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

[MB_Avro_UK]

How did they cope with it?

[ATAG_Snapper]

I don't believe at the airmen level it was seen so much as a "defeat", but more as a change of orders. All attention was next focussed upon Operation Barbarossa, so the significance of what had occurred, ie losing the Battle of Britain, didn't play such a huge part in the eyes of the German fliers that were gearing up for a much larger battle ahead.

That's my take - I could be wrong.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

How did they cope with it?
First of many.. Till they got use to it ;)

[ElAurens]

The simple fact is that up until the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe had never faced an adversary that was even mildly prepared to go to war.

The same was true of Barbarossa. The Russians were poorly equipped and trained, had the best of their officer corps murdered by Stalin during the Purges, and had a high command that thought they would not go to war with Germany because of the non-aggression treaty.

Add to that the fact that the Luftwaffe leadership was overly political, and had only a short experience of actually running an air force, coupled with an industrial base that didn't go on a "total war" footing until the war was pretty much lost, and had a raw materials supply chain that was tenuous at best, and failure was pretty much the only outcome.

In spite of the obvious skill of individual pilots, the Luftwaffe, like Germany as a whole, never had a chance in the long run.

Much the same can be said for Japan.

[csThor]

Don't think it was seen as the beginning of the end. Remember the Wehrmacht went to the Balkans and made short work of Greece, Yugoslavia and the British Expeditionary Forces there. And then they even captured Crete ... and then there was, of course, Rommel and his Afrika Korps. ;)

The main result was, however, a beginning crisis of trust between the frontline and the leadership back in Berlin in the person of Göring and his closest cronies. Before the jokes about his considerable girth and his pompous manners were said with some kind of amused goodwill, but now they took on a decidedly acidic tone and grew more cutting than before. Especially among the fighter pilots who felt they'd been hung out to dry and then made scapegoats for the bomber losses (when it was apparent that Göring's own Intelligence section was better suited for writing fairy tales).

[csThor]

Actually the numerical losses were made good, it was just the loss of experienced and pre-war trained pilots and leaders that proved problematic but - in the longer run - not unsolvable..

A lot has been said about the BoB and the effects it had on the Luftwaffe, especially by Galland, but when one looks at the facts as presented by Prien/Rodeike/Stemmer/Beck the situation loses the drama Galland and others have attributed to it. The only two arms that really lost numbers (when one compares 1941 to 1940) were the destroyers and the Stukas. And still both arms would make a considerable contribution to Barbarossa.

[Kongo-Otto]

I was meaning the beginning of the end for the Luftwaffe, the losses over Britain were never quite made good. They were always small to begin with, and couldn't expand as much as the additional campaigns needed. The Wehrmacht still had successes to come, and didn't taste defeat over England, they'd wait for Stalingrad and El Alamein for that.

Stalingrad and El Alamein, were just lost battles, not more and not less.
El Alamein was the beginning of the End for the Africa Korps, but even without this event, the Allied would have landed in Sicilly sooner or later anyways.
El Alamein was a win for the Brits and polished their self esteem, because they sucked the Months before.
Stalingrad was kind of a german Trauma, because it was the first Major Victory for the Red Army, but the real smell of Defeat came with Operation Bagration. IIRC this was the hugest defeat in German Military History.

[Xilon_x]

my oppinon is GERMANY - ITALY ATTAK BRITTAIN ERROR.... if SPAIN enter in tripartite patc GERMANY JAPAN AND ITALY we winn the war.
immagine spain and italy and germany massive attack to england.


operation barbarossa germany attak northrussia and midlerussia italy attak centerrussia and middlerussia front and japan attak from east front.
RUSSIA loser.
IF ITALY conquerer the caucaso and ejipt after for germany is simple project a strategical attak to RUSSIA but italy loser in libia and south africa the project is failed.

another question Mussolini go order attak england but ITALY use only a little number air force but not NAVAL force because the italian navy not running over GIBRILTAIR if GIBRILTAIR is free much ITALIAN NAVAL FORCE ATTAK BRITTAIN.

[JG5_emil]

Dowding was a smart cookie....he's refusal to let the RAF be drawn up in significant numbers over the channel and even later over land was a significant part of wining the battle. The point of the bombing raids was to entice the RAF up where they could be destroyed in the air. They failed at this and the changes in tactic by Goering made matters much worse....in many was you could argue that the Luftwaffe defeated itself.

[Richie]

Don't think it was seen as the beginning of the end. Remember the Wehrmacht went to the Balkans and made short work of Greece, Yugoslavia and the British Expeditionary Forces there. And then they even captured Crete ... and then there was, of course, Rommel and his Afrika Korps. ;)

The main result was, however, a beginning crisis of trust between the frontline and the leadership back in Berlin in the person of Göring and his closest cronies. Before the jokes about his considerable girth and his pompous manners were said with some kind of amused goodwill, but now they took on a decidedly acidic tone and grew more cutting than before. Especially among the fighter pilots who felt they'd been hung out to dry and then made scapegoats for the bomber losses (when it was apparent that Göring's own Intelligence section was better suited for writing fairy tales).

I totally agree with this and the description "cronies". I think if the smart men like Galland, Molders and General Kamhuber would have bean left alone to do their jobs and listened to things would have been much tougher for the allies in the air wars.

[ATAG_Dutch]

The British overestimated the strength of the Luftwaffe and its ability to replace losses and geared up accordingly.

The Germans underestimated the strength of Fighter Command, its defensive command and control systems, and Britain's ability to replace both aircraft and pilots.

The Luftwaffe's mass raids were partly designed to draw up the RAF in large numbers to be shot down.

Keith Park's insistence on sending up small numbers of fighters in relays prevented this happening. It's perhaps as well that Leigh-Mallory and Bader with their so called 'Big Wing' didn't get their way until after the Battle.

All of the factors leading to the outcome of the Battle would fill a book, in fact several as people keep writing them with a 'new' perspective.

As to 'how did they cope?' - they turned to night raids in smaller numbers, whilst they rebuilt their numerical strength in preparation for Barbarossa the following summer.

But as has already been said, a great deal of the skill and experience base was never regained and suffered greater attrition as the war continued.

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.;)

[bongodriver]

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.

I love this classic old excuse for the germans, because the Brits were just such utter crap otherwise eh?, the channel failed to stop us coming back over.

[kristorf]

I love this classic old excuse for the germans, because the Brits were just such utter crap otherwise eh?, the channel failed to stop us coming back over.

Hehehehe

[csThor]

I love this classic old excuse for the germans, because the Brits were just such utter crap otherwise eh?, the channel failed to stop us coming back over.

It's not even worth my time to type an appropriate reply to this nationalistic BS of a post. :roll:

[bongodriver]

1. I fail to see where it's nationalistic

2. how is downplaying the efforts made by the British and making geographical excuses for their sucess not nationalistic for the germans part

3. men died on both sides fighting for their lives, they probably wouldn't appreciate any excuses being made

[flyingblind]

It was never about winning or losing individual battles or about skill or courage. The axis lost due to a lack of resources. Germany went into Russia and particularly North Africa to secure oil supplies. When they failed they had no chance even without the overwhelming output of equipment from America. The same with Japan. The Americans had more fuel in a fuel dump on one island in the Pacific than the entire fuel available to Japan. This was a large part of the rational behind Kamikazi tactics. They literally could not keep flying missions and it was a last desperate attempt to inflict maximum damage on the advancing enemy.

There was a good documentary on the Battle of Britain done by the BBC a little while back. The premise of that was that Germany failed in its objectives due to tactics and logistics. The Germans over engineered thier aircraft and simply could not keep up with the numbers of the more basic British offerings. The British had a good system of pilot rotation whereas the Germans were soon suffering from fatigue. Also the British had a good system of radar that was used to good effect. On top of all that was Goerings monumental blunder of switching from military to civillian targets. Finally the Germans ran out of time and missed the chance of mounting an invasion before Winter set in and so continuing that particular battle became pointless.

[Kurfürst]

I love this classic old excuse for the germans, because the Brits were just such utter crap otherwise eh?, the channel failed to stop us coming back over.

It neither stopped the Brits from making a bit hastened return from the continent - sans all heavy weapons, tanks, guns or even mortars of course. Now, crossing the channel in barges in a way like this may be sufficient if you will be greeted with a hot cup of tea, but mounting invasion is a bit different and harder.

The German armed forces simply did not had the means to make an invasion it 1940, and they knew it very well. Nobody in Germany foresaw a war with England, nor did they made any serious preparation to be capable of large scale amphibian operations. So no, in 1940, a seaborne invasion was not going to happen. Just think a bit about that the Western Allies needed to prepeare for four years to be able to mount one.

[bongodriver]

Again, given that we had our cowardly english asses chased across the channel and we left all our toys behind, sounds like we had nothing left but tea to offer, so why let a little puddle prevent the opportunity for a delicious hot beverage.

yes it took a bit of time to prepare for the Normandy landings, after all we had all that time to drink tea and do bugger all else, not like we were fighting anywhere else in the world now is it....oh wait..

[Xilon_x]

blue italy red germany yellow spain 3 color for a project a massive attak to brittain but this project failure.
7167

[Boandlgramer]

we

Nice to have such old people here , who did the fighting :D

[bongodriver]

Nice to have such old people here , who did the fighting :D

Fair point, it's easy to get carried away with feelings of national involvement.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

To sum it up.. Germany bit off more than it could chew way before it went to war with the UK.. With regards to the defeat of Germany.. It was never a question of 'if' just a question of 'when'

[Kongo-Otto]

Again, given that we had our cowardly english asses chased across the channel and we left all our toys behind, sounds like we had nothing left but tea to offer, so why let a little puddle prevent the opportunity for a delicious hot beverage.

yes it took a bit of time to prepare for the Normandy landings, after all we had all that time to drink tea and do bugger all else, not like we were fighting anywhere else in the world now is it....oh wait..

After Dunkirk you didn't had more left but tea to offer!!
Otherwise why should Churchill Lend & Lease some 50 war weary US Destroyers?
Ah yes because you ran out even on tea. :rolleyes:
And your British Army sucked on every major Battle until the USA showed up at the ETO, the same is for the PTO!
But that's maybe because they didn't had allways Canadians and Australians on their side, they know how to fight!

[bongodriver]

After Dunkirk you didn't had more left but tea to offer!!
Otherwise why should Churchill Lend & Lease some 50 war weary US Destroyers?
Ah yes because you ran out even on tea. :rolleyes:
And your British Army sucked on every major Battle until the USA showed up at the ETO, the same is for the PTO!
But that's maybe because they didn't had allways Canadians and Australians on their side, they know how to fight!

Ah OK, so you Germans just sacrificed a few LW pilots to us Brits for a bit of sport just to make us feel better.....I see, I guess it was the same in North Africa too, us poor Brits spent the whole time moaning about how the Germans kept taking all the best spots on the beach with their towels, so you graciously retreated and left us to it.....thanks, I suppose the comando raids we made in Norway were just a clear illustration of how cowardly the Brits could be, war weary US destroyers......way I see it they weren't seeing much war at the time so somebody may as well have been using them.

DISCLAIMER.....for the next pedant that wants to point out my use of the words us/we, may I please remind you I made no suggestion I was out there fighting the war myself.

[Sternjaeger II]

Apart for the fact that this whole thread is in the wrong room and a mere silly provocation, I would like to stress out that no matter what people here say, most reliable historians (even RAF ones) say that the Battle of Britain wasn't won or lost by either side, at least not until the end of the conflict.

The German command suspended Operation Sea Lion in view of Barbarossa, so that they could concentrate more resources on the huge Russian front.

The United Kingdom opposed a strong defence to the German attacks, but the attrition of the Battle of Britain was surely doing more damage to Great Britain than to Germany, let's not forget that whilst Great Britain had most of their resources involved in the Battle of Britain, Germany had its forces scattered all over Europe.

Without going into the battle of what ifs, we can surely say that Great Britain got back into the war only after the Americans flooded their territory with troops, vehicles and aeroplanes. Great Britain alone would have NEVER been able to go anywhere beyond the Channel, hadn't the Americans joined in the war effort.

[Xilon_x]

yes just consideration AMERICAN HELP BRITTAIN if american not help BRITTAIN after BRITTAIN not have any canche of attak germany or italy.

[fruitbat]

Sternjäger let them dream on about the BoB as their Big Victory, ok they even won the war (well with a "tiny lil bit" of US help) but afterwards they sucked permanently since 1945, i mean look at them their Cities are Crime infested shitholes with looting hordes, their economy is not worth to mention and of course their Football National team, which also sucks since 1966.


deleted, not worth the bother on such a type of person.

[Kongo-Otto]

how cute. you ....

Yes i love you too.

[bongodriver]

Agreed, but Germany didn't bite, remember, it was the Allies who declared war, not Germany. They just failed to see the determination the Allies had to prevent Germany from regaining it's lost territories and peoples.

So Germany invading the rest of europe was not an act of war? I see......... so the treaty of Versaile which was drawn up after the Germans last act of aggression and subsequent defeat was just 'unfair'?, like nobody had the right to stand in their way while they did whatever they wanted, arrogant ***t's

[Sternjaeger II]

guys, there is no need to get aggressive on each other over a matter that was resolved 65 years ago.

Truth is that ignorants will be ignorants, living in England has taught me that Britons are probably one of the most stubborn populations on this planet (if not the Solar System), which is both a good and a bad thing.

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. They even took the mick on their allies, but then again some justify it by saying it's the awkward British way of showing gratitude, go figure..

[ACE-OF-ACES]

So Germany invading the rest of europe was not an act of war? I see.........
+1

[Sternjaeger II]

So Germany invading the rest of europe was not an act of was? I see......... so the treaty of Versaile which was drawn up after the Germans last act of aggression and subsequent defeat was just 'unfair'?, like nobody had the right to stand in their way while they did whatever they wanted, arrogant ***t's

Bongo, the Treaty of Versailles is considered THE long term cause of WW2, the impositions were just ridiculous (mostly imposed by France) and meant to humiliate a country with a glorious heritage. Try and imagine the same thing applied to Great Britain, how well you reckon things would have gone?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Agreed, but Germany didn't bite, remember, it was the Allies who declared war, not Germany.
Oh they bit allright! And got thier teeth knocked out for it! ;)

They just failed to see the determination the Allies had to prevent Germany from regaining it's lost territories and peoples.
They just failed to see alot of things

[bongodriver]

guys, there is no need to get aggressive on each other over a matter that was resolved 65 years ago.

Truth is that ignorants will be ignorants, living in England has taught me that Britons are probably one of the most stubborn populations on this planet (if not the Solar System), which is both a good and a bad thing.

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. They even took the mick on their allies, but then again some justify it by saying it's the awkward British way of showing gratitude, go figure..

Montogomery I'll let you have, the rest of your statement is pure BS and you have learned nothing from us.

[bongodriver]

Bongo, the Treaty of Versailles is considered THE long term cause of WW2, the impositions were just ridiculous (mostly imposed by France) and meant to humiliate a country with a glorious heritage. Try and imagine the same thing applied to Great Britain, how well you reckon things would have gone?

Considered by whom? the Germans.......

Glorious heritage.......like what was so glorious about it we should have bowed down before the almighty Germans, delusions of grandeur? almost believing they are a master race or something.....oh wait...

[Sternjaeger II]

Montogomery I'll let you have, the rest of your statement is pure BS and you have learned nothing from us.

Dowding almost cost you the Battle of Britain, Harris wasted aircrews and hundreds of thousands of civilian lives with his ridiculous bombing campaign, which is regarded as a war crime and not essential to the war in the ETO.

I have learned a lot from you, I still regard your country as one of the best in the world, but people here can go to both extremes in terms of behaviour.

[Bewolf]

So Germany invading the rest of europe was not an act of was? I see......... so the treaty of Versaile which was drawn up after the Germans last act of aggression and subsequent defeat was just 'unfair'?, like nobody had the right to stand in their way while they did whatever they wanted, arrogant ***t's

Waiiiit bit here. Back in 1939, didn't the UK back then look like this?

http://www.defenceimagedatabase.mod.uk/fotoweb/wewerethere/ww2/images/empire_map_lg.jpg

I will be the first to admit that I personally am very glad that the BE entered and fought this war to its end, but nothing of that fondness has anything to do with common english arguments about how it all started, the fingerpointing about baddies and egocentric breast polishing.
And do not even let me come to "agression" in WW1. In this regard the UK started histories first full blown propaganda campain against another country and that has influence to this very day.

