[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

seriously.

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

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