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

[fruitbat]

Stern is as stubborn as he is wrong, you'll have more chance nailing diarrhea to the ceiling that getting him to change his mind. imo its pointless to ague with such people.

Kind of fun to watch though.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Stern is as stubborn as he is wrong, you'll have more chance nailing diarrhea to the ceiling that getting him to change his mind. imo its pointless to ague with such people.

Kind of fun to watch though.

Frankly, there is no point. I have tried to bring an impartial perspective, but I suppose that I should write an essay on it, and even then you'd still be in denial.

The fact that the majority of the contributors here is British doesn't help either, but it's evident how this is an all British thing, and the sentiment for it is as strong as it is biased.

I have been called names, mocked, bullied, but in fact nobody picked up in an unbiased way on the facts I have exposed, and even when pointed to German point of view as seen from an American expert, there was little or no space for discussion, it was all about who can shout in the louder and ruder way.

The bottom line though is that there is an unsuspected amount of people that still believe that only the Germans should be blamed for all the evil, bad and deadly things that happened in WW2.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Frankly, there is no point. I have tried to bring an impartial perspective, but I suppose that I should write an essay on it, and even then you'd still be in denial.

Stern, with respect, the problem is that many feel your position is not impartial, and strongly disagree with your conclusions. And we are not 'in denial', we are in disagreement. (Your use of 'loaded' phrases such as 'denial' and 'biased' below imply that you have reached a position of complete factual objectivity and that any disagreement is ignorant prejudice.)

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The fact that the majority of the contributors here is British doesn't help either, but it's evident how this is an all British thing, and the sentiment for it is as strong as it is biased.

Once again your assumptions are clear: as your own viewpoint coincides perfectly with objective reality anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint disagrees with objective reality and is 'biased'. In my opinion your apparent inability to recognise that your viewpoint (or anyone elses for that matter) has at least some subjective elements is either deluded or more likely arrogant.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I have been called names, mocked, bullied, but in fact nobody picked up in an unbiased way on the facts I have exposed, and even when pointed to German point of view as seen from an American expert, there was little or no space for discussion, it was all about who can shout in the louder and ruder way.

Again you wilfully confuse 'disagreement' with 'bias'. Those 'facts', or more accurately 'interpretations' of historical events, were in most or all cases disputed or interpreted in differing ways by other people.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The bottom line though is that there is an unsuspected amount of people that still believe that only the Germans should be blamed for all the evil, bad and deadly things that happened in WW2.

I, for one, don't deny that the Allies could be said to have made some doubtful moral choices during the conflict, but I do hold that the Western Allies held a morally superior position in the war to Nazi Germany, and that the attempt of some to establish moral equivalence between the two is misguided and wrong.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Stern, with respect, the problem is that many feel your position is not impartial, and strongly disagree with your conclusions. And we are not 'in denial', we are in disagreement. (Your use of 'loaded' phrases such as 'denial' and 'biased' below imply that you have reached a position of complete factual objectivity and that any disagreement is ignorant prejudice.)



Once again your assumptions are clear: as your own viewpoint coincides perfectly with objective reality anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint disagrees with objective reality and is 'biased'. In my opinion your apparent inability to recognise that your viewpoint (or anyone elses for that matter) has at least some subjective elements is either deluded or more likely arrogant.



Again you wilfully confuse 'disagreement' with 'bias'. Those 'facts', or more accurately 'interpretations' of historical events, were in most or all cases disputed or interpreted in differing ways by other people.

this.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by blackmme

I am put in mind of Captain Beard from Blackadder going 'There are two school's of thought on that.... Mine and everyone else's'

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

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.

Originally Posted by kendo65

Stern, with respect, the problem is that many feel your position is not impartial, and strongly disagree with your conclusions. And we are not 'in denial', we are in disagreement. (Your use of 'loaded' phrases such as 'denial' and 'biased' below imply that you have reached a position of complete factual objectivity and that any disagreement is ignorant prejudice.)

Once again your assumptions are clear: as your own viewpoint coincides perfectly with objective reality anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint disagrees with objective reality and is 'biased'. In my opinion your apparent inability to recognise that your viewpoint (or anyone elses for that matter) has at least some subjective elements is either deluded or more likely arrogant.

Again you wilfully confuse 'disagreement' with 'bias'. Those 'facts', or more accurately 'interpretations' of historical events, were in most or all cases disputed or interpreted in differing ways by other people.

And round and round we go. Well put Ken.

[robtek]

It can not be, what shouldn't be!

[Sternjaeger II]

disagreement is kinda given for granted, denial is a different matter altogether.

You guys de-contextualise the air battle of 1940 as an episode per se, not considering it part of a more fluid, multi-layered and complicated warfare.

"THE Battle of Britain" was happening only in England, there was no perception or interest as such in Germany on the matter. Surely, you lived it personally cos you were the ones being attacked and bombed, nobody is questioning that, but it had little or no reach to the Germans.

You put up an efficient but desperate in some points defence system, which fortunately allowed you to put a marginal but effective limit to the offensive.