Some of the tones in this thread, however, are uncalled for. The war ended over 60 years ago and enough blood was shed for generations. Nobody posting in this thread attacked or defended anything in WW2 or can claim for himself the deeds of his/her countrymen present or past, positive or negative, so I suggest getting the stick out from where no light goes. All for an open debate about this era in history but folks should leave those nationalistic butthurt signs at home.

[Kongo-Otto]

Considered by whom? the Germans.......

Glorious heritage.......like what was so glorious about it we should have bowed down before the almighty Germans, delusions of grandeur? almost believing they are a master race or something.....oh wait...

You Sir are an asshole! Not more and not less!!

[Sternjaeger II]

Considered by whom? the Germans.......

Glorious heritage.......like what was so glorious about it we should have bowed down before the almighty Germans, delusions of grandeur? almost believing they are a master race or something.....oh wait...

No, by British and German historians alike. It's not stuff I'm making up, it's all in boring history books man.

Let's not take this to a silly level: 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.

from Wikipedia

Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial required Germany to accept responsibility for causing the war (along with Austria and Hungary, according to the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye and the Treaty of Trianon) and, under the terms of articles 231–248 (later known as the War Guilt clauses), to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions and pay heavy reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. 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.[2][3] The final payments ended up being made on October 4, 2010,[4] the 20th anniversary of German reunification, and some 92 years after the end of the war for which they were exacted.[5] The Treaty was undermined by subsequent events starting as early as 1932 and was widely flouted by the mid-1930s.[6]

[bongodriver]

You Sir are an asshole! Not more and not less!!

So what?.........

[ATAG_Dutch]

Woah there Bongo mate, you took my statement entirely out of context.

There's no-one more emphatic than I in affirming that we bloody won the Battle no matter what any of the latter day excuse mongers drone on about.

I wasn't making any excuses for anyone, but 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. Until such time as the empire, the dominions and the U.S. came to our aid.

But I repeat, we did win and won hands down.;)

[Kongo-Otto]

watch your language man, people here have been banned for less..

mea culpa, i was overwhelmed by my feelings.

[csThor]

Gosh! This thread has gone down the drain faster than even I had imagined. Aparently some people still fight WW2 or feel the need to ... *shakes head*

[Sternjaeger II]

Woah there Bongo mate, you took my statement entirely out of context.

There's no-one more emphatic than I in affirming that we bloody won the Battle no matter what any of the latter day excuse mongers drone on about.

I wasn't making any excuses for anyone, but 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. Until such time as the empire, the dominions and the U.S. came to our aid.

But I repeat, we did win and won hands down.;)

it's a delusional idea man, it's propaganda for little people, history tells otherwise.

[bongodriver]

No, by British and German historians alike. It's not stuff I'm making up, it's all in boring history books man.

Let's not take this to a silly level: 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.

from Wikipedia

Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial required Germany to accept responsibility for causing the war (along with Austria and Hungary, according to the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye and the Treaty of Trianon) and, under the terms of articles 231–248 (later known as the War Guilt clauses), to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions and pay heavy reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. 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.[2][3] The final payments ended up being made on October 4, 2010,[4] the 20th anniversary of German reunification, and some 92 years after the end of the war for which they were exacted.[5] The Treaty was undermined by subsequent events starting as early as 1932 and was widely flouted by the mid-1930s.[6]

Oh well in that case I'm awfully sorry, god forbid that a little patience might have seen a political and peacefull coclusion to this, from this moment on I shal endeavour to murder any Pole, Jew, Human of questionable genetics/ethicity to make amends for the serious wrongdoing we caused the Germans.

[Bewolf]

Oh well in that case I'm awfully sorry, god forbid that a little patience might have seen a political and peacefull coclusion to this, from this moment on I shal endeavour to murder any Pole, Jew, Human of questionable genetics/ethicity to make amends for the serious wrongdoing we caused the Germans.

All of which had no reason for the UK to enter the war.

Hindsight != political reality in 1939.

[Sternjaeger II]

Oh well in that case I'm awfully sorry, god forbid that a little patience might have seen a political and peacefull coclusion to this, from this moment on I shal endeavour to murder any Pole, Jew, Human of questionable genetics/ethicity to make amends for the serious wrongdoing we caused the Germans.

you're looking at the effect, not the cause.

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 revenge, so Hitler would have kept on being a $hit painter and get banged in jail again and again instead of doing what he did.

The French really wanted to use all of Germany's resources for the next 80 years (!!!) to live off their WW1 victory, now if that's not an all French provocation I dunno how to call it..

[SEE]

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.

[Bewolf]

you're looking at the effect, not the cause.

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 revenge, so Hitler would have kept on being a $hit painter and get banged in jail again and again instead of doing what he did.

The French really wanted to use all of Germany's resources for the next 80 years (!!!) to live off their WW1 victory, now if that's not an all French provocation I dunno how to call it..

I agree, but one should add, for the sake of the propper spirit of this debate...this post serves to give an understanding, not to give apologies for what happend in WW2 on the german side.

[bongodriver]

Well we all know what happens when we forget history.....

[Sternjaeger II]

I agree, but one should add, for the sake of the propper spirit of this debate...this post serves to give an understanding, not to give apologies for what happend in WW2 on the german side.

I agree. You know, I keep on giving things for granted but I'm often proven wrong, some people still shut their ears and go LALALALALALALALA!!! when you try to talk objectively and with hindsight about WW1 and WW2.

[bongodriver]

All of which had no reason for the UK to enter the war.

Hindsight != political reality in 1939.

Youre joking right....the biggest shame I feel is that Britain didn't decare war after the invasion of Poland....those poor people deserved better from the rest of the world.

[Sternjaeger II]

Youre joking right....the biggest shame I feel is that Britain didn't decare war after the invasion of Poland....those poor people deserved better from the rest of the world.

declare war with what exactly? 5 Hurricanes and 10 Fairey Battles?

Great Britain had no interest in another war, you actually had a lot of the Nazis coming around to make friends and create a new alliance (and some of you were also falling for it..). Fortunately you didn't, but things could have taken a really awkward direction..

[bongodriver]

I agree, but one should add, for the sake of the propper spirit of this debate...this post serves to give an understanding, not to give apologies for what happend in WW2 on the german side.

The propper spirit of this debate was about the German defeat in the battle of britain, but it has been invaded by a load of Germans going LALALALALALA! we never did anything wrong, we werent beaten it was just a fleshwound!

[ATAG_Dutch]

it's a delusional idea man, it's propaganda for little people, history tells otherwise.

Here we go again eh Stern?

History does not tell otherwise, and propaganda works both ways.

1) Hitler did not wish for war with Britain

2) He thought he could bring us to the negotiating table by threat of or actual invasion and establishment of air superioity.

3) Goering said the RAF would last 'two weeks'.

Hitler got what he didn't want, i.e. war with Britain

He didn't force us to the negotiating table or succeed in invading or establishing air superiority.

RAF fighter command had more pilots and aircraft at the end of the Battle than the start, which is more than can be said for the Luftwaffe.

Hitler for once, didn't get what he wanted, which was a 'Free hand in Europe', and suffered the first real setback he'd encountered since coming to power.

I fail to see which part of 'winning' you don't understand.

[Kongo-Otto]

Youre joking right....the biggest shame I feel is that Britain didn't decare war after the invasion of Poland....those poor people deserved better from the rest of the world.

declare war with what exactly? 5 Hurricanes and 10 Fairey Battles?

Great Britain had no interest in another war, you actually had a lot of the Nazis coming around to make friends and create a new alliance (and some of you were also falling for it..). Fortunately you didn't, but things could have taken a really awkward direction..

Britain declared war on September 3rd 1939, so what the hell are you talking about?

[bongodriver]

Britain declared war on September 3rd 1939, so what the hell are you talking about?

Yes fair enough, I meant our half hearted attempt at helping, the declaration was there of course.

[kendo65]

Apart from the pointless arguing over what happened 70 years ago the most distressing thing about this thread is the tone - some people are approaching a conflict in which millions died with the same attitude they bring to supporting their football team - "we would have won the game too if our star striker hadn't been ruled out with injury".

Some people have a lot of growing up to do.

Sad.

[bongodriver]

declare war with what exactly? 5 Hurricanes and 10 Fairey Battles?

Great Britain had no interest in another war, you actually had a lot of the Nazis coming around to make friends and create a new alliance (and some of you were also falling for it..). Fortunately you didn't, but things could have taken a really awkward direction..

Se we were an underdog!.....we still are, has the German phyce no concept of fighting back against a bigger aggressor? the Brits have nothing to feel ashamed of in that respect.

[Bewolf]

The propper spirit of this debate was about the German defeat in the battle of britain, but it has been invaded by a load of Germans going LALALALALALA! we never did anything wrong, we werent beaten it was just a fleshwound!

Look, if you don't want people to spoil your breast polishing, you may want to consider not posting in an international forum. Chances are that ppl have different opinions.

Se we were an underdog!.....we still are, has the German phyce no concept of fighting back against a bigger aggressor? the Brits have nothing to feel ashamed of in that respect.

You may want to extend that argument to....well, what about a quarter of the world?
You are aware your are constantly shooting your own food with this argument? Why won't try something like "whatever the reasons, in hindsight it was the right thing to do"?
Lots of people would agree with this, even on the other side of the argument. But insisting on post war findings being the reason for pre war descisions serves nobody with a real interest to understand what was happening back then.

[bongodriver]

Look, if you don't want people to spoil your breast polishing, you may want to consider not posting in an international forum. Chances are that ppl have different opinions.

You can make all the belittleing posts you like, what the hell is breast polishing anyway? just look at your own post and tell me you dont have an issue because 'I' have a differrent oppinion to you....but you won't find me trying to make little petty comment on your character.

[Sternjaeger II]

Here we go again eh Stern?

History does not tell otherwise, and propaganda works both ways.

1) Hitler did not wish for war with Britain

yes, someday you'll open a history book that is not together with the Sun and you might realise that you're talking nonsense..

Hitler didn't want to wage war against Britain mainly cos he didn't need it (as much as this is a beautiful country, it didn't have any strategic or resource value whatsoever, at least back in the late 30s), he regarded it as a possible European ally against the "Bolshevik threat".

2) He thought he could bring us to the negotiating table by threat of or actual invasion and establishment of air superioity.

that was Plan B. Plan A was what I mentioned above.

3) Goering said the RAF would last 'two weeks'.

Goering dressed up like a Nazi Elton John and had his same competence in terms of air warfare. The truth is that the Luftwaffe was a potent machine throughout the Battle, and had they stuck to the original plans of crippling airfields and factories, you would have had no air superiority over your own country.

He was arrogant and obviously 2 weeks was a ridiculous statement to make his boss happy, and as you know, his boss was a fan of ridiculous statements right until the end, when he was moving imaginary battalions on the map.

Hitler got what he didn't want, i.e. war with Britain

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?

He didn't force us to the negotiating table or succeed in invading or establishing air superiority.

yes, simply cos you were of no interest and had no resources that he could be interested in, and his military command realised that it would have been too much logistical effort to conquer such an irrelevant country, because, let's face it, they kicked you out of the European mainland and spared a slaughter of British troops in Dunkirk.

Hitler simply said "enough of this, it's taking too long, we'll get back to them once we're done with Russia". Big mistake, cos in the meantime the Americans joined the party.. but hey, had they kept a better relationship with their Allies, they would have known better..

If the Americans didn't join in, you would have been sad spectators of the horror going through Europe. You wouldn't surely have been able to invade the European mainland by yourselves.


RAF fighter command had more pilots and aircraft at the end of the Battle than the start, which is more than can be said for the Luftwaffe.

yes, cos they were moved to other fronts. Also, shall we comment on the preparation and skills of your poorly trained pilots back then? Some of those poor guys were sent up with less than 25 hours on the Spitfire and Hurricane.

Hitler for once, didn't get what he wanted, which was a 'Free hand in Europe', the first setback he'd encountered since coming to power.

I fail to see which part of 'winning' you don't understand.

Great Britain was no mainland Europe, he had no interest in invading you, his idea of Seeloewe was just a childish tantrum, and for that tantrum thousands of people died.

The Battle of Britain was a draw. Nobody ever won it.

[Sternjaeger II]

Se we were an underdog!.....we still are, has the German phyce no concept of fighting back against a bigger aggressor? the Brits have nothing to feel ashamed of in that respect.

no, that's true, you only have to feel ashamed for the bomber offensive perpetrated by Harris. That's your only flaw in an otherwise spotless conduct.

Uh and Market-Garden.

[Bewolf]

You can make all the belittleing posts you like, what the hell is breast polishing anyway? just look at your own post and tell me you dont have an issue because 'I' have a differrent oppinion to you....but you won't find me trying to make little petty comment on your character.

Breast polishing? Should be pretty self explainatory. Making your armor shine that much that it blinds you.

I have zero intention of belittleing you, i just have a problem with mixing national pathos with fact finding.

[Sternjaeger II]

I have zero intention of belittleing you, i just have a problem with mixing national pathos with fact finding.

Spot on.

[bongodriver]

Breast polishing? Should be pretty self explainatory. Making your armor shine that much that it blinds you.

But...but I'm not wearing armour.....I don't understand......oh I get it youre saying I'm a jumped up little nationalist prick etc....no thats not belittleing at all.

no, that's true, you only have to feel ashamed for the bomber offensive perpetrated by Harris. That's your only flaw in an otherwise spotless conduct.

Uh and Market-Garden.

Oh so we need to feel ashamed of a couple of mistakes while Germany is completely absolved because it happened so long ago and nobody really got hurt.....well nobody important anyway eh?

[ATAG_Dutch]

Great Britain was not mainland Europe, he had no interest in invading you

All of that great rambling post simply agrees with what I said, apart from you considering the Battle a 'Draw'.

And I don't read The Sun.:-P

[ATAG_Dutch]

you only have to feel ashamed for the bomber offensive perpetrated by Harris.

No we don't, any more than the Americans should be ashamed of Bomber campaigns in both Europe and the Pacific.

And it wasn't perpetrated by Harris.

Harris never did anything that wasn't sanctioned by the war cabinet, headed by Churchill.

Harris has been made a scapegoat for far too long.

[Sternjaeger II]

But...but I'm not wearing armour.....I don't understand......oh I get it youre saying I'm a jumped up little nationalist prick etc....no thats not belittleing at all.



Oh so we need to feel ashamed of a couple of mistakes while Germany is completely absolved because it happened so long ago and nobody really got hurt.....well nobody important anyway eh?

haven't said that Germany shouldn't feel ashamed, they still do and pay for it (I had a German girlfriend in 2007, she was 27 and a part of the taxes she paid went on the reimbursement for the war..).

Your "couple of mistakes", as you called them, cost 600.000 civilian lives and 55.000 RAF airmen.

Didn't hear much mourning from the British side on this though.

[Bewolf]

But...but I'm not wearing armour.....I don't understand......oh I get it youre saying I'm a jumped up little nationalist prick etc....no thats not belittleing at all.

Oh so we need to feel ashamed of a couple of mistakes while Germany is completely absolved because it happened so long ago and nobody really got hurt.....well nobody important anyway eh?

You are placing words into my mouth. Don't blame me for you to read what you want to read. My apologies if I came over as overly sarcastic, but it's not as if you made yourself easy to ignore.

[NedLynch]

Wow, what a thread, such passion and personal feelings, I can't condone the wording in some posts, but I can understand it.

The thread went far off topic from the original "how did they cope with it".

Let's see if I can input my 2cents for what it's worth.

Germany did not start WW1, due to the events in Sarajevo and subsequent actions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the at the time existing treaties Germany was drawn into the war, the powder keg that Europe was at the time simply exploded.
Post war humiliation of Germany cetainly didn't help crate a stable political landscape. (Never completely humiliate an enemy after defeating him, since he may later become your ally, Sun Tzu, The Art of War, freely quoted).

The Luftwafffe had an internally torn and inept leadership that failed to see pretty much everything, especially in terms of tactics and strategy.

The Luftwaffe was not designed to deal with the task at hand, it was very much a branch of the armed forces that was at it's best fighting in concert with ground forces.

