BoB & Spitfire vs Hurricane (vs 109-ish) - an interesting viewpoint

[taildraggernut]

whoa whoa whoa, easy tiger, I think you got it all wrong.. let's try and keep it civilised and I will be glad to answer your points..

I think the example of Vietnam exemplifies your confusion on the concept of "winning": Vietnam was divided in two parts, and as much as there was an anti-American feeling, many others didn't really like the idea of living under a Communist regime. Talking about "Vietnamese winning the war" doesn't actually make any sense because of the socio-political implications of the Vietnam war.

Ok, answer my point then, is history as we know it a lie? did the holocaust happen and was it perpetrated by the Nazis? if none of that is a lie then why should the Battle of britain speciffically be a lie?

again, double standards. How can you justify joining forces and arming a mass murderer of the size of Stalin and live with the fact that he killed and persecuted millions more than Hitler and for more futile reasons at times is something I really wanna hear.
I'm not justifying Nazism, I'm just appalled by double standards set up for personal interests "yeah good ol' uncle Joe has a bit of rough hand with his folks, but hey, if this helps us winning against Hitler, let him on board!"
As for area bombing, go look for the other thread on it, justifying area bombing is as valid as justifying a war crime, and funnily enough it's only after that that the Geneva convention cared about the well being of civilians..

I never brought the Soviets into the argument, they have nothing to do with the Battle of Britain directly, I personally don't think there was any choice with that regard, my enemy's enemy is my friend until such time the immediate threat is over, hence why immediately after the second world war the 'cold war' started, do you really think there was a chance of a good outcome had the allies decided to fight the Russians too? Fighting the nazis was the best decision because they were the 'worst' of a bad lot and they started the bloody war in the first place, the Russians didn't, Look, if you start a fight with me and start gouging my eyes out I'm going to kick you in the nuts.....this is a hypothesis both are dirty tactics, which one is worse?
I'm not justifying area bombing, I'm just trying to stop you from using it as a validation for your arguments, it wouldn't have happened if Germany hadn't started the war, I don't care how many alternate views on History you have managed to read, it's just simple fact and you don't have to be British to understand the Germans started the war.

Are you calling me a Nazi? Seriously?

No but I am saying you are a Nazi appologist, based on what I'm reading here, it's just the study material I'm being provided to blame.

that's your view, the rest of the world on the other hand thought that racing without opponents, when in the past the races had been called off for the lack of participants, was puerile and grotesquely silly, and aimed merely at wanting to keep the Cup.. but hey, fair enough, if that's the way you like to win..

and why exactly were there no opponents? oh yes, something to do with nobody else being competent enough to complete the challenge, so we just turned up....no biggie, it was a very prestigious prize and everybody else just effectively chickened out, and apparently this makes the Brits look bad, typical, the Brits get good at something and everybody else just goes home with a right cob on complaining and saying it's just a stupid game and they don't want to play any more.

so were Dresden, Bremen, Hiroshima, Nagasaki... ah no sorry, those were for a good cause!

Maybe, I don't personally know but I think they were aimed at ending the worst global conflict since the first one, as far as I know germany still exists, had things gone the other way I don't think many ethnicities and cultures would even be in history books, and hiroshima and Nagasaki you can blame on the Amricans not the British.

my point was that appearances can be deceiving, and if a German politician has enough carisma to enchant British ones, then it doesn't surprise me he managed to drag the whole of Europe to hell with his talk.

Well we have common ground perhaps, let's just blame it all on Hitler and accept what happened was because of him, certainly thats how the British feel about it, no animosity towards Germany per se but there wasn't much else that could be done other than fight a war with germany because Hitler pushed them into it, if only Germany had allowed the allies to march through Germany straight to his door so we could take him out it could have avoided alot of unpleasantness.

well hey, that's what happens when you study history, you get to know about these things called facts. Your comparison shows how intelligently you're facing the topic here..

you like to use this line alot, apparently you are infallible and beyond question, and like to question anybody who disagrees with you's intelligence, I'll let it slide as i'm pretty comfortable with my understanding of things, but if you are going to use lines like 'let's try and keep it civilised and I will be glad to answer your points.. ' then please extend a similar courtesy.

we were talking about the odds of being saved and brought back to fight when being closer to your territory... jesus, are you actually reading the other people's posts or are on a flag waving mission?

Ah yes, I did predict eventually I would get slammed as a Union flag waving looney by you.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

Ok, answer my point then, is history as we know it a lie? did the holocaust happen and was it perpetrated by the Nazis? if none of that is a lie then why should the Battle of britain speciffically be a lie?

no, but there are many darker and controversial events of history that are deliberately overlooked. The holocaust did happen but it wasn't the biggest genocide of history, yet it's portrayed as the most horrific thing ever (probably because it's so well documented). The Battle of Britain isn't a lie, the aerial clashes over the Channel in 1940 were real and fierce, but one side perceived it in a way and the other in a totally different way. The use of the concept of "battle" is somehow wrong, since Great Britain wasn't sure of what was going to happen, whilst the Luftwaffe knew that their intervention was part of a much bigger operation.

I never brought the Soviets into the argument, they have nothing to do with the Battle of Britain directly, I personally don't think there was any choice with that regard, my enemy's enemy is my friend until such time the immediate threat is over, hence why immediately after the second world war the 'cold war' started, do you really think there was a chance of a good outcome had the allies decided to fight the Russians too? Fighting the nazis was the best decision because they were the 'worst' of a bad lot and they started the bloody war in the first place, the Russians didn't, Look, if you start a fight with me and start gouging my eyes out I'm going to kick you in the nuts.....this is a hypothesis both are dirty tactics, which one is worse?
I'm not justifying area bombing, I'm just trying to stop you from using it as a validation for your arguments, it wouldn't have happened if Germany hadn't started the war, I don't care how many alternate views on History you have managed to read, it's just simple fact and you don't have to be British to understand the Germans started the war.

my whole point is that there's no absolute goodies or baddies, we all have our fair share of despicable actions. It's all about who overcomes who and they will claim to be the good ones.

