
Number Type Strength/Svcble
43 Kampfgruppen 1291/ 798 > -191/-210
4 Stukagruppen 174/133 > -191/-153
2 Schlachtgruppe 59/44 > +20/+13
27 Jagdgruppen 831/658 > -145/-199
8 Zerstörergruppen 206/112 > -38/-77
18 Fernaufklärungsstaffeln 191/123
6 Seefliegerstaffeln 52/33

[Sternjaeger II]

Sure Stern, what ever you say. The Lw abandoned the daylight phase which was to defeat the RAF and switched to night terror attacks on civilians.

well, according to some of your buddies here that was ok (at least until 1949!) :rolleyes:


As for the war of attrition, the number of Spitfires and Hurricanes increased during the daylight phase of the battle while the Lw's numbers continually declined from the numbers at the start of the battle in July.

13 Aug 40
Strength Summary
Number Type Strength/Svcble
42 1/3 Kampfgruppen 1482/ 1008
9 Stukagruppen 365/286
1 Schlachtgruppe 39/31
26 Jagdgruppen 976/853
9 Zerstrergruppen 244/189
3 Nachtjagdgruppen 91/59
14 Seefliegerstaffeln 240/125

7 Sept 1940
Strength Summary
Number Type Strength/Svcble
43 Kampfgruppen 1291/ 798 > -191/-210
4 Stukagruppen 174/133 > -191/-153
2 Schlachtgruppe 59/44 > +20/+13
27 Jagdgruppen 831/658 > -145/-199
8 Zerstörergruppen 206/112 > -38/-77
18 Fernaufklärungsstaffeln 191/123
6 Seefliegerstaffeln 52/33

sources man, don't forget to mention the sources. As for the number of Spitfires and Hurricanes, I'm not that sure about your statement, but even if you are right it's kind of irrelevant, since you need pilots to fly them.

Had the battle continued, you would have soon seen the entrance in service of Bf109F and subsequently FW190s together with extended fuel tanks, then I doubt that the MkV and Hurri had much of a chance there..

[Al Schlageter]

source: http://sturmvogel.orbat.com/LW_OBs.html This is a well known site. I am surprised to you are not familiar with it.

But the day battle didn't continue as the RAF put the run to the Lw.:) The Lw lost in its attempt to destroy the RAF.

The Lw was loosing even more aircrew, ~5 times more.

[Kurfürst]

How many RAF pilots were considered "A" Squadron category, ie. fit for combat, and how many "B" and "C", ie. unfit for combat and essentially only existing on paper?

Considering that RAF started the battle with about 800 fighters, and lost as destroyed about 1100 during the Battle, it would seem the initial pool of pilots was lucky if he even survived the battle with an attrition over 100%.. how many were considered fit for operations out of these hordes of new pilots with six weeks of traning? I doubt if more than a third.

[Sternjaeger II]

source: http://sturmvogel.orbat.com/LW_OBs.html This is a well known site. I am surprised to you are not familiar with it.
I don't think you mentioned it before, and the assumption you made that I don't know it is based on?


But the day battle didn't continue as the RAF put the run to the Lw.:) The Lw lost in its attempt to destroy the RAF.

The Lw was loosing even more aircrew, ~5 times more.

aaawww child :rolleyes: ;)

You surely know that Luftwaffe crews had a "one pilot per machine only" policy, so the highly trained personnel loss rate was in fact on par (if not less) with the RAF. Get your facts straight.

[Al Schlageter]

RAF > 544 aircrew killed
Lw > 2,698 aircrew killed

To those numbers should be added POW and WIA.

Since you are such the gung-ho luftwaffler I would think you would at least do some research on the Lw and have found that site, which has been around for a very long time.

By 2 November, the RAF fielded 1,796 pilots, an increase of over 40% from July 1940's count of 1,259 pilots. (Dye 2000, p. 35.) How many pilots did the Lw have?

By 14 September the Luftwaffe's Bf 109 Geschwader possessed only 67 percent of their operational crews against authorised aircraft. The RAF had an excess of pilots on squadron strength, as well as a/c.

Due to the failure of the Luftwaffe to establish air supremacy, a conference assembled on 14 September at Hitler's headquarters. Hitler concluded that air superiority had not yet been established and "promised to review the situation on 17 September for possible landings on 27 September or 8 October. Three days later, when the evidence was clear that the German Air Force had greatly exaggerated the extent of their successes against the RAF, Hitler postponed Sealion indefinitely. (Overy 2001, p. 97.)

[MD_Titus]

You're unaware of "channel sickness" stern? Not as well versed as you think then. I'll get back to the rest of your post later.

[MD_Titus]

you are giving assessments of the situation as if you were playing Risk, the situation was a tad more complicated than that.

no, i'm assessing the saituation on the simple basis of don't leave things unfinished before starting on massive new enterprises. you could ascribe it to Machiavelli even.

ah ok, so you're confirming what I was saying: the killing of civilians before 1949 was ok, so you're implying that the killing of Jews was right? All in all the Nazis considered them their enemy, and to pursue their cause they wanted to eliminate them.. Do you realise the nonsense you're saying to justify the killing of civilians perpetrated by the Allies? :confused:

nothing of the sort. you either assess it as it was in the day - ie no convention prohibiting the bombing of civilian centres - or with hindsight and retrospectively whereby it is unjustifiable. you're wilfully misreading what i say, and then putting words in my mouth. again. in no shape or way did i say that the killing of civilians was justified.


hey, I was going on topic, your friends then start changing topic and then blame me for going off topic. Read my comments re. the BoB, I've exposed them more than once.

and yet you continue with it, and add more tangents. i have read your comments, and dismissed them as utter tosh, where you switch between "no hindsight allowed" and revisionism. it's amusing. also, for the record, long posts does not equate to a wealth of knowledge. were you never taught the value of brevity?


you're summing it up on assumptions, not on facts.

no, no assumptions made.

apart for the scar thing which I didn't get, you're making assumptions again. The Germans fought until 1945 even when they really were doing it against all odds, do you reckon that the situation in 1940 was such a blow for morale? Who's delusional now?

luftwaffe veterans of the battle of britain would show off their appendix scars. an appendictomy was often used as a means to get a couple of weeks rest for the pilots whose nerve was near breaking point, and "channel sickness" (i forget the german term) was pretty rife towards the end of the battle. after the tide turned in the east germany was fighting for survival. once the campaign had started in russia there was no hope of a peaceful settlement, it was a war of destruction. i also have not heard or read of RAF pilots undergoing surgery to get rest, although "exhaustion" was oft cited for pulling RAF pilots out of units and sending them on leave/training squadrons, and squadrons were rotated out of the main fighter groups when they were approaching burnout. a policy that the allies had but the luftwaffe didn't ascribe to.