Luftwaffe pilots were at a distinct phsicological disadvantage, you constantly have to watch your fuel guage over England, it may seem minor but it's certainly not (Kanal Krankheit).

The Luftwaffe leadership completely underestimated the strength of the RAF and Britain's production rate for new airplanes.

Radar in concert with the right strategy of not going for an all out battle with the Luftwaffe was a huge advantage for Britain.

BUT the most understated and yet maybe the most important thing in the battle was the organisation of fighter command, and it's network of civilian spotters all throughout England. This network of spotters, all equiped with a telehone line (state of the art technology at the time), no matter where, was the world's first intranet and was virtually indestructible. The MarkI Eyeball was the true enabler for fighter command and the RAF to fight so effectively and successfully.

Common therories suggest that the RAF was close to being on it's knees when the attacks were shifted from airfields and military installations to bombing cities, new research suggests that the RAF in fact never came close to being on it's knees (History Channel, Battlefield Detectives, Battle of Britain), huge losses, yes, RAF veteran pilots didn't even bother to learn the names of the replacement pilots when they just arrived, but never close to defeat.

While this list is certainly not complete, in conclusion the BoB was a decisive victory for Britain, I am not sure which german officer said it (going to have to research), but when asked when he thought Germany had lost WW2, he answered "with the Battle of Britain" and I completely agree.

[bongodriver]

You may want to extend that argument to....well, what about a quarter of the world?
You are aware your are constantly shooting your own food with this argument? Why won't try something like "whatever the reasons, in hindsight it was the right thing to do"?
Lots of people would agree with this, even on the other side of the argument. But insisting on post war findings being the reason for pre war descisions serves nobody with a real interest to understand what was happening back then.

Where have I given the impression it wasn't the right thing to do, a quarter of the world? they had no obligation to join the fight, they made their own decisions, it's not like we could hold the canadians , aussies, kiwis and south africans to ransom over it, no we did the right thing ok, and the Americans only joined in......well lets just say it wasn't because we made them do it eh!

[Bewolf]

Where have I given the impression it wasn't the right thing to do, a quarter of the world? they had no obligation to join the fight, they made their own decisions, it's not like we could hold the canadians , aussies, kiwis and south africans to ransom over it, no we did the right think ok, and the Americans only joined in......well lets just say it wasn't because we made them do it eh!

And how did it come that aussies, kiwis, indians, south africans had to make that choice in the first place?

The UK conquored all of the world and from my POV, if you want to blame Germany for conquoring all of Europe you have to stop being a British Citizen, or at least argueing from that basis on, and become a human being just like everyboy else. Only from that perspective is fingerpointing justified.

[bongodriver]

After Dunkirk you didn't had more left but tea to offer!!
Otherwise why should Churchill Lend & Lease some 50 war weary US Destroyers?
Ah yes because you ran out even on tea. :rolleyes:
And your British Army sucked on every major Battle until the USA showed up at the ETO, the same is for the PTO!
But that's maybe because they didn't had allways Canadians and Australians on their side, they know how to fight!

If I seem a little heated in this topic perhaps we need to look at this lovely man's post, he practically pissed on the grave of every fallen British serviceperson......forgive me if it seems unreasonable to get 'miffed' by this, and he had the balls to say I'm an asshole.......

[Sternjaeger II]

All of that great rambling post simply agrees with what I said, apart from you considering the Battle a 'Draw'.

And I don't read The Sun.:-P

it was a draw. The Battle of Britain was about air superiority over the Channel. You didn't gain air superiority over the Channel area even after the Battle of Britain was over, did you? You had to wait for the Americans to show up in order to achieve that.

Just kidding about the Sun mate ;)

[Bewolf]

If I seem a little heated in this topic perhaps we need to look at this lovely man's post, he practically pissed on the grave of every fallen British serviceperson......forgive me if it seems unreasonable to get 'miffed' by this, and he had the balls to say I'm an asshole.......

Agreed, that was uncalled for as well.

[ATAG_Dutch]

, in conclusion the BoB was a decisive victory for Britain, I am not sure which german officer said it (going to have to research), but when asked when he thought Germany had lost WW2, he answered "with the Battle of Britain" and I completely agree.

Sometimes I just love Americans. Cheers Ned.;)

Wasn't it Paulus at Stalingrad?

[bongodriver]

And how did it come that aussies, kiwis, indians, south africans had to make that choice in the first place?

The UK conquored all of the world and from my POV, if you want to blame Germany for conquoring all of Europe you have to stop being a British Citizen, or at least argueing from that basis on, and become a human being just like everyboy else. Only from that perspective is fingerpointing justified.

at no point has this topic been about past British conquests, and as it happens for the large part I don't agree with the way some of these countries were colonised, I will never sanction murdering native populations, but the fact is that for the most part the colonies were relatively at ease with being so, they were given infrastructure and genrally benefited from what the British empire gave them,and for the ones that remain colonies I don't believe we were ever in a position to maintain them as such,it's their choice, I somehow don't think most of europe was that happy being conquered by the Germans, they might have liked it more if they were built some nice new railways, schools, hospitals etc.......I don't know, just because you want to make a little ethnic house cleaning and the world turn against you....how unfair.

[Kongo-Otto]

If I seem a little heated in this topic perhaps we need to look at this lovely man's post, he practically pissed on the grave of every fallen British serviceperson......forgive me if it seems unreasonable to get 'miffed' by this, and he had the balls to say I'm an asshole.......

Well i have to correct my self, your British Army performed well against the Italians in the MTO, at least until Rommel showed up there.

[Sternjaeger II]

Wow, what a thread, such passion and personal feelings, I can't condone the wording in some posts, but I can understand it.

The thread went far off topic from the original "how did they cope with it".

Let's see if I can input my 2cents for what it's worth.

Germany did not start WW1, due to the events in Sarajevo and subsequent actions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the at the time existing treaties Germany was drawn into the war, the powder keg that Europe was at the time simply exploded.

I'm sorry but that's wrong. It's now a fact that Germany can be considered the main culript of WW1. The Sarajevo killing was only a short term cause, look up for the Schliffen Plan, it was discovered only after the war by some brave German historians and it was the smoking gun, the evidence that the Germans had in mind a European continent invasion and they pushed themselves as much as thinking of a new order for African countries as well.

[ATAG_Dutch]

The Battle of Britain was about air superiority over the Channel. You didn't gain air superiority over the Channel area even after the Battle of Britain was over, did you? You had to wait for the Americans to show up in order to achieve that.

Nope, it was about air superiority over Southern England and the Channel in preparation for the threatened invasion. Britain certainly did achieve air superiority over Southern England, the Channel was kind of like the net in a tennis match.;)

And I wasn't there personally, not having been born until 22 years afterwards.

[Bewolf]

I'm sorry but that's wrong. It's now a fact that Germany can be considered the main culript of WW1. The Sarajevo killing was only a short term cause, look up for the Schliffen Plan, it was discovered only after the war by some brave German historians and it was the smoking gun, the evidence that the Germans had in mind a European continent invasion and they pushed themselves as much as thinking of a new order for African countries as well.

True to a point, but not giving the whole picture. The first country to start mobilisation was Russia. Everything else went on automatic from that point on.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/willynicky.htm

These letters between the Tsar and the Kaiser should be of particlular interest in this regard.

[bongodriver]

haven't said that Germany shouldn't feel ashamed, they still do and pay for it (I had a German girlfriend in 2007, she was 27 and a part of the taxes she paid went on the reimbursement for the war..).

Your "couple of mistakes", as you called them, cost 600.000 civilian lives and 55.000 RAF airmen.

Didn't hear much mourning from the British side on this though.

Were still paying taxes for our cost in the war, at least germany has paid off it's debt (I heard a while back)

forgive us if we haven't made enough programmes that highlight the awfull nature of the 'firebombing' raids, and I guess at the time we were busy digging our own dead out of our own bombed cities....sorry.

Market Garden?....so it's ok for the Germans to use bad planning blah blah blah as an excuse for the 'defeat' in the BOB, and somehow we need to feel ashamed of our Paras for putting up a pretty damned good fight against overwhelming odds?

[bongodriver]

Well i have to correct my self, your British Army performed well against the Italians in the MTO, at least until Rommel showed up there.

Oh....and how did that go in the end?.......

[NedLynch]

Sometimes I just love Americans. Cheers Ned.;)

Wasn't it Paulus at Stalingrad?



You know, it seriously does hurt to see these guys fighting with each other here. You know where the expression "anglo-saxon" comes from and why England is named England?

As for the battle being a decisive victory for Britain, even just looking at the numbers confirms it, google it and find the losses for each side, but beyond that, the Luftwaffe did not acomplish it's set goal (not due to it's pilots), while the RAF did.

And for anyone who underestimates the fighting ability of british soldiers all I have to say, from everything I know, I would never ever want to meet british soldiers in combat. I've met british troops,combat troops, in peace, as an ally, and they are dead serious professionals who know exactely what they are doing.

[fruitbat]

this thread would of been much more interesting and polite without Kongo-otto.

guess he's just a kid.

[Sternjaeger II]

Nope, it was about air superiority over Southern England and the Channel in preparation for the threatened invasion. Britain certainly did achieve air superiority over Southern England, the Channel was kind of like the net in a tennis match.;)

And I wasn't there personally, not having been born until 22 years afterwards.

You didn't gain air superiority over Southern England and the Channel after the Battle of Britain, you kept on receiving raids and German planes were still flying over your territory regularly until late 1941, air superiority over Great Britiain and Northern Europe was achieved only when the Americans got there.

[Sternjaeger II]

this thread would of been much more interesting and polite without Kongo-otto.

guess he's just a kid.

..says the one that called someone else a pr**k.. :rolleyes:

We should try and keep this conversation factual, with no national bias, but I understand it's not easy.

[Kongo-Otto]

Oh....and how did that go in the end?.......

The USA had to show up and help you.

[NedLynch]

I'm sorry but that's wrong. It's now a fact that Germany can be considered the main culript of WW1. The Sarajevo killing was only a short term cause, look up for the Schliffen Plan, it was discovered only after the war by some brave German historians and it was the smoking gun, the evidence that the Germans had in mind a European continent invasion and they pushed themselves as much as thinking of a new order for African countries as well.

The Schlieffen Plan was the German General Staff's early 20th century overall strategic plan for victory in a possible future war where it might find itself fighting on two fronts: France to the west and Russia to the east. The First World War later became such a war with both a Western Front and an Eastern Front. The plan took advantage of expected differences in the three countries' speed in preparing for war. In short, it was the German plan to avoid a two-front war by concentrating their troops in the west, quickly defeating the French and then, if necessary, rushing those troops by rail to the east to face the Russians before they had time to mobilize fully. The Schlieffen Plan was created by Count Alfred von Schlieffen and modified by Helmuth von Moltke the Younger after Schlieffen's retirement. It was Moltke who actually put the plan into action, despite initial reservations about it.[citation needed] In modified form, it was executed to near victory in the first month of World War I; however, the modifications to the original plan, a French counterattack on the outskirts of Paris (the Battle of the Marne), and surprisingly speedy Russian offensives, ended the German offensive and resulted in years of trench warfare. The plan has been the subject of intense debate among historians and military scholars ever since. Schlieffen's last words were "remember to keep the right flank strong".


Taken from wikipedea, not the all knowing source many claim it to be, but it gives you a good idea.

[ATAG_Dutch]

You know where the expression "anglo-saxon" comes from and why England is named England?

I certainly do. In fact when my sister asked me why I studied German at school rather than French, I said it was because I identified more readily with my Anglo-Saxon genes than my Norman ones.;)

It's also one of the reasons Hitler didn't want to go to war against Britain.

No offence to any of our French members intended, before anyone severs my jugular!:grin:

[bongodriver]

The USA had to show up and help you.

Not at el Alamein they didn't

[Kongo-Otto]

The Schlieffen Plan was the German General Staff's early 20th century overall strategic plan for victory in a possible future war where it might find itself fighting on two fronts: France to the west and Russia to the east. The First World War later became such a war with both a Western Front and an Eastern Front. The plan took advantage of expected differences in the three countries' speed in preparing for war. In short, it was the German plan to avoid a two-front war by concentrating their troops in the west, quickly defeating the French and then, if necessary, rushing those troops by rail to the east to face the Russians before they had time to mobilize fully. The Schlieffen Plan was created by Count Alfred von Schlieffen and modified by Helmuth von Moltke the Younger after Schlieffen's retirement. It was Moltke who actually put the plan into action, despite initial reservations about it.[citation needed] In modified form, it was executed to near victory in the first month of World War I; however, the modifications to the original plan, a French counterattack on the outskirts of Paris (the Battle of the Marne), and surprisingly speedy Russian offensives, ended the German offensive and resulted in years of trench warfare. The plan has been the subject of intense debate among historians and military scholars ever since. Schlieffen's last words were "remember to keep the right flank strong".


Taken from wikipedea, not the all knowing source many claim it to be, but it gives you a good idea.


Yes but the Schlieffen Plan was flawed anyways and it brought the Britons in to the war.

[Sternjaeger II]

Were still paying taxes for our cost in the war, at least germany has paid off it's debt (I heard a while back)

forgive us if we haven't made enough programmes that highlight the awfull nature of the 'firebombing' raids, and I guess at the time we were busy digging our own dead out of our own bombed cities....sorry.

Market Garden?....so it's ok for the Germans to use bad planning blah blah blah as an excuse for the 'defeat' in the BOB, and somehow we need to feel ashamed of our Paras for putting up a pretty damned good fight against overwhelming odds?

that's not what I meant Bongo, I meant that there isn't much relevance given to the criminal act of firebombing civilian targets as it should, it's not about taxes or BBC programmes.

You're doing it again Bongo, putting words in other people's mouths. Market-Garden was something to be ashamed of (under a military point of view) not because of the brave work done by your fantastic Paras, but because of that idiot that goes by the name of Montgomery, who even after the war never admitted his plan was too much of a stretch, done on poor intelligence and an unnecessary sacrifice of brave, good soldiers.

[Kongo-Otto]

Not at el Alamein they didn't

Ah really and were came your Supplies from? like the tanks and the fuel and the ammo. Without the US Supplies and the later Invasion from the US troops in Morocco, you would have lost.

[fruitbat]

..says the one that called someone else a pr**k.. :rolleyes:

We should try and keep this conversation factual, with no national bias, but I understand it's not easy.

in fairness, i edited that very quickly, but not quick enough:rolleyes:

[Sternjaeger II]

in fairness, i edited that very quickly, but not quick enough:rolleyes:

teehehe ;)

[bongodriver]

that's not what I meant Bongo, I meant that there isn't much relevance given to the criminal act of firebombing civilian targets as it should, it's not about taxes or BBC programmes.

You're doing it again Bongo, putting words in other people's mouths. Market-Garden was something to be ashamed of (under a military point of view) not because of the brave work done by your fantastic Paras, but because of that idiot that goes by the name of Montgomery, who even after the war never admitted his plan was too much of a stretch, done on poor intelligence and an unnecessary sacrifice of brave, good soldiers.

What can I say......as far as I know it's our taxes paying to make amends for dresden and the likes, you seem to be misled over any non aknowledgement of the said raids by the British, we are fully aware of it and I don't think anybody deep down is proud of it, I'm afraid I'm at a loss why you brought market garden up at all in that case, even good commanders have made mistakes but I have already agreed with you Montgomery was a useless bellend.

[Sternjaeger II]

guys, it is a fact that Great Britain alone wouldn't have gone far, you needed to outsource from the Commonwealth and the USA to carry on fighting on so many fronts, let's never forget this.

ETO: American and Commonwealth support

MTO: same as above

PTO: Commonwealth support (in fact you left most of this to the Aussies)

[fruitbat]

As to the Bomber command raids, i don't think anyone now would say it was a good thing, but we are judging from todays standpoint and with hindsight, both of which were absent in the 40's.

[bongodriver]

guys, it is a fact that Great Britain alone wouldn't have gone far, you needed to outsource from the Commonwealth and the USA to carry on fighting on so many fronts, let's never forget this.

ETO: American and Commonwealth support

MTO: same as above

PTO: Commonwealth support (in fact you left most of this to the Aussies)

Well heres a case where you are putting words in mouths, read this entire thread and you will not find a single suggestion from anybody that Britain would have fought the war alone and won it, the point we make is we just fought it, and we were fighting it without being provoked because it was the right thing to do, and we would have fought it to the last with or without help.