No but I am saying you are a Nazi appologist, based on what I'm reading here, it's just the study material I'm being provided to blame.

I don't think of myself as a Nazi apologist, there's not much that can be justified in their conduct, so no.

and why exactly were there no opponents? oh yes, something to do with nobody else being competent enough to complete the challenge, so we just turned up....no biggie, it was a very prestigious prize and everybody else just effectively chickened out, and apparently this makes the Brits look bad, typical, the Brits get good at something and everybody else just goes home with a right cob on complaining and saying it's just a stupid game and they don't want to play any more.

well obviously you don't know much about the story of the Schneider Trophy: there were no opponents cos France had an accident and lost their plane, whilst Italy wasn't ready yet. It happened before and the race was called off, but the Brits won 2 times in a row already, and to win the Trophy for good you needed to win it 3 times in a row. So they decided to race alone, nice uh?

Maybe, I don't personally know but I think they were aimed at ending the worst global conflict since the first one, as far as I know germany still exists, had things gone the other way I don't think many ethnicities and cultures would even be in history books, and hiroshima and Nagasaki you can blame on the Amricans not the British.

again, look at the broader picture, not the national individualities.

Well we have common ground perhaps, let's just blame it all on Hitler and accept what happened was because of him, certainly thats how the British feel about it, no animosity towards Germany per se but there wasn't much else that could be done other than fight a war with germany because Hitler pushed them into it, if only Germany had allowed the allies to march through Germany straight to his door so we could take him out it could have avoided alot of unpleasantness.

Yes, Nazi Germany started WW2.

you like to use this line alot, apparently you are infallible and beyond question, and like to question anybody who disagrees with you's intelligence, I'll let it slide as i'm pretty comfortable with my understanding of things, but if you are going to use lines like 'let's try and keep it civilised and I will be glad to answer your points.. ' then please extend a similar courtesy.

fair enough.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

the Schneider Trophy: there were no opponents cos France had an accident and lost their plane, whilst Italy wasn't ready yet. It happened before and the race was called off, but the Brits won 2 times in a row already, and to win the Trophy for good you needed to win it 3 times in a row. So they decided to race alone, nice uh?

As Ayrton Senna rolled up to the Grid, he thought 'Hee Hee! Everyone else crashed in practice and as usual the Italians aren't ready and aren't sure who they want to win anyway! All I need to do is tour around this final round of the season and the World Championship is mine!!'

But being a Gentleman he said, 'No no. Even though the others crashed or weren't organised enough, I cannot accept this championship on the basis of my points scored to date this season'.

What a gentleman!

I don't know what planet you live on.

Oh, and

[taildraggernut]

no, but there are many darker and controversial events of history that are deliberately overlooked. The holocaust did happen but it wasn't the biggest genocide of history, yet it's portrayed as the most horrific thing ever (probably because it's so well documented). The Battle of Britain isn't a lie, the aerial clashes over the Channel in 1940 were real and fierce, but one side perceived it in a way and the other in a totally different way. The use of the concept of "battle" is somehow wrong, since Great Britain wasn't sure of what was going to happen, whilst the Luftwaffe knew that their intervention was part of a much bigger operation.

Ok I can concede that the holocaust was not the largest genocide in history, the biggest were done by China and Russia, the point is that Germany started a war and that was enough to justify the allies to respond in kind because even without a Nazi agenda the Germans were wrong to start it.
Why is it so hard for you to accept the battle of Britain as a battle? Isn't 2 opposing sides engaged in combat enough? Who exactly is being picky here? I'm sorry but your explanation of the British not being sure of what would happen etc seems like complete garbage can you spell that one out a bit better because I haven't seen that definition used to explain a 'battle' before, while you are at it can you tell me if the battle of France, the battle of the bulge were battles? Or is it just simply a case of the Germans not calling it a battle so it can't have been.

my whole point is that there's no absolute goodies or baddies, we all have our fair share of despicable actions. It's all about who overcomes who and they will claim to be the good ones

.

I don't recall mentioning anything about absolute goodies and baddies, so yes I can concur it is very much a point only you have made, either way even you have said thank goodness the allies won, is that not an acknowledgement on your behalf that in relative terms the allies were better than the Nazis? If yes then you seem to take this discussion down some irrelevant roads, if no then you need to take back a few of your own statements.

I don't think of myself as a Nazi apologist, there's not much that can be justified in their conduct, so no.

Ok, it's just that you do a lot of nitpicky type of explanations that are geared around showing the Nazis didn't commit the worst atrocities in history, and also in your own words justifying their actions because they believed they were fighting a good cause, it sounds quite apologetic and in contradiction to other statements you have made.

Yes, Nazi Germany started WW2

Interesting choice to highlight Nazi here, as if to suggest the Germany part is not relevant, I believe the German military were from Germany no? They were the sons and daughters of German families were they not? It does make it easier for me to accept you are not so much a Nazi apologist , but you obviously feel a very strong affection of things German, and in a Gallant way you are trying to defend the honour of Germans, don't worry, I really don't think the Germans need it, I personally don't hold every German responsible for the past, the war is over.

fair enough

Thank you

P.s. I forgot to quote the shneider trophy point, I must say your own knowledge of the subject is quite questionable, not exactly a case of a one horse race, it's just all the participants that season were British, the other participants didn't get machines ready in time, yes just turning up is a less satisfying way to win an event but it's a given that the supermarine aircraft would have won even if the others did turn up.