oh, and you, ftr

yeah, you already said that killing kids is fine, if it's a good cause. I don't see how this puts you in a better position than Nazis frankly.

lies.

one thing is collateral damage, another is intentional attack of civilian targets. Do you know that the Americans refused to bomb Germany civilian targets when Harris asked for help?

lies. the americans claimed they delivered pinpoint bombing raids. well, pinpoint by forties standards anyway. they also did their bombing in daylight, whereas the RAF had carry out nightbombing. this had a twofold effect: the reich was under the threat of bombing 24 hours a day, no rest, no let up; and the bombing had no hope of being as accurate at night time. also, if the americans refused civilian targets why did they bomb dresden twice in daylight? they may have had different priority lists, but there seems to be no refusal.


you might have heard that there were secret meetings and tentative agreements between Germany and some of your political and royal family members. Germany was hoping to find another Quisling in the UK, and occupy it like they did with Norway.
mmm. political machinations which went nowhere once the luftwaffe's attempt to destroy the RAF in the south of england failed, aka defeat in the battle of britain.


Saving the life of 300k soldiers was a huge sign of wanting a truce: the Stukas could have made a slaughterhouse of Dunkirk.

lol. "they let us go, it was a misunderstanding"!
yes, certainly a misunderstanding, they didn't realise how bloody minded churchill and the british in general were. the stuka's were far from ineffective at dunkirk as well. accounts often talk about the sirens of teh stukas and the bombs and shelling. certainly sounds like they let us go. :rolleyes:


you obviously aren't capable of a sober view on the matters. Calling historical character names or disputing renown theories and possible scenarios is just banter, you have no idea how close you were to a very different scenario in the end of 1940.
you obviously aren't capable of a logical debate, but still you continue to attempt to make the case that the BoB was a draw, and put inflammatory comments into people's mouths. a historical character who was a madman is still a madman, and goering was a morphine addicted transvestite who was only in command because he was the fuhrer's mate and a former WW1 hero. he had no competency for the task he was given.

it was not that close run a thing. RAF strength, in numbers certainly, was up at the end of the battle. luftwaffe numbers not so. our pilots who bailed out flew again, filling those planes that were being built at two factories or helping train new pilots. the luftwaffe pilots were prisoners.

I'm not so sure.. Even if Germany won, I'm sure the german nazi scums would have been removed from the history's scene much faster and with less casualties than the soviet ones.. The german nation was at that time much more educated than the russian one

but of course, we can never be sure, and things went as they went..
lol what?

of course they did, what else could they do? They were pushed to the max: the RAF gave their pilots amphetamines, the Luftwaffe benzedrine.. there were cases of nervous breakdown and accidents due to tiredness on both factions.
and there are, as far as i am aware, no cases of unnecessary surgery being conducted on RAF pilots to give them a rest.
well, according to some of your buddies here that was ok (at least until 1949!) :rolleyes:


lies.

sources man, don't forget to mention the sources. As for the number of Spitfires and Hurricanes, I'm not that sure about your statement, but even if you are right it's kind of irrelevant, since you need pilots to fly them.

which we had. see above.

Had the battle continued, you would have soon seen the entrance in service of Bf109F and subsequently FW190s together with extended fuel tanks, then I doubt that the MkV and Hurri had much of a chance there..
supposition, also the battle would've had to continue through the winter, when no amphibious assault would have been possible across the channel, which was the entire point of the battle. are you sure you know what on earth you are talking about, because you seem to be building an argument made of either misdirection or idiocy.

really cannot tell.:rolleyes:

[MD_Titus]

RAF > 544 aircrew killed
Lw > 2,698 aircrew killed

To those numbers should be added POW and WIA.

Since you are such the gung-ho luftwaffler I would think you would at least do some research on the Lw and have found that site, which has been around for a very long time.

By 2 November, the RAF fielded 1,796 pilots, an increase of over 40% from July 1940's count of 1,259 pilots. (Dye 2000, p. 35.) How many pilots did the Lw have?

By 14 September the Luftwaffe's Bf 109 Geschwader possessed only 67 percent of their operational crews against authorised aircraft. The RAF had an excess of pilots on squadron strength, as well as a/c.

Due to the failure of the Luftwaffe to establish air supremacy, a conference assembled on 14 September at Hitler's headquarters. Hitler concluded that air superiority had not yet been established and "promised to review the situation on 17 September for possible landings on 27 September or 8 October. Three days later, when the evidence was clear that the German Air Force had greatly exaggerated the extent of their successes against the RAF, Hitler postponed Sealion indefinitely. (Overy 2001, p. 97.)
kudos. numbers, referenced.

game, set and MATCH.

[Al Schlageter]

kudos. numbers, referenced.

game, set and MATCH.

Game > yes
Set > yes
Match > no, as Stern will appear with a different twist to his revisionist history.

[6S.Manu]

72 pages arguing about the word "Defeat"?

Wow, not to be an a$$, but you guys really have a lot of free time. :-|

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

you are giving assessments of the situation as if you were playing Risk, the situation was a tad more complicated than that.


ah ok, so you're confirming what I was saying: the killing of civilians before 1949 was ok, so you're implying that the killing of Jews was right? All in all the Nazis considered them their enemy, and to pursue their cause they wanted to eliminate them.. Do you realise the nonsense you're saying to justify the killing of civilians perpetrated by the Allies? :confused:


hey, I was going on topic, your friends then start changing topic and then blame me for going off topic. Read my comments re. the BoB, I've exposed them more than once.


you're summing it up on assumptions, not on facts.


apart for the scar thing which I didn't get, you're making assumptions again. The Germans fought until 1945 even when they really were doing it against all odds, do you reckon that the situation in 1940 was such a blow for morale? Who's delusional now?


yeah, you already said that killing kids is fine, if it's a good cause. I don't see how this puts you in a better position than Nazis frankly.


one thing is collateral damage, another is intentional attack of civilian targets. Do you know that the Americans refused to bomb Germany civilian targets when Harris asked for help?


you might have heard that there were secret meetings and tentative agreements between Germany and some of your political and royal family members. Germany was hoping to find another Quisling in the UK, and occupy it like they did with Norway.

Saving the life of 300k soldiers was a huge sign of wanting a truce: the Stukas could have made a slaughterhouse of Dunkirk.



you obviously aren't capable of a sober view on the matters. Calling historical character names or disputing renown theories and possible scenarios is just banter, you have no idea how close you were to a very different scenario in the end of 1940.