[NedLynch]

I certainly do. In fact when my sister asked me why I studied German at school rather than French, I said it was because I identified more readily with my Anglo-Saxon genes than my Norman ones.;)

It's also one of the reasons Hitler didn't want to go to war against Britain.

No offence to any of our French members intended, before anyone severs my jugular!:grin:

Well, with "you" I was more aiming at kongootto and maybe bongodriver as well, but you are right of course Dutch.

Those guys from the northern part of Germany even fought under Wellington in the Peninsular Campaign and at Waterloo.
And, I will have to confirm this, if I am not mistaken, the House of Windsor are still originally Hanovarians.

[fruitbat]

guys, it is a fact that Great Britain alone wouldn't have gone far, you needed to outsource from the Commonwealth and the USA to carry on fighting on so many fronts, let's never forget this.

ETO: American and Commonwealth support

MTO: same as above

PTO: Commonwealth support (in fact you left most of this to the Aussies)

Don't think anyone will disagree much with this, save maybe the last part, Change aussies for USA.

[Kongo-Otto]

in fairness, i edited that very quickly, but not quick enough:rolleyes:

Dont mind, it has dissapeared.
Actually i had to look in a dictionary what it means. :rolleyes:
Love it. :grin:

[bongodriver]

Ah really and were came your Supplies from? like the tanks and the fuel and the ammo. Without the US Supplies and the later Invasion from the US troops in Morocco, you would have lost.

Oh really...and where exactly did your supplies come from? it's not like you were alone now, you already mentioned the Italians after all, yep thats right, we may have had our supplies from an ally, but it was our boots on the ground....alone, against the Germans and Italians....2 against 1 just in case you don't get it.

and yes by our boots I mean the comonwealth

[NedLynch]

Yes but the Schlieffen Plan was flawed anyways and it brought the Britons in to the war.

Of course it was flawed, this was meant to counter the statement that Germany was the main culprit in WW1 and calling the Schlieffen plan as evidence for Germany's agressive plans.

Even before WW1 the german high command knew, due to germany's geographical location, a two fromt war was likely, had to be avoided and would be the worst case scenario.

Britain was brought into WW1 not because of this plan, but because of the treaties that existed at the time.

[bongodriver]

Dont mind, it has dissapeared.
Actually i had to look in a dictionary what it means. :rolleyes:
Love it. :grin:

yeah I bet you do too......:rolleyes:

[ATAG_Dutch]

You didn't gain air superiority over Southern England and the Channel after the Battle of Britain, you kept on receiving raids and German planes were still flying over your territory regularly until late 1941, air superiority over Great Britiain and Northern Europe was achieved only when the Americans got there.

You have a strange conception of air superiority Stern. Air superiority doesn't mean total exclusion of all nuisance hit and run jabo raids, or total prevention of night time city bombing.

The level of German incursion into British airspace lessened dramatically in 1941 and onward, as they spent more of their time shooting down our fighters and bombers on the ridiculous rhubarbs and circuses introduced once Dowding and Park were shoved out to the sidelines.

As more and more of the Luftwaffe were pulled east, for obvious reasons, air superiority over France gradually moved in the Allies favour until by June 1944there was almost total air superiority over the Normandy beaches.

It's not a simple case of the Brits being hopeless until the Yanks arrived, but of course you know that.;)

[bongodriver]

Well, with "you" I was more aiming at kongootto and maybe bongodriver as well, but you are right of course Dutch.

Those guys from the northern part of Germany even fought under Wellington in the Peninsular Campaign and at Waterloo.
And, I will have to confirm this, if I am not mistaken, the House of Windsor are still originally Hanovarians.

It's OK I know what Anglo Saxon is all about too, but it's a little lost on me because I am 1/4 russian, 1/4 english and the rest is German, Irish and Dutch.

[Kongo-Otto]

Oh really...and where exactly did your supplies come from? it's not like you were alone now, you already mentioned the Italians after all, yep thats right, we may have had our supplies from an ally, but it was our boots on the ground....alone, against the Germans and Italians....2 against 1 just in case you don't get it.

Well in case of the Italians i would dare to say, it was more 1 1/5 against 1, just in case you don't get it.

[Kongo-Otto]

Britain was brought into WW1 not because of this plan, but because of the treaties that existed at the time.

Yes it was the Main reason for the war entrie of the UK.
At the Treaty of London 1839 or 1893 (can't remember, sorry) the UK garanteed the neutrality of Belgium.
Part of the Schlieffen Plan was the way thru Belgium and therefore, the Schlieffen Plan forced the UK into the WW1.

[bongodriver]

Well in case of the Italians i would dare to say, it was more 1 1/5 against 1, just in case you don't get it.

Wow...so now youre insulting the Italians and they were your friends.....

[NedLynch]

It's OK I know what Anglo Saxon is all about too, but it's a little lost on me because I am 1/4 russian, 1/4 english and the rest is German, Irish and Dutch.

My point is there once was a bond and then came the slaughter of WW1 and WW2.

As a british veteran of D-Day in an interview said (again a little freely quoted): War is nothing but death and distruction and desease. There is no glory in war, in war everybody looses.
This veteran was part of airborne troops that took and held a vital bridge the night before the invasion.

[Kongo-Otto]

Wow...so now youre insulting the Italians and they were your friends.....

No that's not an insult, that's a historical fact.
The Italians started two Major Operations (Africa and Greece) in both they have their butts whooped heavily by the Greeks and the UK and in both a german intervention was necessary to save them!

[bongodriver]

No that's not an insult, that's a historical fact.
The Italians started two Major Operations (Africa and Greece) in both they have their butts whooped heavily by the Greeks and the UK and in both a german intervention was necessary to save them!

Yay for the Germans....

[arthursmedley]

@Avro m8, salute! You've still got it! Just one little thread and wham!
Just like the good old days over at the 'zoo.

You know, there's hope for the Banana forum yet!

[Kongo-Otto]

Italy was getting its rear handed to it in France too, lol. Dreams of empire don't equate to ability to forge one!

IIRC 5 French Divisons blocked ~20 Italian Divisons.

[Sternjaeger II]

What can I say......as far as I know it's our taxes paying to make amends for dresden and the likes, you seem to be misled over any non aknowledgement of the said raids by the British, we are fully aware of it and I don't think anybody deep down is proud of it, I'm afraid I'm at a loss why you brought market garden up at all in that case, even good commanders have made mistakes but I have already agreed with you Montgomery was a useless bellend.

I have no info on British taxes to repay for Dresden, do you have any links or reference to this?

It was brought up because the Allied command reckoned it shouldn't be done, unfortunately Montgomery was so insistent (even against the advice of his own men) because he reckoned his race with Patton was more important than the sake of his men. That's something to be ashamed of, leaving an obviously incompetent man, who won the war in North Africa only thanks to the American help, to decide on such a vast operation, with inadequate intelligence and without proper interforce coordination.

As to the Bomber command raids, i don't think anyone now would say it was a good thing, but we are judging from todays standpoint and with hindsight, both of which were absent in the 40's.

You'd be surprised to hear what I have heard in certain circles, mate.

Well heres a case where you are putting words in mouths, read this entire thread and you will not find a single suggestion from anybody that Britain would have fought the war alone and won it, the point we make is we just fought it, and we were fighting it without being provoked because it was the right thing to do, and we would have fought it to the last with or without help.

I was referring to the victories in North Africa, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Don't think anyone will disagree much with this, save maybe the last part, Change aussies for USA.

well the Commonwealth part of the PTO was fought pretty much on their own.

Oh really...and where exactly did your supplies come from? it's not like you were alone now, you already mentioned the Italians after all, yep thats right, we may have had our supplies from an ally, but it was our boots on the ground....alone, against the Germans and Italians....2 against 1 just in case you don't get it.

and yes by our boots I mean the comonwealth

lol with all respect for my own country, Italy was more of a burden to Germany than anything else. Our soldiers were brave and humane (and it's often recognised by British and Russians), but it wasn't enough.

You have a strange conception of air superiority Stern. Air superiority doesn't mean total exclusion of all nuisance hit and run jabo raids, or total prevention of night time city bombing.

The level of German incursion into British airspace lessened dramatically in 1941 and onward, as they spent more of their time shooting down our fighters and bombers on the ridiculous rhubarbs and circuses introduced once Dowding and Park were shoved out to the sidelines.

Air superiority is defined in the NATO Glossary as "That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by opposing air forces."
When the Battle of Britain was over you didn't have air superiority, until the Americans showed up.


As more and more of the Luftwaffe were pulled east, for obvious reasons, air superiority over France gradually moved in the Allies favour until by June 1944there was almost total air superiority over the Normandy beaches.

It's not a simple case of the Brits being hopeless until the Yanks arrived, but of course you know that.;)

the British were good at defending their mainland, but they could have suffered attacks of far superior entity without being able to put adequate opposition, had the battle carried on and Hitler concentrated all his forces towards Great Britain.

[t4trouble]

Who gained most out of the two world wars, i blame the Banks who fund all the wars and still do

[fruitbat]

Who gained most out of the two world wars, i blame the Banks who fund all the wars and still do

I'm all for a bit of bank bashing.

if i could live my life without a bank account i would, lol.

[Xilon_x]

TODAY i consider it in on the great britain European countries because 'he always had a certain independence thanks to the wealth of its colonies.
Italy had to lie with the American colonies' cause a and Christopher Columbus Amerigo Vespucci 2 italians discovered the Americas. Italy to conquer the colonies to England was to always ask permission.
Italy to pass the straits of Suez and the Strait of Gibraltar should always ask permission to England.
England held us captive in the Mediterranean Sea, and we did not have free will to decide our trade lanes.

ITALY not have TODAY 1 american colonies but in southe america speach latino and spanish in CANADA speack also italian.

[bongodriver]

Sternjaeger, you can make all the 'matter of fact' responses you like with all this mysterious alternate evidence stuff you quote, but the Battle of Britain was a victory for the British therefore a defeat for the Germans, plain and simple fact, this has nothing to do with our overall ability to endure the war or a few incompetent leaders, Germany came to us to fight on our doorstep and they were denied their objective, Kongo Otto would have us believe it was all just a bit-of-a-laugh on the Germans part and they didn't take it seriously enough so they went home when all the sausage ran out.

[ATAG_Dutch]

The British were good at defending their mainland, but they could have suffered attacks of far superior entity without being able to put adequate opposition, had the battle carried on and Hitler concentrated all his forces towards Great Britain.

But the Battle didn't carry on, Hitler was losing far too many aircraft and getting nowhere with his attempt to beat Britain into negotiation, the onslaught petered out and Britain won the Battle of Britain.

'Could have, if, maybe, schmaybee'.:-P

[Sternjaeger II]

Sternjaeger, you can make all the 'matter of fact' responses you like with all this mysterious alternate evidence stuff you quote, but the Battle of Britain was a victory for the British therefore a defeat for the Germans, plain and simple fact, this has nothing to do with our overall ability to endure the war or a few incompetent leaders, Germany came to us to fight on our doorstep and they were denied their objective, Kongo Otto would have us believe it was all just a bit-of-a-laugh on the Germans part and they didn't take it seriously enough so they went home when all the sausage ran out.

lol man, we're going around in circles here. A battle is won when there's a defeat, the Luftwaffe wasn't defeated, nor was the RAF, it was a draw.

Again from Wikipedia:
On 17 September 1940, Hitler held a meeting with Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring and Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt. Hitler became convinced the operation was not viable. Control of the skies was lacking, and coordination among three branches of the armed forces was out of the question. Later that day, Hitler ordered the postponement of the operation. He ordered the dispersal of the invasion fleet in order to avert further damage by British air and naval attacks.[36]
The postponement coincided with rumours that there had been an attempt to land on British shores on or about 7 September, which had been repulsed with large German casualties. The story was later expanded to include false reports that the British had set the sea on fire using flaming oil. Both versions were widely reported in the American press, and in William L. Shirer's Berlin Diary but officially denied by Britain and Germany. Author James Hayward has suggested that the whispering campaign around the 'failed invasion' was a successful example of British black propaganda to bolster morale at home and in occupied Europe, and convince America that Britain was not a lost cause.[37]
After the London Blitz, Hitler turned his attention to the Soviet Union, and Seelöwe lapsed, never to be resumed. However, not until 13 February 1942, after the invasion of Russia, were forces earmarked for the operation released to other duties.[38]

The invasion was postponed to an undefined date, it was never classed as cancelled.

But the Battle didn't carry on, Hitler was losing far too many aircraft and getting nowhere with his attempt to beat Britain into negotiation, the onslaught petered out and Britain won the Battle of Britain.

'Could have, if, maybe, schmaybee'.:-P

exactly, the RAF held its position until the LW raids ended, they didn't end because the RAF shot down all the bombers though, they ended because the Germans wanted it to end. The Battle of Britain ended because the Germans turned their attention otherwise. Having said this, the RAF did a supreme job with what they had.

[ATAG_Dutch]

The Battle of Britain ended because Germany gave up trying.

They were prevented from achieving their objectives.

The 'heavy arm of diplomacy' failed.

It didn't work.

They stopped.

Britain won the battle because Germany stopped trying to win.

Whether they stopped trying because of other commitments, shortage of sausage, unsustainable losses or disagreements regarding the price of fish is irrelevant.

They stopped.

Britain therefore won.

[bongodriver]

So we werent defeated in France then.....Dunkirk was a draw because we chose to retreat? the Germans didn't wipe us out because of the 'famous' German humanity and benevolence.....

Sorry SJ it was a defeat, German objectives were denied...which is why they gave up...that is a defeat....you wiki post even points to the significance of the result of the BOB because without britain D-day would never have happened and Germany almost certainly would have won the war in western europe, why exactly did the germans not just surrender when the allies invaded? it would have been classed a draw by your logic.

on a previous topic, the Germans were under no obligation to build V1/V2 rockets and continue bombing us so why shouldnt we have bombed Dresden where components were being made (we even dropped leaflets saying we would do it) still an awfull event but it's debateable on how 'illegal' it may have been.

[Sternjaeger II]

So we werent defeated in France then.....Dunkirk was a draw because we chose to retreat? the Germans didn't wipe us out because of the 'famous' German humanity and benevolence.....


Dunkirk wasn't a defeat, there wasn't even a proper battle. This is the stupid western revisionism of history that needs to give a tag of "victory" or "defeat" to every conflict, but it's ridiculous, anachronistic and inapplicable for the modern warfare introduced by WW2.

The whole definition of "Battle of Britain" is somehow wrong: the air operations to gain air superiority were only the first phase of Operation Sea Lion, they weren't a battle per se. It was turned into "The Battle of Britain" by propaganda. The British propaganda was in dear need of some kind of victory after the embarrassment of Dunkirk and the horrible attacks sustained by the civilians, but the reality is that they kept on receiving thousands of V1s and hundres of V2s up until 1944.

Sorry SJ it was a defeat, German objectives were denied...which is why they gave up...that is a defeat....you wiki post even points to the significance of the result of the BOB because without britain D-day would never have happened and Germany almost certainly would have won the war in western europe, why exactly did the germans not just surrender when the allies invaded? it would have been classed a draw by your logic.

In hindsight maybe you can talk about a victory (considering the broader scheme of things), but you can't always apply hindsight when talking about history.

on a previous topic, the Germans were under no obligation to build V1/V2 rockets and continue bombing us so why shouldnt we have bombed Dresden where components were being made (we even dropped leaflets saying we would do it) still an awfull event but it's debateable on how 'illegal' it may have been.
yeah, but the Americans refused to bomb civilian targets in Europe (most of the times), whereas you had this "right back at you Jerry!" attitude in propaganda that eventually wasn't working anymore either, since people knew what it meant and they were concerned about their troops more than giving back to the Germans what they deserved (in theory).

"Bomber" Harris was the mastermind of setting European civilian targets on fire with his "an eye for an eye" attitude.

[Boandlgramer]

Bongodriver , what was in real life your most used weapon against your enemy ?
This kind of weapon ?
http://www.newgape.de/media/images/info/image_12178492_1.jpg

[bongodriver]

but you can't always apply hindsight when talking about history.

I can't make any sense of this, by definition hindsight is everything to do with history.

The whole definition of "Battle of Britain" is somehow wrong: the air operations to gain air superiority were only the first phase of Operation Sea Lion, they weren't a battle per se. It was turned into "The Battle of Britain" by propaganda.

