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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

'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.

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..

Originally Posted by 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!!!'

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?

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

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.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

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]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

[SNAFU]

Originally Posted by csThor

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

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.