I definitely cannot understand the logic in letting 300 000 soldiers escape just in the hope of making peace with Britain. If forcing peace with Britain was really in Hitler's mind he would have done quite a bit to capture these troops resulting in a considerable blow to the British morally, political (helding 300 000 POWs captive does have some significance in the political game as a sort of bargain mass) and military as Britain had not the interminable numbers of soldiers like the Soviet Union that could man-wise afford to loose millions of its military personal to captivity (speaking from a purely military point of view here - poor lads they were). So loosing out such a number of soldiers would have left Britain even more vulnerable I guess.

[Al Schlageter]

72 pages arguing about the word "Defeat"?

Wow, not to be an a$$, but you guys really have a lot of free time. :-|

Can't have revisionist history.

[fruitbat]

Stern is as stubborn as he is wrong, you'll have more chance nailing diarrhea to the ceiling that getting him to change his mind. imo its pointless to ague with such people.

Kind of fun to watch though.

[Sternjaeger II]

Stern is as stubborn as he is wrong, you'll have more chance nailing diarrhea to the ceiling that getting him to change his mind. imo its pointless to ague with such people.

Kind of fun to watch though.

Frankly, there is no point. I have tried to bring an impartial perspective, but I suppose that I should write an essay on it, and even then you'd still be in denial.

The fact that the majority of the contributors here is British doesn't help either, but it's evident how this is an all British thing, and the sentiment for it is as strong as it is biased.

I have been called names, mocked, bullied, but in fact nobody picked up in an unbiased way on the facts I have exposed, and even when pointed to German point of view as seen from an American expert, there was little or no space for discussion, it was all about who can shout in the louder and ruder way.

The bottom line though is that there is an unsuspected amount of people that still believe that only the Germans should be blamed for all the evil, bad and deadly things that happened in WW2.

[kendo65]

Frankly, there is no point. I have tried to bring an impartial perspective, but I suppose that I should write an essay on it, and even then you'd still be in denial.

Stern, with respect, the problem is that many feel your position is not impartial, and strongly disagree with your conclusions. And we are not 'in denial', we are in disagreement. (Your use of 'loaded' phrases such as 'denial' and 'biased' below imply that you have reached a position of complete factual objectivity and that any disagreement is ignorant prejudice.)


The fact that the majority of the contributors here is British doesn't help either, but it's evident how this is an all British thing, and the sentiment for it is as strong as it is biased.

Once again your assumptions are clear: as your own viewpoint coincides perfectly with objective reality anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint disagrees with objective reality and is 'biased'. In my opinion your apparent inability to recognise that your viewpoint (or anyone elses for that matter) has at least some subjective elements is either deluded or more likely arrogant.


I have been called names, mocked, bullied, but in fact nobody picked up in an unbiased way on the facts I have exposed, and even when pointed to German point of view as seen from an American expert, there was little or no space for discussion, it was all about who can shout in the louder and ruder way.

Again you wilfully confuse 'disagreement' with 'bias'. Those 'facts', or more accurately 'interpretations' of historical events, were in most or all cases disputed or interpreted in differing ways by other people.


The bottom line though is that there is an unsuspected amount of people that still believe that only the Germans should be blamed for all the evil, bad and deadly things that happened in WW2.

I, for one, don't deny that the Allies could be said to have made some doubtful moral choices during the conflict, but I do hold that the Western Allies held a morally superior position in the war to Nazi Germany, and that the attempt of some to establish moral equivalence between the two is misguided and wrong.

[fruitbat]

Stern, with respect, the problem is that many feel your position is not impartial, and strongly disagree with your conclusions. And we are not 'in denial', we are in disagreement. (Your use of 'loaded' phrases such as 'denial' and 'biased' below imply that you have reached a position of complete factual objectivity and that any disagreement is ignorant prejudice.)



Once again your assumptions are clear: as your own viewpoint coincides perfectly with objective reality anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint disagrees with objective reality and is 'biased'. In my opinion your apparent inability to recognise that your viewpoint (or anyone elses for that matter) has at least some subjective elements is either deluded or more likely arrogant.



Again you wilfully confuse 'disagreement' with 'bias'. Those 'facts', or more accurately 'interpretations' of historical events, were in most or all cases disputed or interpreted in differing ways by other people.



this.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I am put in mind of Captain Beard from Blackadder going 'There are two school's of thought on that.... Mine and everyone else's' :grin:

This 'unbiased' approach to history is simply your personal interpretation and your personal interpretation alone.
Therefore no-one can argue with this 'unbiased opinion' because no-one else is you, and if they do argue they are ipso facto biased and the victims of baseless propaganda.
Well, if it works for you.:rolleyes:

Stern, with respect, the problem is that many feel your position is not impartial, and strongly disagree with your conclusions. And we are not 'in denial', we are in disagreement. (Your use of 'loaded' phrases such as 'denial' and 'biased' below imply that you have reached a position of complete factual objectivity and that any disagreement is ignorant prejudice.)

Once again your assumptions are clear: as your own viewpoint coincides perfectly with objective reality anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint disagrees with objective reality and is 'biased'. In my opinion your apparent inability to recognise that your viewpoint (or anyone elses for that matter) has at least some subjective elements is either deluded or more likely arrogant.

Again you wilfully confuse 'disagreement' with 'bias'. Those 'facts', or more accurately 'interpretations' of historical events, were in most or all cases disputed or interpreted in differing ways by other people.

And round and round we go. Well put Ken.;)

[robtek]

It can not be, what shouldn't be!

[MB_Avro_UK]

How do Spartans fit into this theory? :p


I don't know. :cool:

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[MB_Avro_UK]

It most definately would have been much, much worse had Germany won. I am glad the Nazis lost in many ways.
Those stories about german minorites being persectued is most likely Propaganda. However, Poland indeed acted very, very agressivly towards Germany during the days of the Weimar Republic, after WW1 even tried to grab more land from Germany militarily.

Funny, however, how some individuals once again try to deflect this debate about Britain at Germany, as usual hiding behind Poles, Jews, Gypsies and other victims who they did not lift one finger for during the war. The usual hypocrisis.


I agree with your first paragraph.

But how could the Allies/British help the Poles,Jews, gypsies and others? It was not hypocritic as you suggest. It was a factor of distance. The world was a much bigger place then.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[MB_Avro_UK]

Hi all,

I have been reading a book entitled:

Best of Enemies. Britain and Germany. Truth and Lies in Two World Wars.

Author is Richard Milton.

Britain and Germany according to Milton were prior to WW1 close allies. They had a shared culture and a shared Royal Family. WW1 was expected to involve Germany and Britain as Allies against the French.