The Germans lost it, the Brits had the rights to call it whatever they wanted, and it was coined from the Chuchill speech anyway, we called our part the Battle of Britain, the losers called it 'Operation sea lion' whatever, while were at it why was the war called the world war? not everybody fought it.

Dunkirk wasn't a defeat, there wasn't even a proper battle. This is the stupid western revisionism of history that needs to give a tag of "victory" or "defeat" to every conflict, but it's ridiculous, anachronistic and inapplicable for the modern warfare introduced by WW2.

Ah yeah all this winning and losing...it's so irrelevant......WTF are you talking about?

[bongodriver]

Bongodriver , what was in real life your most used weapon against your enemy ?
This kind of weapon ?
http://www.newgape.de/media/images/info/image_12178492_1.jpg

Mainly just my inteligence and ability to maintain a discussion without makin 'personal' snide remarks.

[Sternjaeger II]

I'm sorry Bongo,you know I like you man,but I dont think we'll ever agree on this one. I'm approaching this with an unbiased historian perspective,you're taking this more on a national pride thing.

I suppose that when my (British) history professor told me "there's no way to point out to a Briton that the Battle of Britain was in fact no victory" he knew what he was talking about ;-)

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

Hooray! Best sign of a healthy WW2 Combat flight simulation:

Threads in which the war is being re-fought versus other topics.

On to the .50 cals vs Tigers......

Congratulations!

S!

Gunny

[bongodriver]

I'm sorry Bongo,you know I like you man,but I dont think we'll ever agree on this one. I'm approaching this with an unbiased historian perspective,you're taking this more on a national pride thing.

I suppose that when my (British) history professor told me "there's no way to point out to a Briton that the Battle of Britain was in fact no victory" he knew what he was talking about ;-)

Same here, we have more things outside of this that we do agree on.

I just find it very confusing how some people interpret a Brit saying 'we won the battle of britain' as 'we won the war single handed', even more confusing is this desparate need by the same people to find the most insignificant semantics to try and discredit the British with any ability to fight in any way shape or form, the fact is we fought extremely well for the most part and have a hell of alot to be proud of, like just fighting because it was the right thing to do, so we had friends to help....mainly because they knew it was the right thing to do as well, if it floats your boat to believe the Germans were merely distracted by anything the Brits did then fine.....it's a free world (but no thanks to the Allies eh?)

just because your history teacher was British doesn't prove anything

[bongodriver]

Hooray! Best sign of a healthy WW2 Combat flight simulation:

Threads in which the war is being re-fought versus other topics.

On to the .50 cals vs Tigers......

Congratulations!

S!

Gunny

it's uncanny, a lone stubborn Brit, holding out against some (rude) Germans and a small contingent of Italians.

I bet if an American showed up the whole thing would be over in a heartbeat...

[von Pilsner]

it's uncanny, a lone stubborn Brit, holding out against some (rude) Germans and a small contingent of Italians.

I bet if an American showed up the whole thing would be over in a heartbeat...

http://bs.beckament.net/files_pub/FlightSim/il21946/President_Franklin_D._Roosevelt-1941.jpg
Here in the USofA we are sympathetic to the British plight but hampered by the Neutrality Acts, perhaps we could institute some kind of lend-lease program to provide support to Britain and the Commonwealth. :D

[ATAG_Dutch]

I'm approaching this with an unbiased historian perspective.

:lol:

[ATAG_Dutch]

a lone stubborn Brit

Blimey, does this mean I'm on your ignore list?:rolleyes:

[bongodriver]

http://bs.beckament.net/files_pub/FlightSim/il21946/President_Franklin_D._Roosevelt-1941.jpg
Here in the USofA we are sympathetic to the British plight but hampered by the Neutrality Acts, perhaps we could institute some kind of lend-lease program to provide support to Britain and the Commonwealth. :D

Smashing! if you wouldn't mind sending us some fuel, ammo, ships, planes and tea, you see we haven't spent the last 20 years massing a massive machine of agression and it's all for a good cause....god I hope we don't end up paying for this for the rest of our lives.

Yours anxiously

The British

[bongodriver]

Blimey, does this mean I'm on your ignore list?:rolleyes:

No Dutch, it's just I'm making most of the noise here, feel free to muck in my friend, I never use the ignore list or report button.

[Sternjaeger II]

:lol:

How is that supposed to be funny? Apart for the different conclusions that we reached,where did I show any bias or mention incorrect references? It might be a light argument for you,but I take the thing very seriously,considering that I achieved a BA Hons in History in the UK and argued over this topic endlessly ever since.

For the record,I too believed that Great Britain won the Battle of Britain,but I was proven wrong (as many of my course mates,and not without polemics) by a British Professor.

[SEE]

it's uncanny, a lone stubborn Brit, holding out against some (rude) Germans and a small contingent of Italians.

I bet if an American showed up the whole thing would be over in a heartbeat...


The Yanks will be in...be patient....usually a couple of years after the show starts........:grin:

Only kiddding......get my hat and coat......moi silently departs.....

[bongodriver]

How is that supposed to be funny? Apart for the different conclusions that we reached,where did I show any bias or mention incorrect references? It might be a light argument for you,but I take the thing very seriously,considering that I achieved a BA Hons in History in the UK and argued over this topic endlessly ever since.

For the record,I too believed that Great Britain won the Battle of Britain,but I was proven wrong (as many of my course mates,and not without polemics) by a British Professor.

Yeah well for the record there are some aspects of the British education system that suck balls, there is a weird liberalism phenomenon in this country that is teaching it's bad to have National pride....'might upset the foreigners you know! whatwhat', may as well knock down the cenotaph.

[ATAG_Dutch]

How is that supposed to be funny?

Because Mr Sternjaeger me ole mate, I've rarely seen a post from you that could be considered 'unbiased'.

[Sternjaeger II]

Same here, we have more things outside of this that we do agree on.

I just find it very confusing how some people interpret a Brit saying 'we won the battle of britain' as 'we won the war single handed', even more confusing is this desparate need by the same people to find the most insignificant semantics to try and discredit the British with any ability to fight in any way shape or form, the fact is we fought extremely well for the most part and have a hell of alot to be proud of, like just fighting because it was the right thing to do, so we had friends to help....mainly because they knew it was the right thing to do as well, if it floats your boat to believe the Germans were merely distracted by anything the Brits did then fine.....it's a free world (but no thanks to the Allies eh?)

I completely agree on this,I never said that the British didnt fight with courage and determination,but as you said it's easy to get lost in the semantics.

People who are passionate and proud about their country and history talk about "victory" "d-day" "freedom" "spitfire" etc... it's the shallow propaganda fascination that is appealing to the masses. Historians go beyond this,the risk of a biased judgement is far too great,it's necessary to research,analyse events within their historical context,leaving hindsight for conclusions,but it's dangerous to use hindsight to judge upon history.

Was the invasion of Russia a mistake? It wasn't in 1941,but in hindsight we can say it was. If Hitler pushed his way to Moscow,it could have meant a serious blow for Russian integrity,he decided instead to lose time to capture the Dnepr area to reach onto strategic reserves,again the right thing to do with the perspective of the time,but in hindsight it was a mistake.


just because your history teacher was British doesn't prove anything

That is true,but he surprised me,as much as it surprised me that he wasn't alone in his judgement.

[Sternjaeger II]

Because Mr Sternjaeger me ole mate, I've rarely seen a post from you that could be considered 'unbiased'.

Uhmmm is that so? Would you mind to refresh my memory and give me some examples of biased posts of mine? And I hope that with " biased" you don't mean "in disagreement with you" ;-)

[bongodriver]

That is true,but he surprised me,as much as it surprised me that he wasn't alone in his judgement.

Well it's sad to say there are quite a few of these hairy shirted lefty treacherous worms that go around spreading that kind of crap in this country.

[Kongo-Otto]

Yeah well for the record there are some aspects of the British education system that suck balls, there is a weird liberalism phenomenon in this country that is teaching it's bad to have National pride....'might upset the foreigners you know! whatwhat', may as well knock down the cenotaph.

I don't know but more and more you sound like one of those White Pride Guys.

[bongodriver]

I don't know but more and more you sound like one of those White Pride Guys.

Like I really value your oppinion.

[bongodriver]

People who are passionate and proud about their country and history talk about "victory" "d-day" "freedom" "spitfire" etc... it's the shallow propaganda fascination that is appealing to the masses. Historians go beyond this,the risk of a biased judgement is far too great,it's necessary to research,analyse events within their historical context,leaving hindsight for conclusions,but it's dangerous to use hindsight to judge upon history.

No...this really only seems to upset people when someone British mentions it, for the rest of the world National pride is just fine and patriotic.

[Kongo-Otto]

Like I really value your oppinion.

Well you don't value any oppinion from other people, your just an ignorant.
Good Night White Pride.

[Sternjaeger II]

Yeah well for the record there are some aspects of the British education system that suck balls, there is a weird liberalism phenomenon in this country that is teaching it's bad to have National pride....'might upset the foreigners you know! whatwhat', may as well knock down the cenotaph.

Serious historians aren't politically biased in their judgements,the point you're making has become the scapegoat of petty polemics. I think that in the end facts are there,we can give these facts all the interpretations that we want,but they won't change. We're arguing over petty definitions here..

[bongodriver]

Well you don't value any oppinion from other people, your just an ignorant.
Good Night White Pride.

If you say so....bellend

[Kongo-Otto]

If you say so....bellend

Yes i love you too. :grin:

[Sternjaeger II]

Well it's sad to say there are quite a few of these hairy shirted lefty treacherous worms that go around spreading that kind of crap in this country.

I don't think that this generalisation does you any good man.

Just because people have an opinion different than yours (and a well motivated one, I must add), this doesn't make them treacherous worms.

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..

Although I'm sure that this conversation actually happened somewhere at some point ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsNLbK8_rBY

[bongodriver]

Serious historians aren't politically biased in their judgements,the point you're making has become the scapegoat of petty polemics. I think that in the end facts are there,we can give these facts all the interpretations that we want,but they won't change. We're arguing over petty definitions here..

Well youre the one trying to convince us that the terms 'victory' etc don't apply, newsflash.....you are the one making petty definitions, the war was lost by the germans = 'victory' for the allies, simple fact, youv'e spent too much time with those hairy shirted types irt seems.....here's a nice simple example for you, would you turn round to an American and tell him the independence day celebrations are invalid? because there is no such thing as victory? you really think an American isn't just going to cut you a new 'A'hole on the spot?.....

[SEE]

1. Hitler Conquers Europe - success!

2. Invasion of Britain - Fail (with serious Consequences)

3. Hitler invades Russia - mistake!

4. Hitler forms alliance/treaty with Japan - huge mistake.

5. Japan Attacks Pearl Harbour - (its all down hill from here on!)

6. Britain is an Aircraft carrier plonked right next door to Europe......Its end game due to 2 above.

7. A few High Ranking Officers see the outcome and attempt to assassinate Hitler......(another fail, but good idea)

The beginning of the end plays out.....


Whats to argue about?

[bongodriver]

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".

Whoa there fella!......we were the 'good ones' at the start of it, the German claim to regaining lost territory ended at the French border, I don't recall France ever belonging to Germany (though I might add parts of it did belong to the Brittons....Brittany), I don't recal the world asking the Germans to rid the world of Jews either, whatever way you look at it Hitler was a massive mistake and the Germans jumped in with both feet.

oh and the clichet about me not being able to cope with a different oppinion is wearing a little thin, it's a typically weak argument used when theres little left in the inventory

[ACE-OF-ACES]

1. Hitler Conquers Europe - success!

2. Invasion of Britain - Fail (with serious Consequences)

3. Hitler invades Russia - mistake!

4. Hitler forms alliance/treaty with Japan - huge mistake.

5. Japan Attacks Pearl Harbour - (its all down hill from here on!)

6. Britain is an Aircraft carrier plonked right next door to Europe......Its end game due to 2 above.

7. A few High Ranking Officers see the outcome and attempt to assassinate Hitler......(another fail, but good idea)

The beginning of the end plays out.....


Whats to argue about?
Now that is a summary! ;)

[IamNotDavid]

Don't ever forget that if they won the war, they would be the good ones and the Allies would be the baddies..


That is the most idiotic thing I have ever read. The Nazis (and Germans who helped them) would have been the bad ones no matter who won the war.

[Kongo-Otto]

1. Hitler Conquers Europe - success!

2. Invasion of Britain - Fail (with serious Consequences)

3. Hitler invades Russia - mistake!

4. Hitler forms alliance/treaty with Japan - huge mistake.

5. Japan Attacks Pearl Harbour - (its all down hill from here on!)

6. Britain is an Aircraft carrier plonked right next door to Europe......Its end game due to 2 above.

7. A few High Ranking Officers see the outcome and attempt to assassinate Hitler......(another fail, but good idea)

The beginning of the end plays out.....


Whats to argue about?

Yup that's it, but end game is due to 2 and 3, because when Hitler haven't invaded the Soviet Union and all Troops he lost there, would have been in the Normandy 1944, maybe there would have been an second Dieppe Fiasco in a much larger Scale.
Horryfing thaught.

[bongodriver]

Now that is a summary! ;)

it is pure and simple, but some seem to have a problem with it's simplicity, they need a few ifs and buts thrown in with a liberal sprinkle of excuses and masses of denial.

[Kongo-Otto]

That is the most idiotic thing I have ever read. The Nazis (and Germans who helped them) would have been the bad ones no matter who won the war.

Oh really and when the Nazis would have won, who would be there to say that they are the bad ones? Know what i mean?

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Some horrible posts here.

Then:

Personally I never understood the "being proud to be XY" or "being proud of my country's past" etc.

What I'd like to say: I am proud of

- having done well at university

- having success x and y in my job

- being the best in this and that.

But the reason of being proud (or the opposite being ashamed) of something that I did have no part in and could not have had because I am too young for it eludes me completely. How can one be proud or ashamed of the deeds of somebody else? One may be grateful though ...

I do understand that one loves his country and wants the best for it but this has nothing to do with proudness or shamefulness for something long in the past.

This as a side note.

I wished some people just could take a few steps back and look at things from a distance.

Then we could have a civilized discussion here without bitching around ...

[bongodriver]

What I'd like to say: I am proud of

- having done well at university

- having success x and y in my job

- being the best in this and that.

thats really just a selfish pride, but being proud of the deeds of your forebears who fought for a noble cause seems just fine to me.

[IamNotDavid]

Oh really and when the Nazis would have won, who would be there to say that they are the bad ones? Know what i mean?

Who cares? Being the only one left to write the propaganda doesn't make you right.

[bongodriver]

Oh really and when the Nazis would have won, who would be there to say that they are the bad ones? Know what i mean?

Yeah we actually already understood the bizarre logic, may as well have let the Germans have their way eh? nobody would be the wiser because nobody would be alive who had anything different to say.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

thats really just a selfish pride, but being proud of the deeds of your forebears who fought for a noble cause seems just fine to me.


strange.

[bongodriver]

strange.

selfishness = thinking of yourself above others, akin to nacissism etc

appreciating the actions of another is not selfish.......what's so strange

[Kongo-Otto]

Whoa there fella!......we were the 'good ones' at the start of it, the German claim to regaining lost territory ended at the French border, I don't recall France ever belonging to Germany (though I might add parts of it did belong to the Brittons....Brittany),


Of course you don't know, but first of all it was not about regaining the whole French Nation, it was about Alsace Lorraine. I don't know how many wars have been fought between France and Germany about it.

[Kongo-Otto]

That is the most idiotic thing I have ever read. The Nazis (and Germans who helped them) would have been the bad ones no matter who won the war.

Who cares? Being the only one left to write the propaganda doesn't make you right.

Boy you really dont get it!

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

selfishness = thinking of yourself above others, akin to nacissism etc

appreciating the actions of another is not selfish.......what's so strange

we obviously have a very different notion of the word "proud" then. Otherwise I really cannot follow your logic.

Most people I talk to that claim to be proud of the deeds of others just do that: try to put themselves on a higher podest than others ("WE did this and that" saying just "YOU are not equal in this") while using the deeds of others for just that. Now how this should be something applaudable I cannot understand.