The RAF and Luftwaffe lost a similar number of pilots (The Luftwaffe lost more aircrew), and the numbers of the 4 months of intense battle show a similar number in losses proportionally. Let's not forget that the RAF sent up mainly two kinds of fighter planes and that's it, while the Luftwaffe invested more in terms of bombers and fighters.

Because of the poor planning and mistakes made by their Air Marshal, the Luftwaffe didn't manage to produce results as they were supposed to: the RAF was effective ONLY because of FAC and Radar, the real target that the Luftwaffe should have neutralised first.

Everything else is history of course, but the decision of concentrating the majority of fighters and logistic efforts over the Russian campaign wasn't an admission of defeat.

It was a clash, no different from the WW1 ones, the difference being that it was fought in the air instead of a trench.

Both factions were suffering heavy losses, stress and fatigue, but the British had the edge because of the defence position, they didn't have to cross the Channel to bring their offensive (they wouldn't have the means anyway).

Many people talked about "David vs Goliath", with the difference that Goliath didn't die, just lost his interest and moved onto something else. You want to call that a victory? Feel free, but objectively the matter is far more complicated than "win or lose".

The victory of the Battle of Britain was a perfect propaganda idea to celebrate a much needed victory after the shambles of the BEF and Dunkirk, this goes without saying, and of course it is understandable to be happy about the loosening of the attacks, but it's not like they stopped altogether or you managed to cripple the Luftwaffe.

Truth is that the Germans didn't perceive it as a "battle", it was part of an operation which was interrupted by the command as it was going on.

There is a lot of arguing among historians on the definition of "battle", and its sometimes lazy or inappropriate use, especially in a WW2 context.

It really feels like there can't be an objective victory celebration without sliding into propaganda, if you know what I mean.

I don't want to deprive anyone of their finest hour, but this whole concept of "winning" makes me think of Charlie Sheen's winning, more than the real victory that was celebrated on V-Day.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

You guys de-contextualise the air battle of 1940 as an episode per se, not considering it part of a more fluid, multi-layered and complicated warfare.

This particular air battle was just part of the entire war effort, no one is saying otherwise. But we are discussing this particular battle and each sides objectives for that battle, and there's nothing wrong with that.

"THE Battle of Britain" was happening only in England, there was no perception or interest as such in Germany on the matter. Surely, you lived it personally cos you were the ones being attacked and bombed, nobody is questioning that, but it had little or no reach to the Germans.

That sounds about right to me, but what's the relevance of this point? People in Germany may not have cared about the battle, that's not relevant to who won it.

You put up an efficient but desperate in some points defence system, which fortunately allowed you to put a marginal but effective limit to the offensive.

The RAF and Luftwaffe lost a similar number of pilots (The Luftwaffe lost more aircrew), and the numbers of the 4 months of intense battle show a similar number in losses proportionally. Let's not forget that the RAF sent up mainly two kinds of fighter planes and that's it, while the Luftwaffe invested more in terms of bombers and fighters.

You are refusing to look at the facts. The number of RAF pilots increased while the number of Luftwaffe pilots decreased, but that doesn't matter - it wouldn't matter if it was the other way round. Hitler had an objective for the air battle, and it failed, regardless of how well each side was doing with numbers.

Because of the poor planning and mistakes made by their Air Marshal, the Luftwaffe didn't manage to produce results as they were supposed to: the RAF was effective ONLY because of FAC and Radar, the real target that the Luftwaffe should have neutralised first.

Again... so? We're not currently debating why the Luftwaffe messed it up, or why the RAF were able to win.

Everything else is history of course, but the decision of concentrating the majority of fighters and logistic efforts over the Russian campaign wasn't an admission of defeat.

It doesn't matter whether Hitler 'admitted defeat'. He didn't exactly have a good grip of reality when it came to accepting defeat. Did the BoB destroy Germany's war machine - no of course not. We're not debating the significance of the battle at this point. Simply that Hitler had objectives and failed to meet them. Are we saying this was the most important thing to him - no, we're not trying to attach any level of importance or significance. We are simply saying that it was an air battle where both sides had objectives and one side met their objectives and the other didn't.

Many people talked about "David vs Goliath", with the difference that Goliath didn't die, just lost his interest and moved onto something else. You want to call that a victory?

Yes, that is a victory. If China were to attach Taiwan (well you brought up David and Goliath), and Taiwan were able to fight them off enough that China gave in (lost interest in you words), do you think that would be a draw? You do not understand the difference between defence and attack, you think a defender cannot win unless they go on the offensive. And as for losing interest - you think it was like this thread where at some point people will lose interest in trying to discuss this with you. When you're at war, fighting for you country, and thousands of people are dying, you don't just lose interest like with a board game.

The victory of the Battle of Britain was a perfect propaganda idea to celebrate a much needed victory after the shambles of the BEF and Dunkirk, this goes without saying, and of course it is understandable to be happy about the loosening of the attacks, but it's not like they stopped altogether or you managed to cripple the Luftwaffe.