But after the start of WW1, the propaganda machines of both Britain and Germany changed the situation for ever.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[Triggaaar]

I'm sorry but that's a bit lazy: you get in a conversation while it's been running for a while and start blurting out sentences and calling people names just because you don't understand, how should one take this?It's you that doesn't understand. I read the first dozen pages, and posted my thoughts on the comments you made on those pages. I don't need to read another 50 pages to form an opinion on what you wrote in the first dozen.

so you are shocked about what I said, whereas justifying the killing of innocents to stop a war is acceptable?! Double standards anyone?!?! How can you even begin to think that and consider yourself mature enough for this conversation?!?! I am shocked, seriously shocked. Firstly, it's not double standards, because I'm not drawing a distinction between which side was killing civillians. Both sides killed civilians, some were killed while military targets were being attacked, some were killed deliberately for different reasons. What number of civilian lives lost is considered acceptable is open to debate (regardless of which side you're on). I do draw a distinction between that and ethnic cleansing. And because of that, you are seriously shocked and think I'm not mature enough for this conversation. Ok.

And yes, if they won the war, on an absolute principle they would have been the baddies, but you reckon they would have said this or were aware of being the baddies?! Nobody thinks of themselves as the baddies..I'm talking about reality - the reality of whether someone is fighting for the right reasons or not. Your arguement is that the winner is always the goodie, purely because that is the story they will tell. My point is that you have to search beneath the story, and not believe everything the state tells you, and find out the truth. Your arguement suggests that I would believe the crusades were a good thing, which I don't.

I'm still shocked about your partial acceptance of the killing of civiliansOf course I accept that some civilians will die. Are you suggesting that if someone found a way to end a war, but it would involve one civilian dying, that the war should continue instead? If a dictatorship was developing nuclear weapons, and showed the world it had the will and capability to use them as soon as ready, but they kept the factories in a populated town, would you just accept that your country (and population) was going to be destroyed because civilian casualties in an opposing nation would be so unthinkable?

how do you classify the invasion of Iraq after 9/11? Was the killing of all those civilians justified?Western governments lied to their people (and those governments were lied to by certain experts too) about the evidence and reasons for going to war with Iraq. I personally think that was wrong and war should have been avoided.

your analysis is pointless. History is not a court, it's a chronicle. Historical analysis on the other hand is a form of judgement, but it can be bent and adapted to the different perspectives. I was simply pointing out to you that we don't always believe that the victors are the goodies, which is what you said.

excuse me, what's a country made of, land only? It's the majority of people of a country that decide for the fate of it.No it isn't. People can be lied to and suppressed. When a country goes to war, I don't assume that is the fault of every individual in that country.

[Frequent_Flyer]

Frankly, there is no point. I have tried to bring an impartial perspective, but I suppose that I should write an essay on it, and even then you'd still be in denial.

The fact that the majority of the contributors here is British doesn't help either, but it's evident how this is an all British thing, and the sentiment for it is as strong as it is biased.

I have been called names, mocked, bullied, but in fact nobody picked up in an unbiased way on the facts I have exposed, and even when pointed to German point of view as seen from an American expert, there was little or no space for discussion, it was all about who can shout in the louder and ruder way.

The bottom line though is that there is an unsuspected amount of people that still believe that only the Germans should be blamed for all the evil, bad and deadly things that happened in WW2.

This attitude stems from the legal priciple of " causation". The old, none of what followed would have transpired" but not for" Germany starting the war. Not one but two World Wars.

[Triggaaar]

Oh no.

It's all kicked off again.Yes, sorry. It could keep doing that until the thread is closed.

LOL. That like negotiating with your own kidnapper.
Hint: As he's in power he doesn't give a sh1t.I disagree. I think it's better to try than start WWII. To each their own.

What's right or wrong lies in the eye of the beholder, end of story.It may not always be clear cut, and there can be differing opinions, I agree, but sometimes it is clear cut.

That we learnt from the Romans doesn't make what they did right (not that I judge them by todays standards).
Same for the British empire, just because many people are in a better position than they would have been does not mean that the cause was just or the deaths of innocent people worthwhile.
-Crusader: Those guys conquered a good part of the Roman empire 500 years before that. Europe being part of the caliphate would have been the better option, right?Travelling through foreign lands murdering, raping and pillaging is bad in my books, but you think it's ok because it's better than letting the Muslims carry on without Christianity. I guess we won't be agreeing on this.
Correct - only you can't use to justify the bombing of civilians as no one knew about it at the time.I didn't use it to justify killing civilians, that didn't cross my mind. We were looking back at right and wrong, and I was saying that the holocaust was a bad thing (call me radical).

[Triggaaar]

how can you even begin to think about simplifying a complicated matter such as WW2 with such a statement?!Is that what your professor said to you when he/she made you change your mind?
Are you guys even taking this thread seriously anymore?! :confused:Are you trying to patronise us because you think it makes your opinion more valid, or have you just run out of points to your arguement?

[MD_Titus]

Game > yes
Set > yes
Match > no, as Stern will appear with a different twist to his revisionist history.
depressingly perceptive.
sigh
72 pages arguing about the word "Defeat"?

Wow, not to be an a$$, but you guys really have a lot of free time. :-|
free time gladly spent
Frankly, there is no point. I have tried to bring an impartial perspective, but I suppose that I should write an essay on it, and even then you'd still be in denial.
you have done with your very long, very wrong posts. it doesn't matter if you write a large 700 page book on it, if this is a mere taster it would still be spectacularly wrong.

The fact that the majority of the contributors here is British doesn't help either, but it's evident how this is an all British thing, and the sentiment for it is as strong as it is biased.

I have been called names, mocked, bullied, but in fact nobody picked up in an unbiased way on the facts I have exposed, and even when pointed to German point of view as seen from an American expert, there was little or no space for discussion, it was all about who can shout in the louder and ruder way.

The bottom line though is that there is an unsuspected amount of people that still believe that only the Germans should be blamed for all the evil, bad and deadly things that happened in WW2.
again with putting words in our mouths. where exactly is that posted? please quote it, references man.
Stern, with respect, the problem is that many feel your position is not impartial, and strongly disagree with your conclusions. And we are not 'in denial', we are in disagreement. (Your use of 'loaded' phrases such as 'denial' and 'biased' below imply that you have reached a position of complete factual objectivity and that any disagreement is ignorant prejudice.)

Once again your assumptions are clear: as your own viewpoint coincides perfectly with objective reality anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint disagrees with objective reality and is 'biased'. In my opinion your apparent inability to recognise that your viewpoint (or anyone elses for that matter) has at least some subjective elements is either deluded or more likely arrogant.

Again you wilfully confuse 'disagreement' with 'bias'. Those 'facts', or more accurately 'interpretations' of historical events, were in most or all cases disputed or interpreted in differing ways by other people.

I, for one, don't deny that the Allies could be said to have made some doubtful moral choices during the conflict, but I do hold that the Western Allies held a morally superior position in the war to Nazi Germany, and that the attempt of some to establish moral equivalence between the two is misguided and wrong.
top post

I don't know. :cool:

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.
does it matter - we got 9/11 in here as well, hadn't noticed that reference before, what next?