EDIT: Please take a dictionary and check the words "to appreciate" and "to be proud of". According to mine they have a completely different meaning. For me "to be proud of" is the opposite of "to be ashamed of". The first expresses a feeling of superiority, the other the opposite. This has nothing to do with "to appreciate"

[IamNotDavid]

What part don't I get? Winning wars doesn't make you right. It just means that you're less likely to face justice for your crimes.

[bongodriver]

Of course you don't know, but first of all it was not about regaining the whole French Nation, it was about Alsace Lorraine. I don't know how many wars have been fought between France and Germany about it.

Well I guess at some point you lost it....bo hoo!, get over it....oh sorry you can't have lost apparently, you must have made some carefully deliberated plan where you allowed a set number of combatants to die before just giving up in a fashion that really meant a draw.

[Kongo-Otto]

What part don't I get? Winning wars doesn't make you right. It just means that you're less likely to face justice for your crimes.

The Point was when the Nazis would have won the war, there would be no one left who would dare to say that they are the bad ones.

Example:
If the UK would have been invaded, every Labour or Conservative and every one with an other oppinion would have been killed or dissapered in some Death Camp!
And Mosley and his BNP would have taken care of the rest, like Petain did in Vichy.

[Kongo-Otto]

Of course you don't know, but first of all it was not about regaining the whole French Nation, it was about Alsace Lorraine. I don't know how many wars have been fought between France and Germany about it.

Well I guess at some point you lost it....bo hoo!, get over it....oh sorry you can't have lost apparently, you must have made some carefully deliberated plan where you allowed a set number of combatants to die before just giving up in a fashion that really meant a draw.

What the f...k are you talking about? More and more i become the feeling, that you are a heavily mentally disabled person.

[IamNotDavid]

The Point was when the Nazis would have won the war, there would be no one left who would dare to say that they are the bad ones.

Example:
If the UK would have been invaded, every Labour or Conservative and every one with an other oppinion would have been killed or dissapered in some Death Camp!
And Mosley and his BNP would have taken care of the rest, like Petain did in Vichy.

Sorry, that is absurd. Despots never ever kill all their enemies.

[bongodriver]

we obviously have a very different notion of the word "proud" then. Otherwise I really cannot follow your logic.

Most people I talk to that claim to be proud of the deeds of others just do that: try to put themselves on a higher podest than others ("WE did this and that" saying just "YOU are not equal in this") while using the deeds of others for just that. Now how this should be something applaudable I cannot understand.

EDIT: Please take a dictionary and check the words "to appreciate" and "to be proud of". According to mine they have a completely different meaning. For me "to be proud of" is the opposite of "to be ashamed of". The first expresses a feeling of superiority, the other the opposite. This has nothing to do with "to appreciate"

I won't be taking your advise but thanks anyway, I know what they mean.

what is so applaudable about bragging you are the best in x/y, I would feel pretty ashamed if I claimed to be a better person than someone else, thats just like claiming to be of a master race.....

so you went to uni....big deal, I don't feel proud of the things I have achieved because they were just stuff that needed to be done, now if someone else were to feel proud of my achievements then I would just feel gratefull for the sentiment, pride can be a form of appreciation if it is projected at anothers deeds.

some people need to look outside of the dictionary and realise there is some creative licence allowed.

[bongodriver]

What the f...k are you talking about? More and more i become the feeling, that you are a heavily mentally disabled person.

more and more you prove that you are just a rude little person without the mental capacity to maintain a conversation without resorting to insults.

[fruitbat]

Concerning BoB, from the British side it was a victory because it stopped a perceived invasion, from the German side it was a draw, as the status quo remained.

It wasn't war winning, but what it did do, is go a long way to deciding where the iron curtain fell at the end of the war (which was of course completely unforeseeable at the time), simply because there was a handy jumping off point for the allies to open up a western front in '44.

As to the war, Germany lost it as soon as they stepped foot in Russia.

my 2 cents.

[Kongo-Otto]

Sorry, that is absurd. Despots never ever kill all their enemies.

History has proven that you don't have to kill all of your opponents.
It's about establishing a climate of fear and distrust against anybody even your own familymembers.
There are pretty much examples in history like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler.

[IamNotDavid]

History has proven that you don't have to kill all of your opponents.
It's about establishing a climate of fear and distrust against anybody even your own familymembers.
There are pretty much examples in history like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler.

Right. That's why no one ever found out about the crimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Uhmmm is that so? Would you mind to refresh my memory and give me some examples of biased posts of mine? And I hope that with " biased" you don't mean "in disagreement with you" ;-)

Erm, Ok.

living in England has taught me that Britons are probably one of the most stubborn populations on this planet.

:)

Dowding almost cost you the Battle of Britain, Harris wasted aircrews and hundreds of thousands of civilian lives with his ridiculous bombing campaign, which is regarded as a war crime

Regarded by whom, exactly?

it's a delusional idea man, it's propaganda for little people.

Oh, thanks very much.

declare war with what exactly? 5 Hurricanes and 10 Fairey Battles?

Ah, another demonstration of sound historical fact.

Do you really think that, had they really wanted to invade Britain, the Channel or the Royal Navy would have stopped them?

Yes, and so did Admiral Raeder.

You only have to feel ashamed for the bomber offensive perpetrated by Harris.

See my earlier post. - No we don't; I for one wasn't even born, and Harris was acting with the authority of the War Cabinet, headed by Churchill.

You had to wait for the Americans to show up in order to achieve that.

Not much cop us Brits, are we?

I'm sorry but that's wrong.

Surely you mean 'debatable'?

air superiority over Great Britiain and Northern Europe was achieved only when the Americans got there.

Ah, those helpful mates of ours again.

We should try and keep this conversation factual, with no national bias, but I understand it's not easy.

Absolutely agree.

The whole definition of "Battle of Britain" is somehow wrong: It was turned into "The Battle of Britain" by propaganda. The British propaganda was in dear need of some kind of victory.

"Bomber" Harris was the mastermind of setting European civilian targets on fire with his "an eye for an eye" attitude.

Back to the evil British War criminal Harris again.

Serious historians aren't politically biased in their judgements

So do you consider yourself a serious historian? Or is your bias more nationalist than political? Or more simply, anti-british?

[Sven]

Interesting topic, I often question myself what Europe would look like if Hitler did succeed in his plans.
No European Union, instead; direct decisions, no democracy but just one party which decides how the economy is best used and less endless debates about the issues the nation runs into, and we would still retain a security force which would be albe to protect Europe against possible threads.
Would it work better then what we now have in Europe? I tend to think yes, but at the same time I would refuse to let my country get over-thrown by a foreign force.

[Kongo-Otto]

Right. That's why no one ever found out about the crimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler.

Ok and when did they find out? Surely not as long as they have been in power, so sad as it is, their system of opression worked pretty well.
Stalin died in 1953 IIRC and years later he was abolished by Chrutschev at the 20th Party Congress 25th February 1956. The whole scale of Stalins mass murder is not even unveiled today.
Hitler died in 1945 and afterwards the whole gigantic scale of mass murder came to the light and also here the whole picture is still to unveil. To many had washed their shirts white in germany after the war, specially the Banks and the Industry.
Same with Pol Pot and Mao.
These guys didn't cared what happens after them, they are just thinking about to secure their own power at any cost.

[robtek]

Just leave the britons their "Victory of the BoB", they've not much else to be proud of. :D :D :D

What one sees as a victory doesn't mean that the rest of the world is looking at it in the same way.

About being proud, one can be proud for his/her own achievements, to be proud for someones elses deeds is to adorn oneself with borrowed plumes, imo.

[IamNotDavid]

Ok and when did they find out? Surely not as long as they have been in power, so sad as it is, their system of opression worked pretty well.
Stalin died in 1953 IIRC and years later he was abolished by Chrutschev at the 20th Party Congress 25th February 1956. The whole scale of Stalins mass murder is not even unveiled today.
Hitler died in 1945 and afterwards the whole gigantic scale of mass murder came to the light and also here the whole picture is still to unveil. To many had washed their shirts white in germany after the war, specially the Banks and the Industry.
Same with Pol Pot and Mao.
These guys didn't cared what happens after them, they are just thinking about to secure their own power at any cost.

I hate to break it to you, but we knew Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Bush and many others were bad long before they died. The fact that we didn't know all the details does not change that we knew they were bad.

[bongodriver]

Just leave the britons their "Victory of the BoB", they've not much else to be proud of. :D :D :D

What one sees as a victory doesn't mean that the rest of the world is looking at it in the same way.

About being proud, one can be proud for his/her own achievements, to be proud for someones elses deeds is to adorn oneself with borrowed plumes, imo.

No sorry, to claim the achievements of others as your ow doing is adorning with borrowed plumes, one can be proud of their own achievements if it's something that benefited someone else, but being proud of achieving for your own gains is just egotistical.

And the more anti-British crap I hear the more proud I am to be British because at some point a Brit must have spoiled your day.

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

The German political leadership lost the "Campaign for England" simply because it was completely unable to set Strategic Objectives and then have the discipline/patience to see them though.

Much like the rest of the war, the little corporal interferred too much - at too many points to completely undermine anything strategic.

If Hitler had an English campaign in mind, in the months prior to the Battle of France - the BEF would never have escaped at Dunkirk. It was Hitler's own orders against the advice of his military experts that allowed the majority of the UK "cream", to escape right across the channel.

Imagine the difference in the air campaign's requirements without front line infantry and more important tactical leadership with experience?

The shifting of objectives after the Air Campaign was ongoing - without objective analysis and effective Battle Damage Assessment - is another in a blinding series of not only Strategic ineptitude, but also Operational level incompetence.

Not that any of the allies save Russia ever managed to master the Operational Level (review Bradley and Montgomery's failures during St Lo/Normandy Breakout - fairly late in the war). No nation emerged with mastery of all levels of the art of war - British, Americans, Germans and Japanese were quite good at the tactical level - while the Russians clearly mastered the Operational level with probably the best handle on the Strategic level.

Thankfully, we didn't have a ground war in Europe after WW2.

S!

Gunny

[bongodriver]

What one sees as a victory doesn't mean that the rest of the world is looking at it in the same way.

Apparently not, the Germans certainly seem to be like that, not biased of course.

[Kongo-Otto]

Apparently not, the Germans certainly seem to be like that, not biased of course.

And the more anti-German crap I hear the more proud I am to beGerman because at some point a German must have spoiled your day.
:grin::grin::grin:

[Bewolf]

This thread would be much more enjoyable without two certain individuals.

[bongodriver]

And the more anti-German crap I hear the more proud I am to beGerman because at some point a German must have spoiled your day.
:grin::grin::grin:


Comes as no surprise you were not able to make your own comment, I have no problem with Germans, just the ones who can't admit defeat..

[bongodriver]

This thread would be much more enjoyable without two certain individuals.

Yeah, Kongo and sternjaeger have spouted way too much biased crap.....

Yeah I know you meant me, but you will find I am much more pleasant when me and my country aren't being attacked.

[Kongo-Otto]

Comes as no surprise you were not able to make your own comment, I have no problem with Germans, just the ones who can't admit defeat..

Yeah sure or as we say in germany: Bladdablubb.

[arthursmedley]

This thread would be much more enjoyable without two certain individuals.

Yes m8 but with not nearly as many face-palm moments!

[SEE]

And the more anti-German crap I hear the more proud I am to beGerman because at some point a German must have spoiled your day.
:grin::grin::grin:

Too right! They made our overpaid, overated England team look like a bunch of pansy's in the World Cup. Mind you, we have an Italian Manager so........Its his bloody fault!


Germany played well, football ('Soccer' to the Yanks....a round ball you kick without padding and a crash helmet) is much more interesting.....:grin:

Just don't do it again.....pleeeze......

I like Germans.....they made my campervan ... a VW.......love it to bits!

[Kongo-Otto]

Too right! They made our overpaid, overated England team look like a bunch of pansy's in the World Cup. Mind you, we have an Italian Manager so........Its his bloody fault!



Mussolinis last revenge i assume. :grin::grin::grin:

[SEE]

#

I assure you, our current military leaders all have hypothetical plans (which they update every so often) for wars in all kinds of places they have no intention of fighting (at the moment).

Hmm....depends on how much oil they have and what we have left?

[bongodriver]

No he Germans weren't the land grabbing crazies, they were just the ones who put a land grabbing genocidal maniac in charge and wholeheartedly backed him up by fighting a war for him.

I don't need a history lesson, you can try to justify Germany's reasons all you like but what they started in WWII was wrong on every level, if Germany was just trying to improve it's situation economically then why the he'll did it spend all that money on a genocidal war machine, surely tanks and planes don't grow on trees, I know some costs were cut by using slave labour to build it.......admirable.

[Kongo-Otto]

You do need a history lesson, you didn't even now that Hitler wasn't elected, he was put in Charge by Hindenburg.
Once again you have proven what an sorry pathetic loudmouth you are.

[JimmyBlonde]

So nobody actually has any evidence, anecdotes or documentation and this is 15+ pages of blah blah blah, my country is better than yours, right?

Did it seriously never occur to any of you to actually reference and research the opinions of the airmen involved or is this forum just a proving ground for baseless, opinionated hypothesis and personal bickering?

[bongodriver]

You do need a history lesson, you didn't even now that Hitler wasn't elected, he was put in Charge by Hindenburg.
Once again you have proven what an sorry pathetic loudmouth you are.

No really I don't, where did I say elected you ignorant buffoon, I just don't recall many Germans opposing the new fuhrer...well not until the end of the war when at least for some Germans the penny dropped and they realised what a massive cock up they had made.

[bongodriver]

So nobody actually has any evidence, anecdotes or documentation and this is 15+ pages of blah blah blah, my country is better than yours, right?

Did it seriously never occur to any of you to actually reference and research the opinions of the airmen involved or is this forum just a proving ground for baseless, opinionated hypothesis and personal bickering?

Apparently if you manage to find any information that backs up your argument it is just rubbished as baseless propaganda, to be honest I am standing my ground because I have found an overwhelming amount of literature that states the battle of Britain was germanys first defeat.

[Kongo-Otto]

No really I don't, where did I say elected you ignorant buffoon, I just don't recall many Germans opposing the new fuhrer...well not until the end of the war when at least for some Germans the penny dropped and they realised what a massive cock up they had made.

Thousands of Germans have been put into Concentration Camps or been sentenced to death for opposing Hitler, beginning in 1933 you ignorant twat!
You don't recall, well doesn't makes me wonder because it doesn't fit into your picture from the ugly german.

[bongodriver]

Thousands of Germans have been put into Concentration Camps or been sentenced to death for opposing Hitler, beginning in 1933 you ignorant twat!
You don't recall, well doesn't makes me wonder because it doesn't fit into your picture from the ugly german.


Well as you so eloquently pointed out, all the nice Germans were killed off by the bad ones........you moron.

[Kongo-Otto]

And there were many more which opposed and haven't been arrested or killed, some even fought against Hitler in an Uniform of a Country which they only knew about the tales from their ancestors. Don't know what i mean, look at my avatar.
But i don't think simple minded people like you would understand that.

[bongodriver]

And there were many more which opposed and haven't been arrested or killed, some even fought against Hitler in an Uniform of a Country which they only knew about the tales from their ancestors. Don't know what i mean, look at my avatar.
But i don't think simple minded people like you would understand that.

Ok so you find me offensive because I am critical of nazi Germany, despite apparently being of the same mind, but because you are so institutionally anti British you are on my back because I dare to criticise a german because I am British........somewhere in the ballpark pimmelkopf.

Oh and be careful of being too proud of your ancestors, some folk are a little confused by that idea.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Germany, while strongly militaristic and a bit naive in terms of politics, was not the blatant land-grabbing crazies Churchill made them out to be.

Erm, sorry but......what?

Ok, they had a point with the Rhineland, the Sudetenlanland and the Danzig corridor.

Czeckoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, 'Oops looks like Britain doesn't want to play!', rest of Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, North Africa, some more I forget and Russia.

They may not have been 'crazies' but landgrabbing they most certainly were.

Oh sorry, it was referred to as 'Lebensraum'. Sorry, forgot.

[NedLynch]

Cheesehawk, I do believe I remember from history class in school that the ballot for the annexation of Austria read something like this:

Are you for the annexation of Austria and our Fuehrer A.H.?

They connected support for Mr. Hilter (love Monty Python) and the annexation and I do not think those votes were cast with any measure of secrecy either, so of course the Nazis got the votes and could officially call the result the will of the german people, since nobody dared to vote "no".

