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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Here we go again eh Stern?

History does not tell otherwise, and propaganda works both ways.

1) Hitler did not wish for war with Britain

yes, someday you'll open a history book that is not together with the Sun and you might realise that you're talking nonsense..

Hitler didn't want to wage war against Britain mainly cos he didn't need it (as much as this is a beautiful country, it didn't have any strategic or resource value whatsoever, at least back in the late 30s), he regarded it as a possible European ally against the "Bolshevik threat".

2) He thought he could bring us to the negotiating table by threat of or actual invasion and establishment of air superioity.

that was Plan B. Plan A was what I mentioned above.

3) Goering said the RAF would last 'two weeks'.

Goering dressed up like a Nazi Elton John and had his same competence in terms of air warfare. The truth is that the Luftwaffe was a potent machine throughout the Battle, and had they stuck to the original plans of crippling airfields and factories, you would have had no air superiority over your own country.

He was arrogant and obviously 2 weeks was a ridiculous statement to make his boss happy, and as you know, his boss was a fan of ridiculous statements right until the end, when he was moving imaginary battalions on the map.

Hitler got what he didn't want, i.e. war with Britain

Hitler was extremely short tempered, had he arranged things better, making sure that a suitable invasion flottilla was ready, he would have steamrolled his way all the way up North.. Let's not forget how much they advanced in Russia and how close they got to Moscow, do you really think that, had they really wanted to invade Britain, the Channel or the Royal Navy would have stopped them?

He didn't force us to the negotiating table or succeed in invading or establishing air superiority.

yes, simply cos you were of no interest and had no resources that he could be interested in, and his military command realised that it would have been too much logistical effort to conquer such an irrelevant country, because, let's face it, they kicked you out of the European mainland and spared a slaughter of British troops in Dunkirk.

Hitler simply said "enough of this, it's taking too long, we'll get back to them once we're done with Russia". Big mistake, cos in the meantime the Americans joined the party.. but hey, had they kept a better relationship with their Allies, they would have known better..

If the Americans didn't join in, you would have been sad spectators of the horror going through Europe. You wouldn't surely have been able to invade the European mainland by yourselves.

RAF fighter command had more pilots and aircraft at the end of the Battle than the start, which is more than can be said for the Luftwaffe.

yes, cos they were moved to other fronts. Also, shall we comment on the preparation and skills of your poorly trained pilots back then? Some of those poor guys were sent up with less than 25 hours on the Spitfire and Hurricane.

Hitler for once, didn't get what he wanted, which was a 'Free hand in Europe', the first setback he'd encountered since coming to power.

I fail to see which part of 'winning' you don't understand.

Great Britain was no mainland Europe, he had no interest in invading you, his idea of Seeloewe was just a childish tantrum, and for that tantrum thousands of people died.

The Battle of Britain was a draw. Nobody ever won it.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Great Britain was not mainland Europe, he had no interest in invading you

All of that great rambling post simply agrees with what I said, apart from you considering the Battle a 'Draw'.

And I don't read The Sun.

[bongodriver]

You may want to extend that argument to....well, what about a quarter of the world?
You are aware your are constantly shooting your own food with this argument? Why won't try something like "whatever the reasons, in hindsight it was the right thing to do"?
Lots of people would agree with this, even on the other side of the argument. But insisting on post war findings being the reason for pre war descisions serves nobody with a real interest to understand what was happening back then.

Where have I given the impression it wasn't the right thing to do, a quarter of the world? they had no obligation to join the fight, they made their own decisions, it's not like we could hold the canadians , aussies, kiwis and south africans to ransom over it, no we did the right thing ok, and the Americans only joined in......well lets just say it wasn't because we made them do it eh!

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Where have I given the impression it wasn't the right thing to do, a quarter of the world? they had no obligation to join the fight, they made their own decisions, it's not like we could hold the canadians , aussies, kiwis and south africans to ransom over it, no we did the right think ok, and the Americans only joined in......well lets just say it wasn't because we made them do it eh!

And how did it come that aussies, kiwis, indians, south africans had to make that choice in the first place?

The UK conquored all of the world and from my POV, if you want to blame Germany for conquoring all of Europe you have to stop being a British Citizen, or at least argueing from that basis on, and become a human being just like everyboy else. Only from that perspective is fingerpointing justified.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

And how did it come that aussies, kiwis, indians, south africans had to make that choice in the first place?

The UK conquored all of the world and from my POV, if you want to blame Germany for conquoring all of Europe you have to stop being a British Citizen, or at least argueing from that basis on, and become a human being just like everyboy else. Only from that perspective is fingerpointing justified.

at no point has this topic been about past British conquests, and as it happens for the large part I don't agree with the way some of these countries were colonised, I will never sanction murdering native populations, but the fact is that for the most part the colonies were relatively at ease with being so, they were given infrastructure and genrally benefited from what the British empire gave them,and for the ones that remain colonies I don't believe we were ever in a position to maintain them as such,it's their choice, I somehow don't think most of europe was that happy being conquered by the Germans, they might have liked it more if they were built some nice new railways, schools, hospitals etc.......I don't know, just because you want to make a little ethnic house cleaning and the world turn against you....how unfair.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

All of that great rambling post simply agrees with what I said, apart from you considering the Battle a 'Draw'.