[MD_Titus]

Is that what your professor said to you when he/she made you change your mind?
Are you trying to patronise us because you think it makes your opinion more valid, or have you just run out of points to your arguement?

ooooo tiebreaker!

[trashcanman]

Hi all,

I have been reading a book entitled:

Best of Enemies. Britain and Germany. Truth and Lies in Two World Wars.

Author is Richard Milton.

Britain and Germany according to Milton were prior to WW1 close allies. They had a shared culture and a shared Royal Family. WW1 was expected to involve Germany and Britain as Allies against the French.

But after the start of WW1, the propaganda machines of both Britain and Germany changed the situation for ever.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.


Excellent TrollGrenade Avro :)

1904 Entende Cordiale? Throw this book away, it probably has a chapter on wooden Spitfires :rolleyes:

Trig, an excellent reply to the nonsense however you are attempting to change the minds of committed apologists for the Nationalist Socialist Party.

As sad as it is, these people will attempt to equate Belsen and Aushcwitz to Hamburg and Dresden whilst conveniently forgetting Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Portsmouth, Coventry, Liverpool, Bristol and the many others where they sowed the seeds.

It was not nice however war never is. 150-200,000 civilians have died in Iraq since it was invaded however none of them were processed through industrial killing facilities.

That is the difference.

[Triggaaar]

Don't really see it as much of a "defeat" there. Loss of personnel and material is an evaluated risk in warfare.Your line of arguement means that it doesn't matter how many men/machines you lose, you can just right them all of as evaluated risk. That makes no sense. When drawing up the plans to invade, you would make such evaluation, and you'd find out whether you met your objectives after the event. Given that the objective was not met, the losses were not worth it were they.
Tactical defeat? Hardly, it was more of a tactical stalemate. No changes in the frontline, only war of attrition between air forces and extra damage to civilian targets with thousands of civilian casualties.Germany's objective was to clear the way for an invasion that year. They failed. Britain's objective was not to gain air superiority over the channel, it was to prevent invasion, and they succeeded.

Operation Sea Lion was never cancelled, only postponed.Do you think the operation is still live? No, so you realise it failed, and Britain didn't get invaded.

By the end of the big aerial offensive, the RAF was on its kneesNo it wasn't, you need to look up some modern data.

Tens of thousands of civilian casualties, whole cities and factories turned into rubble, interruption of primary services. The situation was pretty grim by the end of the bomber offensive, it was obvious that mentioning a "victory in repelling the attacks" was of paramount importance back then.If the German objective was to kill a lot of British civilians, and the British objective was to prevent the death of any British civilians, then Germany won the BoB. But they weren't the objectives, much as you might like to twist them to your arguement.

[Triggaaar]

(a) The English Air Force must be so reduced morally and physically that it is unable to deliver any significant attack against the German crossing.
Hmm.. in this case, you need to re-read the memories of the WWII british fighter pilots, which were brought on (or even over) the very edge of mental and physical collapse at that time..You think that because some British pilots have said they were on the edge of collapse, that the objective 2a had been met? Of course not, don't be silly.

whatever the plan was, it was suspended for other matters. At the time of the suspension of major aerial operation over the Channel the RAF was at the brink of collapse, the Luftwaffe could have won the war of attrition, had they persevered. Firstly, you're saying that in different circumstances the Luftwaffe could have won - so what, they didn't, which is all we're arguing about. Secondly, you are very out of date thinking that the RAF was close to collapse (not that it would help your arguement even if it was true).

Let's give you an example: you're playing football with your friends, at some point the other team needs to leave because more urgent matters require their presence, and so far the score is a draw, but you've been struggling and you know that if they didn't have to leave you might have lost that game.That's some weird comparison right there, but I'll go with it. If it's footy, we're really talking Champions league here, not you and some mates. Can you imagine a situation where Bayern Munich are playing Manchester Utd and half way through the game Bayern say sorry, they want to see the end of Germany's got talent? The suggestion that Germany made up the plans in the morning, started and then decided a few weeks later that they really ought to get back to the important stuff is madness. It was a planned attack, with a planned amount of aircraft and personnel, and a timeframe. They under-estimated Britain's strength and failed their mission. That they continued fighting elsewhere doesn't suddenly make a defeat a draw. Your arguement that Britain did not gain territory is embarrassing.

[Triggaaar]

72 pages arguing about the word "Defeat"?

Wow, not to be an a$$, but you guys really have a lot of free time. :-|That's a very fair comment :)

[Triggaaar]

I have tried to bring an impartial perspective, but I suppose that I should write an essay on it, and even then you'd still be in denial.You may be impartial, I don't really know. But regardless, you are wrong. You remind me of Stephen Fry arguing that WWII finished in 1990, because only then was Germany reunified etc.

in fact nobody picked up in an unbiased way on the facts I have exposedThey have, you are just too stubborn to see it. You argue that the RAF was on its knees, so people give you facts and figures on aircraft and pilots. You don't understand that Germany lost more pilots from the fight because they were fighting further from home. You're shown the objectives that Hitler set out, that the Luftwaffe failed to meet, so you ignore the facts of what did happen and start talking about what might have happened had Germany not been a bit busy elsewhere. You are given facts, not personal attacks, but you reply by trying to patronise others and put words into their mouths, suggesting a few of us think that ALL civilian deaths are just fine.

The bottom line though is that there is an unsuspected amount of people that still believe that only the Germans should be blamed for all the evil, bad and deadly things that happened in WW2.What, like some of the descriptions of the Russian army a few pages back? Is there anyone here at all that thinks that?

This thread was about the BoB being the Luftwaffe's first defeat, a fact which you blindly deny.

[Triggaaar]

Trig, an excellent reply to the nonsense however you are attempting to change the minds of committed apologists for the Nationalist Socialist Party.As I reached the end of the thread I see Kendo had already put it more eloquently than I managed.

As sad as it is, these people will attempt to equate Belsen and Aushcwitz to Hamburg and Dresden whilst conveniently forgetting Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Portsmouth, Coventry, Liverpool, Bristol and the many others where they sowed the seeds.

It was not nice however war never is. 150-200,000 civilians have died in Iraq since it was invaded however none of them were processed through industrial killing facilities.

That is the difference.Personally I wasn't drawing distinction between Hamburg, Dresden, London, Coventry etc (no bias to which side), it's the killing of people that you already control that I pick out. Let's not even start with Stalin.

PS - I totally own this page ;)

I'll come back in a few days to see what's happening with the patch, and hopefully this thread will have disappered.

[Frequent_Flyer]

As I reached the end of the thread I see Kendo had already put it more eloquently than I managed.