Now Germans generally are good, hardworking, straightforward people who have a great sense for right and wrong. This coming to power of a bunch of genocidal maniacs can happen anywhere in the world given the right set of cicumstances.
The Nazis were the scum of the earth, but they were not stupid, ruthless and just plain evil, but not stupid. They managed to exploit the situation in Germany to it's fullest and I suspect with financial backing of....well, who would have backed those bastards? Somebody did for sure.

To fully explain how they came to power would need another extremely lenghty thread.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Each of those examples was after Britain and France had already declared war on them, and were in turn ways to secure needed supplies/routes to attack (except Greece, which I believe was in response to failed Italian campaign). Germany would most likely have still invaded Denmark, but Norway was a pre-emptive occupation of which England was planning the same thing. Of course, we know why Belgium and Holland were attacked, for routes to knock France out of the war. France was already a hostile power, having first declared war on Germany. Poland was a German territory pre-WWI (with large portions being Prussian, the historic lands of the Junkers, and ancestors of the German military complex). The others were first taken by Russia, Britain's ally.

This thread, as interesting as it is, should be in Pilot's Lounge please!

I do have to disagree on this. Hitler and his Nazi Scum Bag Party definitely had "Lebensraum" in the East on their agenda from the beginning and their main thought was about Poland and likely already Russia (but here there might be also this rivalty between two large despotistic ideologies here). The other conquests however came more from circumstances. The France campaign and the campaign against Britain was to put these two allies of Poland (and later of Russia) out off the war before turning on Russia. This of course is no excuse.

I for my part am happy that these scumbags are gone and even the short 12 years they ruled have been too long.

Another word on "being proud of one's ancestors": In full logic these also need to be ashamed of some deeds of the ancestors or they should be called cherry-pickers. But my guess is these same people who are proud of their ancestors (long dead and therefore unable to appreciate it) just are illogical and irational while some simply can not admit it and get at least close and often beyond insulting people while trying to find a rational reason for their "being proud to be xy" (as if this was an achievement while their birthplace was just pure aleatory event).

[bongodriver]

Another word on "being proud of one's ancestors": In full logic these also need to be ashamed of some deeds of the ancestors or they should be called cherry-pickers. But my guess is these same people who are proud of their ancestors (long dead and therefore unable to appreciate it) just are illogical and irational while some simply can not admit it and get at least close and often beyond insulting people while trying to find a rational reason for their "being proud to be xy" (as if this was an achievement while their birthplace was just pure aleatory event).

Were discussing WWII here, the cherry picking is being done by weirdos who quote the dictionary a lot, so just to be clear, I'm proud of the deeds of my ancestors because some of them were my family, is that enough of a connection for you?

[senseispcc]

They went to Russia and kicked ass.

I do not know how did march in Berlin in 1945? :-P

[Bewolf]

Yes m8 but with not nearly as many face-palm moments!

ha! lots of Fremdschämen involved, however

[senseispcc]

I think that most of the people that have written in this pages do need to read a little more and history not some marvel books or propaganda this in the memory of all, and if I may insist, in memory of the millions of dead of all side even if the Nazis and extreme right parties should dream to fight the next one with even more dead.

Have a fun game :cool:

[Sternjaeger II]

wow,so much hatred and angry words on this thread now.. :(

I tried to give my contribution,but it's obvious that some minds will never accept to look into history with a truly unbiased attitude.

I understand why many historians don't even bother to spread their conclusions and findings,common people are not ready for harsh reality and prefer living in a pampered state of propaganda ideas.

I personally don't think I will contribute anymore to this conversation unless we all put aside our national pride and look at things objectively.

There is no absolute good or bad as such,it's just a battle of wills.

[bongodriver]

wow,so much hatred and angry words on this thread now.. :(

I tried to give my contribution,but it's obvious that some minds will never accept to look into history with a truly unbiased attitude.

I understand why many historians don't even bother to spread their conclusions and findings,common people are not ready for harsh reality and prefer living in a pampered state of propaganda ideas.

I personally don't think I will contribute anymore to this conversation unless we all put aside our national pride and look at things objectively.

There is no absolute good or bad as such,it's just a battle of wills.

well perhaps if you didnt have a tag like Sternjaeger you wouldn sound like such a Germanophile, about those angry words.....why haven't you had much to say on Kongo Ottos hatred fueled spume against the british....which I might add he started without the slightest provokation....unbiased....please, not the first time an Italian got sucked in by German propaganda.

p.s. just for the record Stearn....even thought that sounded harsh towards you it's not meant to get to you personally, but all this talk of biased nationalistic propaganda is going both ways.....I'm just not prepared to back down.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I tried to give my contribution,but it's obvious that some minds will never accept to look into history with a truly unbiased attitude.

I personally don't think I will contribute anymore to this conversation unless we all put aside our national pride and look at things objectively.

So do you consider yourself a serious historian? Or is your bias more nationalist than political? Or more simply, anti-british?

Please see the above post Mr 'Unbiased'.

[DrDom]

This whole thread is seriously overmodelled, therefore I insist that it should be fixed by the devs in no time!! Also cheating, HOing, vulching and shoulder shooting along with getting a kill using superior E state has been witnessed. That is not all but I am too upset to type anymore! :D

[TomcatViP]

I think that most of the people that have written in this pages do need to read a little more and history not some marvel books or propaganda this in the memory of all, and if I may insist, in memory of the millions of dead of all side even if the Nazis and extreme right parties should dream to fight the next one with even more dead.

Have a fun game :cool:



+1

& many thx to have posted this one. I was left myself speechless by some of the above reading.

[blackmme]

Please see the above post Mr 'Unbiased'.

You know I have seen so many old arguments trotted out on this thread. To all those reading this whether 'biased' or 'unbiased' I highly recommend Stephen Bungay's 'Most Dangerous Enemy' it is almost universally praised and covers much (all I think) of the strategic and tactical topics covered by this thread.

One last thing. I saw a post on here that describes Dowding as incompetent, now he certainly had his faults but they were outweighed 1000 to 1 by his accomplishments. Lord Dowding was and has been judged by history as a leader of rare genius.

Regards Mike

[ATAG_Dutch]

To all those reading this whether 'biased' or 'unbiased' I highly recommend Stephen Bungay's 'Most Dangerous Enemy' it is almost universally praised

I agree.

Unfortunately, in a previous book recommending thread, some members, and one in particular, held that book up as an example of what has been called 'propaganda for the little people'.

He didn't state at the time whether or not he'd actually read it.;)

[blackmme]

I agree.

Unfortunately, in a previous book recommending thread, some members, and one in particular, held that book up as an example of what he called 'propaganda for the little people'.

He didn't state at the time whether or not he'd actually read it.;)

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:

Regards Mike

[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:

:grin: You got it.

[Sternjaeger II]

Uhmmm is that so? Would you mind to refresh my memory and give me some examples of biased posts of mine? And I hope that with " biased" you don't mean "in disagreement with you"
**
Erm, Ok.

I knew you would have gone for it ;)


living in England has taught me that Britons are probably one of the most stubborn populations on this planet.
***
:)

yes, so what? Can't this be true? Is this society flawless or it's annoying that a foreigner points out your flaws? Let's not get all nationalist and sentimental, cos we wouldn't go far..



Dowding almost cost you the Battle of Britain, Harris wasted aircrews and hundreds of thousands of civilian lives with his ridiculous bombing campaign, which is regarded as a war crime
Regarded by whom, exactly?

the majority of historians, and a certain Winston Churchill himself..
"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.
The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive"

to which Harris replied

"
I ... assume that the view under consideration is something like this: no doubt in the past we were justified in attacking German cities. But to do so was always repugnant and now that the Germans are beaten anyway we can properly abstain from proceeding with these attacks. This is a doctrine to which I could never subscribe. Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier. The feeling, such as there is, over Dresden, could be easily explained by any psychiatrist. It is connected with German bands and Dresden shepherdesses. Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the East. It is now none of these things."

From Wikipedia:
"Allegations that it was a war crime
Though no one involved in the bombing of Dresden was ever charged with a war crime, there are those that hold the opinion that the bombing was a war crime.
According to Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, lawyer and president of Genocide Watch:
The Nazi Holocaust was among the most evil genocides in history. But the Allies’ firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also war crimes... We are all capable of evil and must be restrained by law from committing it.[132]
Historian Donald Bloxham states, "The bombing of Dresden on 13–14 February 1945 was a war crime."[133] He further argues there was a strong prima facie case for trying Winston Churchill among others and a theoretical case Churchill could have been found guilty. "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'pedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorization."[133]
German author Günter Grass is one of a number of intellectuals and commentators who have also called the bombing a war crime.[134]
Proponents of the war crime position argue the devastation known to be caused by firebombing was greater than anything that could be justified by military necessity alone, and this establishes their case on a prima facie basis. The Allies were aware of the effects of firebombing, as British cities had been subject to them during the Blitz.[135] War crime proponents say that Dresden did not have a military garrison, that most of the industry was in the outskirts and not in the targeted city centre,[136] and that the cultural significance of the city should have precluded the Allies from bombing it.
British historian Anthony Beevor wrote that Dresden was considered relatively safe, having been spared previous RAF night attacks, and that at the time of the raids there were up to 300,000 refugees in the city seeking sanctuary from the fighting on the Eastern Front.[137] In Fire Sites, Austrian historian Jörg Friedrich agrees the RAF's relentless bombing campaign against German cities in the last months of the war served no military purpose.[138]"

and this is the full page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

..is that biased?


Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II
it's a delusional idea man, it's propaganda for little people.

Oh, thanks very much.
Please do not take it personally, I had to make a full exam on the analysis of propaganda and it's a fact that it was probably the best invention to bend public opinion.


Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II
declare war with what exactly? 5 Hurricanes and 10 Fairey Battles?

Ah, another demonstration of sound historical fact.
come on mate, you know what I meant, do we really have to go down the list of numbers and troops etc? You barely had enough men and aircraft to defend your mainland in 1939/1940.


Do you really think that, had they really wanted to invade Britain, the Channel or the Royal Navy would have stopped them?
Yes, and so did Admiral Raeder.

Yes, but strategically you can appreciate that a naval battle on such a narrow bit of sea would have been a carnage. The Channel would have been infested with U-Boats and the Royal Navy wouldn't have much of an easy time sinking enemy barges, especially if the Luftwaffe gained air superiority (which they didn't, but that was the idea: air superiority, air cover for flotilla, invasion).


You only have to feel ashamed for the bomber offensive perpetrated by Harris.

See my earlier post. - No we don't; I for one wasn't even born, and Harris was acting with the authority of the War Cabinet, headed by Churchill.

well, it's your choice not to feel ashamed, but as much as you glorify your successes you should also be objective and admit your flaws, otherwise you might be perceived as arrogant.


You had to wait for the Americans to show up in order to achieve that.

Not much cop us Brits, are we?

funny, you say you weren't there but you take it personally as if you were.
Great Britain didn't simply have the sheer number of aircraft and pilots to provide for a proper aerial superiority blanket. The Americans, with their 200+ airbases from which they operated, did. They weren't necessarily better, there simply were more of them.


I'm sorry but that's wrong.
Surely you mean 'debatable'?

debatable is just a polite word for wrong, call it whatever you want to call it.


air superiority over Great Britiain and Northern Europe was achieved only when the Americans got there.


Ah, those helpful mates of ours again.
yep, them again. You wouldn't have gone far without them, if you don't accept it you're just proving my point about blank stubborness.

We should try and keep this conversation factual, with no national bias, but I understand it's not easy.
Absolutely agree.
See? We can agree on stuff :)


The whole definition of "Battle of Britain" is somehow wrong: It was turned into "The Battle of Britain" by propaganda. The British propaganda was in dear need of some kind of victory.

"Bomber" Harris was the mastermind of setting European civilian targets on fire with his "an eye for an eye" attitude.
Back to the evil British War criminal Harris again.

yep, he was no better than many other incompetent generals on both sides, but his bill consisted in some unnecessary 600k civilian casualties and 55k brave RAF airmen and pilots.


Serious historians aren't politically biased in their judgements

So do you consider yourself a serious historian? Or is your bias more nationalist than political? Or more simply, anti-british?

If detesting the attitude "we're the good guys so we can get away with the carpet bombing of German cities and TWO atomic bombs on Japan, cos all in all it was them who got it started and they killed more anyway" makes me biased then yes, I'm a biased historian.

It's not good guys vs bad guys, the Germans had the motto "Gott ist mitt uns" on their belt buckles, not "Sieg Satan!".

It's about winners and losers, not who's good and who's bad, if you don't use this perspective you'll never give an unbiased judgement of history.

[Sternjaeger II]

Oh for the love of...

Again with Bungay?!

Bungay is the Tom Clancy of history books: try and mention a Bungay book at any university and see what reactions you get.. a consultant-self-proclaimed-historian, he doesn't even have a PhD in History.. and yes, you should have the decency to get one if you want to work as an historian, not make it a hobby and publish biased junk that feeds the nationalistic ego.

Read James Holland's book on the Battle of Britain, that's the definitive book on the subject.

[blackmme]

Oh for the love of...

Again with Bungay?!

Bungay is the Tom Clancy of history books: try and mention a Bungay book at any university and see what reactions you get.. a consultant-self-proclaimed-historian, he doesn't even have a PhD in History.. and yes, you should have the decency to get one if you want to work as an historian, not make it a hobby and publish biased junk that feeds the nationalistic ego.

Read James Holland's book on the Battle of Britain, that's the definitive book on the subject.

I presume you don't include the bits where he seems to agree with you then!
:grin:

I like to keep an open mind and Bungay lays out his argument very clearly. Far better than the Holland book IMHO which just regurgates stuff really.

Regards Mike

[bongodriver]

This whole thread started with a simple statement on how the Germans (and it seems it's allies) took the defeat in the Battle of britain, now a bunch of self proclaimed unbiased historians hijacked it and turned it into 'the oppressive british empire and it's criminal bombing of Dresden!!!'

Bungay shmungay....whatever


Yes, but strategically you can appreciate that a naval battle on such a narrow bit of sea would have been a carnage. The Channel would have been infested with U-Boats and the Royal Navy wouldn't have much of an easy time sinking enemy barges, especially if the Luftwaffe gained air superiority (which they didn't, but that was the idea: air superiority, air cover for flotilla, invasion).

Oh so you admit there was a planned invasion and the British thwarted it....

well, it's your choice not to feel ashamed, but as much as you glorify your successes you should also be objective and admit your flaws, otherwise you might be perceived as arrogant.

Back to the original topic, our flaws during the whole conflict were not the topic, none of us have denied it happened, but some question the 'illegality' of it

funny, you say you weren't there but you take it personally as if you were.
Great Britain didn't simply have the sheer number of aircraft and pilots to provide for a proper aerial superiority blanket. The Americans, with their 200+ airbases from which they operated, did. They weren't necessarily better, there simply were more of them.

Right back at ya fella! you weren't there either, nor was Kongo or anyone else on this thread yet only the Brits get cross examined when we display a sense of National pride....

yep, them again. You wouldn't have gone far without them, if you don't accept it you're just proving my point about blank stubborness.

Yep them again, everytime somebody wants to cheapen the argument the shove the Americans upo our ass, we don't deny they came, we dont deny they were instrumental, we never claim to have won single handedly, but I might add that some believe the Americans did......and a Brit is not meant to find that a little insulting?

yep, he was no better than many other incompetent generals on both sides, but his bill consisted in some unnecessary 600k civilian casualties and 55k brave RAF airmen and pilots.

Well you can't blame Harris completely if those civillians refused to read British 'prpoaganda' leaflets saying BTW you might want to leave were about to bomb you......

If detesting the attitude "we're the good guys so we can get away with the carpet bombing of German cities and TWO atomic bombs on Japan, cos all in all it was them who got it started and they killed more anyway" makes me biased then yes, I'm a biased historian.

It's not good guys vs bad guys, the Germans had the motto "Gott ist mitt uns" on their belt buckles, not "Sieg Satan!".

It's about winners and losers, not who's good and who's bad, if you don't use this perspective you'll never give an unbiased judgement of history.