And I don't read The Sun.

it was a draw. The Battle of Britain was about air superiority over the Channel. You didn't gain air superiority over the Channel area even after the Battle of Britain was over, did you? You had to wait for the Americans to show up in order to achieve that.

Just kidding about the Sun mate

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The Battle of Britain was about air superiority over the Channel. You didn't gain air superiority over the Channel area even after the Battle of Britain was over, did you? You had to wait for the Americans to show up in order to achieve that.

Nope, it was about air superiority over Southern England and the Channel in preparation for the threatened invasion. Britain certainly did achieve air superiority over Southern England, the Channel was kind of like the net in a tennis match.

And I wasn't there personally, not having been born until 22 years afterwards.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Nope, it was about air superiority over Southern England and the Channel in preparation for the threatened invasion. Britain certainly did achieve air superiority over Southern England, the Channel was kind of like the net in a tennis match.

And I wasn't there personally, not having been born until 22 years afterwards.

You didn't gain air superiority over Southern England and the Channel after the Battle of Britain, you kept on receiving raids and German planes were still flying over your territory regularly until late 1941, air superiority over Great Britiain and Northern Europe was achieved only when the Americans got there.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

You didn't gain air superiority over Southern England and the Channel after the Battle of Britain, you kept on receiving raids and German planes were still flying over your territory regularly until late 1941, air superiority over Great Britiain and Northern Europe was achieved only when the Americans got there.

You have a strange conception of air superiority Stern. Air superiority doesn't mean total exclusion of all nuisance hit and run jabo raids, or total prevention of night time city bombing.

The level of German incursion into British airspace lessened dramatically in 1941 and onward, as they spent more of their time shooting down our fighters and bombers on the ridiculous rhubarbs and circuses introduced once Dowding and Park were shoved out to the sidelines.

As more and more of the Luftwaffe were pulled east, for obvious reasons, air superiority over France gradually moved in the Allies favour until by June 1944there was almost total air superiority over the Normandy beaches.

It's not a simple case of the Brits being hopeless until the Yanks arrived, but of course you know that.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

What can I say......as far as I know it's our taxes paying to make amends for dresden and the likes, you seem to be misled over any non aknowledgement of the said raids by the British, we are fully aware of it and I don't think anybody deep down is proud of it, I'm afraid I'm at a loss why you brought market garden up at all in that case, even good commanders have made mistakes but I have already agreed with you Montgomery was a useless bellend.

I have no info on British taxes to repay for Dresden, do you have any links or reference to this?

It was brought up because the Allied command reckoned it shouldn't be done, unfortunately Montgomery was so insistent (even against the advice of his own men) because he reckoned his race with Patton was more important than the sake of his men. That's something to be ashamed of, leaving an obviously incompetent man, who won the war in North Africa only thanks to the American help, to decide on such a vast operation, with inadequate intelligence and without proper interforce coordination.

Originally Posted by fruitbat

As to the Bomber command raids, i don't think anyone now would say it was a good thing, but we are judging from todays standpoint and with hindsight, both of which were absent in the 40's.

You'd be surprised to hear what I have heard in certain circles, mate.

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Well heres a case where you are putting words in mouths, read this entire thread and you will not find a single suggestion from anybody that Britain would have fought the war alone and won it, the point we make is we just fought it, and we were fighting it without being provoked because it was the right thing to do, and we would have fought it to the last with or without help.

I was referring to the victories in North Africa, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Don't think anyone will disagree much with this, save maybe the last part, Change aussies for USA.

well the Commonwealth part of the PTO was fought pretty much on their own.

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Oh really...and where exactly did your supplies come from? it's not like you were alone now, you already mentioned the Italians after all, yep thats right, we may have had our supplies from an ally, but it was our boots on the ground....alone, against the Germans and Italians....2 against 1 just in case you don't get it.

and yes by our boots I mean the comonwealth

lol with all respect for my own country, Italy was more of a burden to Germany than anything else. Our soldiers were brave and humane (and it's often recognised by British and Russians), but it wasn't enough.

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

You have a strange conception of air superiority Stern. Air superiority doesn't mean total exclusion of all nuisance hit and run jabo raids, or total prevention of night time city bombing.

The level of German incursion into British airspace lessened dramatically in 1941 and onward, as they spent more of their time shooting down our fighters and bombers on the ridiculous rhubarbs and circuses introduced once Dowding and Park were shoved out to the sidelines.

Air superiority is defined in the NATO Glossary as "That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by opposing air forces."
When the Battle of Britain was over you didn't have air superiority, until the Americans showed up.

As more and more of the Luftwaffe were pulled east, for obvious reasons, air superiority over France gradually moved in the Allies favour until by June 1944there was almost total air superiority over the Normandy beaches.

It's not a simple case of the Brits being hopeless until the Yanks arrived, but of course you know that.

the British were good at defending their mainland, but they could have suffered attacks of far superior entity without being able to put adequate opposition, had the battle carried on and Hitler concentrated all his forces towards Great Britain.