Personally I wasn't drawing distinction between Hamburg, Dresden, London, Coventry etc (no bias to which side), it's the killing of people that you already control that I pick out. Let's not even start with Stalin.

PS - I totally own this page ;)

I'll come back in a few days to see what's happening with the patch, and hopefully this thread will have disappered.


My money is on the patch dissappearing.

[adonys]

well, on a philosophical perspective.. it seems that the vast majority of the people, no matter the time or era, are blind and deaf and stupid idiots, who would not see the forest from the trees.

There's no point in trying to debate this, as long as people are throwing in name calling, and view any attempt to look at any other (god forbid to try and do it from the german) point of view than the british/allied one as neo-nazism or worse..

This is the main reason history repeat itself, and it's a very sad thing to see..

[JimmyBlonde]

I'm thinking on starting a pool to bet on whether this thread will hit 100 pages. Any takers?

[Sternjaeger II]

disagreement is kinda given for granted, denial is a different matter altogether.

You guys de-contextualise the air battle of 1940 as an episode per se, not considering it part of a more fluid, multi-layered and complicated warfare.

"THE Battle of Britain" was happening only in England, there was no perception or interest as such in Germany on the matter. Surely, you lived it personally cos you were the ones being attacked and bombed, nobody is questioning that, but it had little or no reach to the Germans.

You put up an efficient but desperate in some points defence system, which fortunately allowed you to put a marginal but effective limit to the offensive.

The RAF and Luftwaffe lost a similar number of pilots (The Luftwaffe lost more aircrew), and the numbers of the 4 months of intense battle show a similar number in losses proportionally. Let's not forget that the RAF sent up mainly two kinds of fighter planes and that's it, while the Luftwaffe invested more in terms of bombers and fighters.

Because of the poor planning and mistakes made by their Air Marshal, the Luftwaffe didn't manage to produce results as they were supposed to: the RAF was effective ONLY because of FAC and Radar, the real target that the Luftwaffe should have neutralised first.

Everything else is history of course, but the decision of concentrating the majority of fighters and logistic efforts over the Russian campaign wasn't an admission of defeat.

It was a clash, no different from the WW1 ones, the difference being that it was fought in the air instead of a trench.

Both factions were suffering heavy losses, stress and fatigue, but the British had the edge because of the defence position, they didn't have to cross the Channel to bring their offensive (they wouldn't have the means anyway).

Many people talked about "David vs Goliath", with the difference that Goliath didn't die, just lost his interest and moved onto something else. You want to call that a victory? Feel free, but objectively the matter is far more complicated than "win or lose".

The victory of the Battle of Britain was a perfect propaganda idea to celebrate a much needed victory after the shambles of the BEF and Dunkirk, this goes without saying, and of course it is understandable to be happy about the loosening of the attacks, but it's not like they stopped altogether or you managed to cripple the Luftwaffe.

Truth is that the Germans didn't perceive it as a "battle", it was part of an operation which was interrupted by the command as it was going on.

There is a lot of arguing among historians on the definition of "battle", and its sometimes lazy or inappropriate use, especially in a WW2 context.

It really feels like there can't be an objective victory celebration without sliding into propaganda, if you know what I mean.

I don't want to deprive anyone of their finest hour, but this whole concept of "winning" makes me think of Charlie Sheen's winning, more than the real victory that was celebrated on V-Day.

[Triggaaar]

it seems that the vast majority of the people... are blind and deaf and stupid idiots
There's no point in trying to debate this, as long as people are throwing in name callingBrilliant. Stunning work.

And now you're suggesting that our point of view is going to lead to history repeating itself. I don't understand that at all. I think that killing is bad, so how can that viewpoint lead to another war?

[Triggaaar]

People will believe what their governments tell them to believe, and yet we wonder why the Germans didn't do more to oppose their government. Same question should be asked now of each of our respective governments, but people prefer to be sheep.Speak for yourself.

[DD_crash]

I think that this is how stern sees it.
Possible outcomes for Germany : Win or Draw
Possible outcome for Britain : Loose or Draw.
We are on a hiding to nothing then.
This thread has developed like Monty Pythons argument sketch :)

[ATAG_Dutch]

I think that this is how stern sees it.
Possible outcomes for Germany : Win or Draw
Possible outcome for Britain : Loose or Draw.
We are on a hiding to nothing then.
This thread has developed like Monty Pythons argument sketch :)

No it hasn't.;)

[Triggaaar]

You guys de-contextualise the air battle of 1940 as an episode per se, not considering it part of a more fluid, multi-layered and complicated warfare.This particular air battle was just part of the entire war effort, no one is saying otherwise. But we are discussing this particular battle and each sides objectives for that battle, and there's nothing wrong with that.
"THE Battle of Britain" was happening only in England, there was no perception or interest as such in Germany on the matter. Surely, you lived it personally cos you were the ones being attacked and bombed, nobody is questioning that, but it had little or no reach to the Germans.That sounds about right to me, but what's the relevance of this point? People in Germany may not have cared about the battle, that's not relevant to who won it.

You put up an efficient but desperate in some points defence system, which fortunately allowed you to put a marginal but effective limit to the offensive.

The RAF and Luftwaffe lost a similar number of pilots (The Luftwaffe lost more aircrew), and the numbers of the 4 months of intense battle show a similar number in losses proportionally. Let's not forget that the RAF sent up mainly two kinds of fighter planes and that's it, while the Luftwaffe invested more in terms of bombers and fighters.You are refusing to look at the facts. The number of RAF pilots increased while the number of Luftwaffe pilots decreased, but that doesn't matter - it wouldn't matter if it was the other way round. Hitler had an objective for the air battle, and it failed, regardless of how well each side was doing with numbers.

Because of the poor planning and mistakes made by their Air Marshal, the Luftwaffe didn't manage to produce results as they were supposed to: the RAF was effective ONLY because of FAC and Radar, the real target that the Luftwaffe should have neutralised first.Again... so? We're not currently debating why the Luftwaffe messed it up, or why the RAF were able to win.
Everything else is history of course, but the decision of concentrating the majority of fighters and logistic efforts over the Russian campaign wasn't an admission of defeat.It doesn't matter whether Hitler 'admitted defeat'. He didn't exactly have a good grip of reality when it came to accepting defeat. Did the BoB destroy Germany's war machine - no of course not. We're not debating the significance of the battle at this point. Simply that Hitler had objectives and failed to meet them. Are we saying this was the most important thing to him - no, we're not trying to attach any level of importance or significance. We are simply saying that it was an air battle where both sides had objectives and one side met their objectives and the other didn't.

