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

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

Britain has only recently stopped paying for the wars.

In October 2010 Germany paid the last rate of reparation for WWI - after 92 years.

If the treaty was unfair, Germany should have concentrated on renegotiating it. Going to war again was hardly the solution was it.

LOL. That like negotiating with your own kidnapper.
Hint: As he's in power he doesn't give a sh1t.

The Romans took over Europe, they won - they were not the goodies.
The Brits took over half the world - they were not the goodies.
The Crusaders went on a killing spree under the name of god - they were not the goodies.

They were not? Who says that? You?
What's right or wrong lies in the eye of the beholder, end of story.
I for one dont agree with your judgment.
-We learned a lot from the Romans-> good thing
-Brits: same thing, most of their colonies were better of while being part of the empire.
-Crusader: Those guys conquered a good part of the Roman empire 500 years before that. Europe being part of the caliphate would have been the better option, right?

There is no such way to defend the holocaust.

Correct - only you can't use to justify the bombing of civilians as no one knew about it at the time.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

so you too think that killing enemy innocent civilians is fine? Nice, I'm starting to delineate what sort of mentality goes on here among a certain bunch of people.

Un-frigging-believable

Lol! Where do I say anything like that?

So, by your judgment stern, I am a bnp supporting advocate of the slaughter of civilians.

My statement stands.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

well I'm sorry but my logic is pretty simple: I look at the dates, numbers, statistics before and after (up to at least two years in each direction), which are incontrovertible facts, then draw my personal conclusions, which I expose with no national sentiment, but keeping into account other's (if present).

Yes we see your logic. Germany attempted to knock GB out of the war and failed, therefore it was a draw. Right, if you say so.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

Lol! Where do I say anything like that?

So, by your judgment stern, I am a bnp supporting advocate of the slaughter of civilians.

My statement stands.

u r supporting triggaaar and his position, hence, you think like him..

or has this become an alliance of people that don't like me and find any good excuse to have a go?

Motivate your points and bring valid arguments to support your theory, I'm sure you can do it.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Yes we see your logic. Germany attempted to knock GB out of the war and failed, therefore it was a draw. Right, if you say so.

how can you even begin to think about simplifying a complicated matter such as WW2 with such a statement?! Are you guys even taking this thread seriously anymore?!

[MD_Titus]

Failure to meet objectives? Check
Loss of irreplaceable experienced crews? Check
Tactical defeat? Check
Ultimate strategic hammering by failing to meet objectives which would have led to capitulation of the UK? Check

Simplistic I know, but hey.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

Failure to meet objectives? Check
Loss of irreplaceable experienced crews? Check
Tactical defeat? Check
Ultimate strategic hammering by failing to meet objectives which would have led to capitulation of the UK? Check

Simplistic I know, but hey.

erm, it's kinda hard to keep on repeating the same things over and over, but hey...

Loss of irreplaceable experienced crews? They had losses, but learned a lot from the experience, if you look at the pilot organic numbers, by 1941 they recovered the lost pilot with new ones and had learned an immense lesson in terms of tactics. Don't really see it as much of a "defeat" there. Loss of personnel and material is an evaluated risk in warfare.

Tactical defeat? Hardly, it was more of a tactical stalemate. No changes in the frontline, only war of attrition between air forces and extra damage to civilian targets with thousands of civilian casualties. The Battle of Britain was followed by months of bombing offensive, and up until 1945 the Germans used their V1s and V2s. I really struggle to consider that a "victory".. Operation Sea Lion was never cancelled, only postponed.

Ultimate strategic hammering by failing to meet objectives which would have led to capitulation of the UK? Really? Have you read about the historical analysis that was published a few pages ago? The Germans didn't really have the same take on the whole Battle of Britain affair..

You see what I mean? You're judging a historical event from your side, not from an impartial point of view.

As for the damage GB sustained:

loss of many pilots (more or less experienced)? Mega check. By the end of the big aerial offensive, the RAF was on its knees, they had pilot with as little as 25 hours on the Spit that took off to engage bombers and fighters.

extended damage to civilian and military targets? Tens of thousands of civilian casualties, whole cities and factories turned into rubble, interruption of primary services. The situation was pretty grim by the end of the bomber offensive, it was obvious that mentioning a "victory in repelling the attacks" was of paramount importance back then. What they failed to say to the population obviously is that it wasn't a case of the RAF having crippled the Luftwaffe for good, but that the German forces were concentrating their efforts on a new frontline.

[adonys]

BoB was rather a skirmish, nothing more, nothing less. A first phase in the operation Sealowe, not a battle per-se.

You think that if Germany wouldn't have really wanted to start and carry the war in the east, could have not dispose of the english?!! By that time, or shortly after, they've got their droptanks, and that would have changed everything in a BoB phase 1 operation.

Simply, they've stopped it because there was no point in trying to enforce it at that time: Britain was in no way a threat for the continental Europe, and they've rather go east, as the Lebensraum doctrine was stating it. And after that, the russian bear gave them too much trouble to care about the silly brits and their island anymore.. until the americans came decided they want to have a go visit Paris..

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

u r supporting triggaaar and his position, hence, you think like him..

or has this become an alliance of people that don't like me and find any good excuse to have a go?

Motivate your points and bring valid arguments to support your theory, I'm sure you can do it.

No, I was simply offering advice, nor was there any mention of the rather OT issue of bombing the bejaysis out of enemy manufacturing/civilian centres in my post, nor of the wholesale slaughter of ones own civilian population. Although I think that little distinction is very important to remember in terms of justifying acts undertaken in times of war.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

No, I was simply offering advice, nor was there any mention of the rather OT issue of bombing the bejaysis out of enemy manufacturing/civilian centres in my post, nor of the wholesale slaughter of ones own civilian population. Although I think that little distinction is very important to remember in terms of justifying acts undertaken in times of war.

there is NO justification whatsoever in the bombing of innocent civilians, as it was discussed and approved in the 1949 Geneva convention (after the lesson learned with the strategic bombing of German cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

The fact that you still believe there was a justification for those bombing is abhorrent to say the least, it's like justifying the Blitz or the concentration camps.