View Single Post
  #22  
Old 04-10-2012, 12:40 PM
NZtyphoon NZtyphoon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II View Post
lol last time I argued your point I have been attacked by the (chiefly British) members of this forum, who dismissed my statement as ridiculous. I was trying to make a historical-strategic point, they marched down the road of national pride and similar propaganda.. Don't expect this place to have a historically objective view of things, this is pretty much the house of double standards
Amazing how 70 years after the event there are still people who treat the subject as a propaganda war. Did the Luftwaffe succeed in its set goals of crippling the RAF, which was one of the conditions required before an invasion could even be contemplated? Did the Luftwaffe achieve air-superiority over the seas around SE England, preventing the RN from operating against any potential invasion fleet (not forgetting the Kriegsmarine was still recovering from the Norwegian invasion, with most of its cruisers and destroyers sunk or crippled and no real battleships and no aircraft carriers to counter the British battle fleet)? Did the Kriegsmarine or Wehrmacht have the equipment to actually transport enough troops to pull off a successful invasion? Did Germany succeed in invading Britain?

The historical-strategic point is that the Luftwaffe did not succeed in any of its set goals, it's highly debatable whether enough or any troops could have been landed, even had the Luftwaffe been able to achieve even local air superiority, and last time I looked Britain hadn't been invaded. Forget all this nonsense about "national pride and similar propaganda" that's just the usual cop-out of someone trying to use spin to gloss over a German defeat. I ain't even British.
Reply With Quote