Many people talked about "David vs Goliath", with the difference that Goliath didn't die, just lost his interest and moved onto something else. You want to call that a victory?Yes, that is a victory. If China were to attach Taiwan (well you brought up David and Goliath), and Taiwan were able to fight them off enough that China gave in (lost interest in you words), do you think that would be a draw? You do not understand the difference between defence and attack, you think a defender cannot win unless they go on the offensive. And as for losing interest - you think it was like this thread where at some point people will lose interest in trying to discuss this with you. When you're at war, fighting for you country, and thousands of people are dying, you don't just lose interest like with a board game.

The victory of the Battle of Britain was a perfect propaganda idea to celebrate a much needed victory after the shambles of the BEF and Dunkirk, this goes without saying, and of course it is understandable to be happy about the loosening of the attacks, but it's not like they stopped altogether or you managed to cripple the Luftwaffe.It is true that it was useful to publicise it as a victory, but when looking back to determine whether it actually was or not, we don't need to look at what was said at the time, it's not relevant.

Truth is that the Germans didn't perceive it as a "battle", it was part of an operation which was interrupted by the command as it was going on. Again that's not relevant. If you want to argue that it wasn't a battle, fine, stick to that. But you're arguing that 'it' (whatever term you'd like to use) was a draw, and we are arguing that 'it' was a British victory and German defeat.

I don't want to deprive anyone of their finest hour, but this whole concept of "winning" makes me think of Charlie Sheen's winning, more than the real victory that was celebrated on V-Day.Seriously, none of us were flying, it wasn't 'our' finest hour. It's just one part of centuries of history and it doesn't make any difference to our daily lives whether it's called a battle or a victory.

We're just sticking to the facts. See post #704 on page 71 which states what the directive was. If you find new evidence showing that that was just a trick, and that Hitler's actual objective was just to distract Britain while he concentrated his war effort elsewhere (and actually he had no plans to invade Britain at all) - wow, that would change things. Suddenly Hitler's objectives would have been met, and the battle/smokescrene would have been a success. But back in the real world, we know what his objectives were, and he failed to meet them. And you bringing random points into the arguement, like 'well the RAF were lucky because the weather changed and there was a load of water in the way' etc doesn't change the facts.

[Triggaaar]

This thread has developed like Monty Pythons argument sketch :)I'm sorry to resort to insults, but it's like arguing with a 6 year old.

[adonys]

ok, let's make a short analogy here, maybe our islander friends will get it better this way:

if a tiger is fighting a cat, and at some point the tiger has to go away because he has to pee, that doesn't mean the cat won the fight.. right?!!

But go ahead, call it a THE GREATEST VICTORY EVER for my part.

Truth is.. brits always need their big thug nephews help to get our from the mess they've got themselves into (think any other WWII brit operations). Kind of like the italians :)

But they were great warriors, and look, they won BoB.. Of course they did, otherwise.. what else would have they to celebrate?!! The almighty colonial british empire? Battle of France? Dunkerque? Singapore? Dutch Indies? North Afrika? Market Garden?!!

Using another analogy, is like trying to get away from him the only rotten bone a skinny dog ever had.. of course he'll jump to bite you for trying to get his only reason for life away from him.

It's a normal denial behavior as we know it from kindergarten psychology.

[Al Schlageter]

The RAF and Luftwaffe lost a similar number of pilots (The Luftwaffe lost more aircrew), and the numbers of the 4 months of intense battle show a similar number in losses proportionally. Let's not forget that the RAF sent up mainly two kinds of fighter planes and that's it, while the Luftwaffe invested more in terms of bombers and fighters.

Where is your reference to this statement of 'lost a similar number of pilots'? You expect others to supply references but you are just a wee bit lax in suppling references.

In Aug the Lw lost 424 pilots KIA. MIA, POW while the RAF lost 148 pilots. During the 4 months of the BoB the RAF lost 481 pilots KIA, MIA, POW.

http://cz-raf.hyperlink.cz/BoB/stat.html#production
http://history-world.org/battlelosses.htm

APPENDIX 2. Directive No. 17
THE FUHRER & CINC
FUHRER HQ1 Aug 1940
OF THE WEHRMACHT

OKW/WFL/L # 33 210/40 G. Kdos., Chefs. Geheime Kommandosache.
Fourth of ten Copies.
Chef Sache.
Officer Courier Only.

DIRECTIVE NO. 17

FOR THE CONDUCT OF AIR AND NAVAL WARFARE AGAINST ENGLAND

For the purpose of creating conditions for the final defeat of Britain, I intend continuing air and naval warfare against the English motherland in a more severe form than hitherto. For this purpose I order as follows:

1. The Luftwaffe will employ all forces available to eliminate the British air force as soon as possible. In the initial stages, attacks will be directed primarily against the hostile air forces and their ground service organization and supply installations, and against air armament industries, including factories producing AAA equipment.

2. Once temporary or local air superiority is achieved, operations will continue against ports, particularly against installations for the storage of food, and against food storage installations farther inland. In view of intended future German operations, attacks against ports on the south coast of England will be restricted to a minimum.

3. Air operations against hostile naval and merchant ships will be considered a secondary mission during this phase unless particularly lucrative fleeting opportunities offer or unless such action will achieve increased effects in the operations prescribed under Item 2, above, or in the case of operations serving to train aircraft crews for the continued conduct of air warfare.

4. The intensified air offensive will be so conducted that adequately strong air forces can be made available whenever required to support naval operations against favorable fleeting targets. In addition, the Luftwaffe will remain prepared to render effective support for Operation Sea Lion.

5. Terrorization attacks as retaliatory measures will be carried out only on orders from me.

6. Intensified air warfare can commence at any time from 5 August on. The Luftwaffe will itself determine the deadline after completion of its preparations and in accordance with weather conditions.

s/ Adolf Hitler

Initialed: K[eitel]

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/BOB/BoB-German/BoB-German-A.html#a2

Please take note of '1'. And you still want to say it was a draw Stern when the objectives of '1' was not achieved. :rolleyes:

[adonys]

you just don't get the difference between willingly giving up (due to whatever reasons), and being forced to give up (like in gettin' beaten).. do you?!!

[Al Schlageter]

you just don't get the difference between willingly giving up (due to whatever reasons), and being forced to give up (like in gettin' beaten).. do you?!!

You just don't get it do you. The Lw abandoned the daylight attacks and switched to night attacks because they were loosing, err gettin beaten. :)

[Triggaaar]

ok, let's make a short analogy here, maybe our islander friends will get it better this way:It's not just your islander friends that disagree with you.
if a tiger is fighting a cat, and at some point the tiger has to go away because he has to pee, that doesn't mean the cat won the fight.. right?!!Well it depends why they were fighting. If the cat has territory that the tiger wants, so the tiger attacks the cat, but fails to make the cat go away and instead gets cut up badly, so the tiger goes for a pee and when it comes back it still can't remove the cat, then the tiger lost. Trying to compare the Luftwaffe's inability to win the battle with either a tiger needing a pee or your mates deciding they can't continue a game of football is embarrassing.

