[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...n_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.