No it's about detesting some little Austrian corporal and his claim to regaining Middle ages Saxon lands and clearing it of any non indigenous people, why does Dresden bother you so?......you werent there:rolleyes:
Wow someone actually took a shot at the Americans....the A bombs eh? arguably saved more lives because they ended the war....which quite frankly was becoming a bit of a bore..

so claiming god is on your side makes you the good guy eh?......Allah akbar!

[Sternjaeger II]

I presume you don't include the bits where he seems to agree with you then!
:grin:

I like to keep an open mind and Bungay lays out his argument very clearly. Far better than the Holland book IMHO which just regurgates stuff really.

Regards Mike

Mike, to give you a parallel it's like saying that my GP, who's interested in cars, is expressing an opinion on what's the problem with my car is. I can listen to his opinion, and maybe he's right, but I'd rather talk to a mechanic.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Read James Holland's book on the Battle of Britain, that's the definitive book on the subject.


'The Battle of Britain' - James Holland, published by Corgi:

Page 811, para 3:
'.....at the end of the summer, Germany was significantly worse off than she had been in May.....'.

'....It has been fashionable in recent years to play down the importance of the Battle of Britain, but to do so is wrong. It was a key - if not the key - turning point in the war....'

Page 812 para 3:
'...Germany lost the Battle against Britain.....the Luftwaffe was not big enough to do what it set out to achieve.'

Page 822, para 2:
'...that does not mean the efforts of the RAF - or of Britain as a whole - in the summer of 1940 should in any way be belittled. And the myth does largely hold true. Britain was staring down the barrel in the summer of 1940 and her survival dramatically changed the course of the war.

Page 810, Para 2;
Hans Ekkehard-Bob still insists that the Luftwaffe did not lose the Battle of Britain, and prefers to think of it as more of a draw. Ulrich Steinhilper disagrees. He thinks the RAF broke both the back and spirit of the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1940 and that they never again recovered. Certainly, by June the following year, when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, the Luftwaffe was a much smaller force than it had been the previous May, unable to fully recover from the heavy losses it suffered during the summer of 1940, in terms of both aircraft and experience.'

Also, the opinions of 'historians' regarding war crimes do not constitute prosecution or conviction, and to describe a race as 'stubborn' is racial or nationalist stereotyping, not that I object to this description personally.;)

What I'd like to see, is a short post on what you think was positive about the political, moral, strategic or tactical policies and decisions made by any British leader, either civilian or military, in Britain between the years 1935 and 1942.

To hear you talk, Britain was a nation of total incompetents, which leads me to conclude you have an agenda far from the unbiased perception of history you espouse.:-P

[bongodriver]

Eagerly waits while Sterjaeger shuffles frantically through some books

[Sternjaeger II]

'The Battle of Britain' - James Holland, published by Corgi:

Page 811, para 3:
'.....at the end of the summer, Germany was significantly worse off than she had been in May.....'.


I never said they were any better, they suffered serious losses, but at no point during the Battle of Britain (and well into 1941) they were in risk of being overwhelmed by the RAF. They pointed their cannons and aeroplanes at another frontline. The question of morale is simply because the promises of Goering turned out to be as real as a 7 quid note, and because he wouldn't listen to his generals.


'....It has been fashionable in recent years to play down the importance of the Battle of Britain, but to do so is wrong. It was a key - if not the key - turning point in the war....'

It was indeed. The "unfinished business" meant that you had time to refurbish your Air Force and welcome the Americans, while the Germans were still riding the illusion of a success in Russia. IF Hitler knew of the Japanese plans, I doubt he would have let go of the British front so hastily.

Page 812 para 3:
'...Germany lost the Battle against Britain.....the Luftwaffe was not big enough to do what it set out to achieve.'

I am comfortable to disagree with him on this, Germany lost the war against Britain, not that specific battle. And I agree that on a broader scale the Luftwaffe wasn't just big enough.


Page 822, para 2:
'...that does not mean the efforts of the RAF - or of Britain as a whole - in the summer of 1940 should in any way be belittled. And the myth does largely hold true. Britain was staring down the barrel in the summer of 1940 and her survival dramatically changed the course of the war.

I agree, fantastic overall effort!

Page 810, Para 2;
Hans Ekkehard-Bob still insists that the Luftwaffe did not lose the Battle of Britain, and prefers to think of it as more of a draw. Ulrich Steinhilper disagrees. He thinks the RAF broke both the back and spirit of the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1940 and that they never again recovered.
That's Steinhilper's opinion, a young Luftwaffe pilot who was shot down and captured in October 1940, of course his morale was a bit down by then..


Certainly, by June the following year, when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, the Luftwaffe was a much smaller force than it had been the previous May, unable to fully recover from the heavy losses it suffered during the summer of 1940, in terms of both aircraft and experience.'

That's a wrong conclusion, since it has been proven that by the end of the war, the efforts of German aircraft construction meant that their numbers, albeit inferior to the allies, showed a growing number of aircraft from 1942 onwards.

Also, the opinions of 'historians' regarding war crimes do not constitute prosecution or conviction, and to describe a race as 'stubborn' is racial or nationalist stereotyping, not that I object to this description personally.;)

it's history written by the winners, call it whatever you want to call it, but Churchill himself didn't feel comfortable at all with it, and you know what a tough cookie he was.


What I'd like to see, is a short post on what you think was positive about the political, moral, strategic or tactical policies and decisions made by any British leader, either civilian or military, in Britain between the years 1935 and 1942.

To hear you talk, Britain was a nation of total incompetents, which leads me to conclude you have an agenda far from the unbiased perception of history you espouse.:-P

Oh, there's plenty of them:
1) territorial defence system
2) creation of Radar network (the only very good thing that Dowding did)
3) evacuation of children from major cities
4) allowing the requisition of lands to build airfields for the USAAF
5) conducting excellent campaigns in Northern Africa

[ATAG_Dutch]

You even disagree with four out of five quotes from your own recommended 'definitive history'?

Yeah mate, 'unbiased'.

[bongodriver]

The irony.......sorry hypocrisy is a bit lost on Sternjaeger when he call us stubborn.

[Sternjaeger II]

Bongo, I have to admit my answer to your points below is a bit half-hearted, considering the playful-aggressive tone you're taking, which belongs more to a pub argument than a constructive historical analysis. Anyway..

This whole thread started with a simple statement on how the Germans (and it seems it's allies) took the defeat in the Battle of britain, now a bunch of self proclaimed unbiased historians hijacked it and turned it into 'the oppressive british empire and it's criminal bombing of Dresden!!!'

That escalated there, it's hard to stay on topic with so many inputs.. saying that the British Empire has never been oppressive and committed crimes though is unacceptable as much as the language and behaviour or other contributors here.


Bungay shmungay....whatever

au contraire mon ami, it's important to know who you're quoting, I try and go straight to witting evidence (hence my quote of Churchill's words re. the Dresden affair), and when not available I try and assess an opinion on facts and context, possibly without hindsights.


Oh so you admit there was a planned invasion and the British thwarted it....

Operation Sea Lion was organised in precise(ish) stages, the British opposition to the first phase together with the strategic errors committed by Hitler and Goering postponed the plans for an invasion (that wasn't ready anyway). You definitely threw a spanner in there, which caused the battle to last more of the ridiculous 2 weeks predictions of the fat man in white.


Back to the original topic, our flaws during the whole conflict were not the topic, none of us have denied it happened, but some question the 'illegality' of it

I don't get what you mean or refer to? :confused:


Right back at ya fella! you weren't there either, nor was Kongo or anyone else on this thread yet only the Brits get cross examined when we display a sense of National pride....

We fortunately weren't there, we're just trying to understand what actually happened and why certain tags were given, which although cool, are historically wrong and biased.


Yep them again, everytime somebody wants to cheapen the argument the shove the Americans upo our ass, we don't deny they came, we dont deny they were instrumental, we never claim to have won single handedly, but I might add that some believe the Americans did......and a Brit is not meant to find that a little insulting?

The American contribution to the war and their successes over all the fronts were the key to the Allied victory of WW2, let's never forget this. The Russian offensive too can be put in the game, but the rest was ancillary. You took part to the offensive with your contingents, but after Africa, your major operation was a dramatic failure, driven by the foolish arrogance of Montgomery.


Well you can't blame Harris completely if those civillians refused to read British 'prpoaganda' leaflets saying BTW you might want to leave were about to bomb you......

seriously? What about those that couldn't be mobilised cos they were in hospitals? Do you know what it means to evacuate a city overcrowded with refugees from other cities in a few days?? Or maybe the fact that people thought it was propaganda? That's a bad, bad way of looking at things mate.


No it's about detesting some little Austrian corporal and his claim to regaining Middle ages Saxon lands and clearing it of any non indigenous people, why does Dresden bother you so?......you werent there:rolleyes:
I detest what Hitler did to the world too, but this shouldnt stop me from having an unbiased view of historical events. Dresden bothers me cos it was an unnecessary killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians. If you justify Dresden you justify the Blitz too.


Wow someone actually took a shot at the Americans....the A bombs eh? arguably saved more lives because they ended the war....which quite frankly was becoming a bit of a bore..

...I shall not comment on your conclusion, it's abhorrent.


so claiming god is on your side makes you the good guy eh?......Allah akbar!
God was on everyone's side. American G.I.s were shocked to find that writings on German buckles, they were indoctrinated to think of Nazis as Godless evil killers.

[ChiefRedCloud]

I want to make it clear that I am not choosing sides here. But the bottom line is that the lufftwaffe though very good (the airmen) was terribly mismanaged. Thankfully this was to Englands advantage. And yes, America played a key part in their War Supply. But then WAR is rarily fair, and it certainly is not a Sim or a game, is it?

[csThor]

This thread hasn't been closed, yet? My, the mods must be sleeping in. :rolleyes:

[Sternjaeger II]

You even disagree with four out of five quotes from your own recommended 'definitive history'?

Yeah mate, 'unbiased'.

you must have ran out of arguments..

I might disagree with some of the conclusions of a historian, not with the facts he gathered.

Bungay is just a good novel writer, not a historian.

Holland draws his conclusions, I and other readers/historians etc.. draw same or different ones, it's all down to personal interpretation.

But ask what Holland thinks on other matters that are so dear to the Allied cause (strategic bombing and atomic bombing for example..) and see what it suggests.

One of the differences that I noticed among veterans and later generations, is that the former show respect and understanding for their enemies, cos they were fighting for a similar cause.

[bongodriver]

That escalated there, it's hard to stay on topic with so many inputs.. saying that the British Empire has never been oppressive and committed crimes though is unacceptable as much as the language and behaviour or other contributors here.

At no point was this 'ever' denied......please point me to a clear bit of evidence it was 'denied'

au contraire mon ami, it's important to know who you're quoting, I try and go straight to witting evidence (hence my quote of Churchill's words re. the Dresden affair), and when not available I try and assess an opinion on facts and context, possibly without hindsights.

if you are an avid 'bookworm' it is very easy to collate snippets and quotes to build a case for an argument....biased or unbiassed....hell I bet you could take quotes from 'mein kampf' and prove Hitler loved Jews.

I don't get what you mean or refer to?

it refered to the quote I answered to....I don't get how you don't get it.....Dresden?

We fortunately weren't there, we're just trying to understand what actually happened and why certain tags were given, which although cool, are historically wrong and biased.

?

seriously? What about those that couldn't be mobilised cos they were in hospitals? Do you know what it means to evacuate a city overcrowded with refugees from other cities in a few days?? Or maybe the fact that people thought it was propaganda? That's a bad, bad way of looking at things mate.

Well whichever way you look at it, British civilians were killed in German raids too, any warnings given?.....or were the warning notes taped to the noses of the V1's and V2's

I detest what Hitler did to the world too, but this shouldnt stop me from having an unbiased view of historical events. Dresden bothers me cos it was an unnecessary killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians. If you justify Dresden you justify the Blitz too.

Question is do you justify the bltz?

...I shall not comment on your conclusion, it's abhorrent.

Not 'my' conclusion...just the one history came up with

God was on everyone's side. American G.I.s were shocked to find that writings on German buckles, they were indoctrinated to think of Nazis as Godless evil killers.

Well to be fair theres some Jewish people that might share that sentiment, who bizarrely enough worship the same god.......but that whole religion thing is something I will never get.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Holland draws his conclusions, I and other readers/historians etc.. draw same or different ones, it's all down to personal interpretation.

Oh I get it now!

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:

[SNAFU]

This thread hasn't been closed, yet? My, the mods must be sleeping in. :rolleyes:
No they just considered it is better this way - letting the folks smash each others heads while arguing over the most tragic episode of the human kind like a TV scoccer game, so they find no time to moan about the little issues at hand. :cool:

[Sternjaeger II]

Oh I get it now!

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:

..as I said above, you're out of arguments. I exposed facts, provided you with reference material, you have just being going LALALALALA!!!

An attitude like yours would be derided in any historical discussion circle, regardless of their inclination.

[Bewolf]

No they just considered it is better this way - letting the folks smash each others heads while arguing over the most tragic episode of the human kind like a TV scoccer game, so they find no time to moan about the little issues at hand. :cool:

It's grown up people debating here, childish or not. And it's better to have ppl talk and offend themselves but to let it burn in the background and eventually shoot each other.

[ATAG_Dutch]

[QUOTE=Sternjaeger II;338343]..as I said above, you're out of arguments.[QUOTE]

There's no further discussion necessary. I don't post on this forum to have arguments. Or to 'win' at all costs.

But when someone advocates a 'definitive book' then disagrees with four out of five quotes from it, I can only conclude as I have above.

See ya in other threads chaps.;)

[Warhound]

http://www.notquitewrong.com/rosscottinc/comics/2011-08-03-madaboutsomething.jpg

That's the only useful contribution I could think of..sorry.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Some of you guys are so immature I just wanna throw pooh pooh in your faces!!!! :twisted:

[Sternjaeger II]

..as I said above, you're out of arguments.

There's no further discussion necessary. I don't post on this forum to have arguments. Or to 'win' at all costs.

..you say this...


But when someone advocates a 'definitive book' then disagrees with four out of five quotes from it, I can only conclude as I have above.

See ya in other threads chaps.;)

..and then this, and you expect to be taken seriously?

Truth is that I really do like talking in a civilised manner over this topic, but your condescending and uninformed attitude shows just what person you are, not capable of a mature exchange of ideas, but yet another victim of a barking propaganda machine, that's why you (and others here) know no better.

[Wutz]

I have pretty well given up this forum, but reading through this, certain opinions do solidify, "bongodriver"= nut job
Hope these kind of nuts voice up when the EU should help out with tax money
to solve your countries debt problems.
Oh well the bigot & ignorants never die out.
And in case the message still has not gotten through no one cares about you and your idiotic heroic heros, and certainly no one needs you. Stay on your foogy island and keep dreaming your dreams of past glory, thats about all you have left.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

I have pretty well given up this forum, but reading through this, certain opinions do solidify, "bongodriver"= nut job
Hope these kind of nuts voice up when the EU should help out with tax money
to solve your countries debt problems.
Oh well the bigot & ignorants never die out.
And in case the message still has not gotten through no one cares about you and your idiotic heroic heros, and certainly no one needs you. Stay on your foogy island and keep dreaming your dreams of past glory, thats about all you have left.

And in case the message still has not gotten through no one cares about you and your idiotic heroic heros


But Wutz, I thought everyone loved Benny Hill? :grin:

Engerlund, Engerlund, Engerlund......Come and ave a go if ye fink yer ard enough!!! :grin:

Britain is teh best though, innit blud? :grin:

What are you waffling on about the EU for? Strange boy. In fact, don't answer that lol. I love my 'foogy' Island.......It's foogin GREAT. :D

English self defence *Parental advisory*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyUipLfgy4Y

Cheer up peeps. :grin::grin::grin:

[Rattlehead]

This thread needs some lulz...no disrespect, take it for what it is.

http://i408.photobucket.com/albums/pp161/neal1972/Worldwar2RTS.gif

[bongodriver]

I have pretty well given up this forum, but reading through this, certain opinions do solidify, "bongodriver"= nut job
Hope these kind of nuts voice up when the EU should help out with tax money
to solve your countries debt problems.
Oh well the bigot & ignorants never die out.
And in case the message still has not gotten through no one cares about you and your idiotic heroic heros, and certainly no one needs you. Stay on your foogy island and keep dreaming your dreams of past glory, thats about all you have left.

Nice try........but nah!