But go ahead, call it a THE GREATEST VICTORY EVER for my part.

Truth is.. brits always need their big thug nephews help to get our from the mess they've got themselves into (think any other WWII brit operations). Kind of like the italians :)This shows your bias. This isn't about whether Britain are any good at anything or not, it simply a discussion about one battle and whether it was won or not. It doesn't matter who helped whom, who got lucky, who made the wrong decisions, who was commit elsewhere at the same time, simply a case of what the objectives were and whether they were met. But you want to turn it into a willy waving contest. You think that the Brits got themselves into a mess because they didn't sit by and watch Germany take over Europe? What nonsense.

But they were great warriors, and look, they won BoB.. Of course they did, otherwise.. what else would have they to celebrate?!!We don't need to celebrate anything, but if you asked us what we could celebrate from WWII, then we'd say we celebrate VE day, not the Battle of Britain,d we don' and celebrate VE day thinking we were special or we did anything on our own, we celebrate because the Nazis were stopped and we have freedom thanks to many allies.

Using another analogy, is like trying to get away from him the only rotten bone a skinny dog ever had.. of course he'll jump to bite you for trying to get his only reason for life away from him.What? You think that the BoB is Britains rotten bone, our only reason for life? You are completely deluded. Most British people don't care a jot about the BoB, most British people don't think of the war except when they're remined on remembrance day. You are so far from reality it's shocking. Take a clip board and go interview some Brits and ask them what they think Britains greatest achievements are - I bet you won't find one single person that says the BoB, because while it was an important victory, it was just one battle in a long history.

[Triggaaar]

you just don't get the difference between willingly giving up (due to whatever reasons), and being forced to give up (like in gettin' beaten).. do you?!!When a distant attacker gives up attacking, you can always pretend that they did so because they got bored, needed a pee, had something else to do. Defining whether they were 'forced to give up' is not a simple task. The Luftwaffe could not afford the losses they were sustaining over Britain, so they pretty much were forced to give up, but as long as they had one aircraft left you would argue that they could have carried on if they weren't so desperate for the toilet.

All of the facts are completely against you, but you think we disagree because this is Britains claim to fame. We're not suggesting that you think it's a draw because poor Germany couldn't handle the thought of losing a battle against Britain, that would be equally daft. I don't understand why you can't see the facts. What to the Americans, Japanese, Dutch etc think?

[adonys]

if I am swinging my sword at you, and you rise your shield and parry my blow..

common sense people will name your shield rising a successful defense, not a crushing victory because "I've failed to meet my objective for which I was swinging my sword, namely to wound your flesh"

go figure that!

[Triggaaar]

if I am swinging my sword at you, and you rise your shield and parry my blow..

common sense people will name your shield rising a successful defense, not a crushing victory because "I've failed to meet my objective for which I was swinging my sword, namely to wound your flesh"

go figure that!So if you swung your sword to damage someone, and they parried your blow, would you then just walk off? And in you example, you'd retreat totally unharmed - are you suggesting the Luftwaffe lost no aircraft or pilots.

To make you comparison like the Battle of Britain, a single German aircraft flew to Britain, fired some shots at a British aircraft, missed and realised there was no way Germany would win the battle, so retreated, with no losses on either side. If that had happened, there wouldn't have been a 'Battle of Britain'.

Once again you analogies are ridiculous, and do not change the facts.

[Madfish]

77 pages? I'm German and I don't care if it was a loss or victory. There have been tons of wars in the past and most of them were cruel. But Hitler was a sick idiot and, like many, didn't deserve a victory in the first place and it's sad he got that far. Call BoB a loss but not stopping him much earlier is already proof that the whole globe had lost to this sick maniac, smaller victories aside.

That said I find it hilarious that so many people make topics like this. One country against the whole world? I for one would say it's totally stupid to assume anyone could win this and it's very sad to see how far and close to achieving his goals he actually got. If Germany would've had the size and potential of Russia we'd be speaking German today. Also if Hitler would've attacked ONLY the UK there's probably no chance that the UK would've survived.

Also please don't forget that in the first years of the war the Germans tried very hard to not piss off the USA. That's one of the reasons why the uboot fleet was never really let lose until it was too late.

It was a lost cause to begin with. Take out a world map and actually look at the size of Germany and then compare it to Russia, UK and the USA alone. Not to mention all the other territories. Of course the BoB was lost but I doubt that anyone really cared considering they were in a war with the whole GLOBE.

[adonys]

sir, when you're parrying a sword blow with your shield, bothe the sword and the shield get damaged.. that's common knowledge..

and don't tell me, after the brits broke the krautz in BoB and saw them on the flee.. they've chased them and throwed them out of Europe, as the victors they were..

[winny]

Here's my analogy.

2 Boxers slugging it out, both battered and bruised. At the beginning of the 11th round one of the boxers (a) doesn't come out of his corner muttering some excuse about another fight he's got planned, leaving the other boxer (b) standing waiting. That's not a draw. That's 'we bit off more than we could chew'. So ends the Battle of Britain..

The next fight comes along and boxer (a)'s doing quite well against the next boxer (c), wins a few rounds but then gets caught with a good counter punch, meanwhile boxer (b) is back and this time he's brought his mate (d)..

End result = Boxer (a) get's his head kicked in by everyone at the same time (this is the best way to deal with bullys), boxer (b) has given all and will never fight again, leaving (c) and (d) to fight it out for the world heavyweight championship...

[Triggaaar]

Of course the BoB was lost but I doubt that anyone really cared considering they were in a war with the whole GLOBE.You only say Germany lost because you're British and, like a starving dog holding its rotting bone, claiming victory is the only way of finding anything for your pathetic country to be proud of.

I'm German and I don't care if it was a loss or victoryOh.

[ZaltysZ]

Technically LW lost to RAF, because LW didn't meet their goals (some may even say that they were not very clear and stable) as attacking side, and RAF successfully completed their goals as defending side. This is a fact. However, I don't think BoB was such a defeat, which could be considered epic blow to LW, after which LW could not or had a hard time recovering, and so BoB should not be presented like it was an a** kicking fest.

[Triggaaar]

Technically LW lost to RAF, because LW didn't meet their goals (some may even say that they were not very clear and stable) as attacking side, and RAF successfully completed their goals as defending side. This is a fact. However, I don't think BoB was such a defeat, which could be considered epic blow to LW, after which LW could not or had a hard time recovering, and so BoB should not be presented like it was an a** kicking fest.Agreed