It is true that it was useful to publicise it as a victory, but when looking back to determine whether it actually was or not, we don't need to look at what was said at the time, it's not relevant.

Truth is that the Germans didn't perceive it as a "battle", it was part of an operation which was interrupted by the command as it was going on.

Again that's not relevant. If you want to argue that it wasn't a battle, fine, stick to that. But you're arguing that 'it' (whatever term you'd like to use) was a draw, and we are arguing that 'it' was a British victory and German defeat.

I don't want to deprive anyone of their finest hour, but this whole concept of "winning" makes me think of Charlie Sheen's winning, more than the real victory that was celebrated on V-Day.

Seriously, none of us were flying, it wasn't 'our' finest hour. It's just one part of centuries of history and it doesn't make any difference to our daily lives whether it's called a battle or a victory.

We're just sticking to the facts. See post #704 on page 71 which states what the directive was. If you find new evidence showing that that was just a trick, and that Hitler's actual objective was just to distract Britain while he concentrated his war effort elsewhere (and actually he had no plans to invade Britain at all) - wow, that would change things. Suddenly Hitler's objectives would have been met, and the battle/smokescrene would have been a success. But back in the real world, we know what his objectives were, and he failed to meet them. And you bringing random points into the arguement, like 'well the RAF were lucky because the weather changed and there was a load of water in the way' etc doesn't change the facts.

[Al Schlageter]

The RAF and Luftwaffe lost a similar number of pilots (The Luftwaffe lost more aircrew), and the numbers of the 4 months of intense battle show a similar number in losses proportionally. Let's not forget that the RAF sent up mainly two kinds of fighter planes and that's it, while the Luftwaffe invested more in terms of bombers and fighters.

Where is your reference to this statement of 'lost a similar number of pilots'? You expect others to supply references but you are just a wee bit lax in suppling references.

In Aug the Lw lost 424 pilots KIA. MIA, POW while the RAF lost 148 pilots. During the 4 months of the BoB the RAF lost 481 pilots KIA, MIA, POW.

http://cz-raf.hyperlink.cz/BoB/stat.html#production
http://history-world.org/battlelosses.htm

APPENDIX 2. Directive No. 17
THE FUHRER & CINC
FUHRER HQ1 Aug 1940
OF THE WEHRMACHT

OKW/WFL/L # 33 210/40 G. Kdos., Chefs. Geheime Kommandosache.
Fourth of ten Copies.
Chef Sache.
Officer Courier Only.

DIRECTIVE NO. 17

FOR THE CONDUCT OF AIR AND NAVAL WARFARE AGAINST ENGLAND

For the purpose of creating conditions for the final defeat of Britain, I intend continuing air and naval warfare against the English motherland in a more severe form than hitherto. For this purpose I order as follows:

1. The Luftwaffe will employ all forces available to eliminate the British air force as soon as possible. In the initial stages, attacks will be directed primarily against the hostile air forces and their ground service organization and supply installations, and against air armament industries, including factories producing AAA equipment.

2. Once temporary or local air superiority is achieved, operations will continue against ports, particularly against installations for the storage of food, and against food storage installations farther inland. In view of intended future German operations, attacks against ports on the south coast of England will be restricted to a minimum.

3. Air operations against hostile naval and merchant ships will be considered a secondary mission during this phase unless particularly lucrative fleeting opportunities offer or unless such action will achieve increased effects in the operations prescribed under Item 2, above, or in the case of operations serving to train aircraft crews for the continued conduct of air warfare.

4. The intensified air offensive will be so conducted that adequately strong air forces can be made available whenever required to support naval operations against favorable fleeting targets. In addition, the Luftwaffe will remain prepared to render effective support for Operation Sea Lion.

5. Terrorization attacks as retaliatory measures will be carried out only on orders from me.

6. Intensified air warfare can commence at any time from 5 August on. The Luftwaffe will itself determine the deadline after completion of its preparations and in accordance with weather conditions.

s/ Adolf Hitler

Initialed: K[eitel]

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/...rman-A.html#a2

Please take note of '1'. And you still want to say it was a draw Stern when the objectives of '1' was not achieved.

[Frequent_Flyer]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Frankly, there is no point. I have tried to bring an impartial perspective, but I suppose that I should write an essay on it, and even then you'd still be in denial.

The fact that the majority of the contributors here is British doesn't help either, but it's evident how this is an all British thing, and the sentiment for it is as strong as it is biased.

I have been called names, mocked, bullied, but in fact nobody picked up in an unbiased way on the facts I have exposed, and even when pointed to German point of view as seen from an American expert, there was little or no space for discussion, it was all about who can shout in the louder and ruder way.

The bottom line though is that there is an unsuspected amount of people that still believe that only the Germans should be blamed for all the evil, bad and deadly things that happened in WW2.

This attitude stems from the legal priciple of " causation". The old, none of what followed would have transpired" but not for" Germany starting the war. Not one but two World Wars.