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

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

guys, really, there's no point, just leave it.

You don't WANT to be objective, it's your issue, not mine.

I know I can discern from national sentiment and history, hindsight and the danger of it, you guys just don't seem to.

What surprises me is that instead of looking into a different approach to the issue and try to understand where it comes from, you diminish it as rubbish, thinking that your being right is in your numbers and being louder (or in several cases, offensive).

This kind of attitude is really dangerous for the sake of history, but then again it seems to be a recurrent issue in historical circles anyway.

I think our point is...what was wrong with the 'status quo', why does it 'need' revisiting, not being funny but you give the impression you are trying to 'change' history and therefore are guilty of all the 'revisionism' here.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

I think our point is...what was wrong with the 'status quo', why does it 'need' revisiting, not being funny but you give the impression you are trying to 'change' history and therefore are guilty of all the 'revisionism' here.

as I said, there's nothing wrong with the public perception of the status quo, I just find it strident in a historical concept so broad as WW2, especially for an event with such blurred edges and different perceptions from the contending sides.

[bongodriver]

No it's not just the public perception, and the perception of the opposing side would be more digestable if it wasn't complete and utter 'denial'

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

No it's not just the public perception, and the perception of the opposing side would be more digestable if it wasn't complete and utter 'denial'

man, I can only talk for myself here. First of all you're still looking at sides, I'm personally on neither side, I'm looking at it from bang in the middle. You, on the other hand, and for well understandable nationalistic standpoints, give the impression of still looking it from the British point of view, but there's more to keep into consideration than that.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

man, I can only talk for myself here. First of all you're still looking at sides, I'm personally on neither side, I'm looking at it from bang in the middle. You, on the other hand, and for well understandable nationalistic standpoints, give the impression of still looking it from the British point of view, but there's more to keep into consideration than that.

You make some good points, but I get a little annoyed when you constantly seem to imply that everyone else is unable to rise above their partial standpoint while your viewpoint is unimpeachably neutral and objective.

It is probably impossible for anyone to attain complete objectivity - too often the conclusions reached are dependent on starting assumptions, etc, and it's very difficult for many people to rise above the cultural and societal baggage they have inherited.

But, I would respect your opinion more if you could accept that your position is just as prone to assumptions and sometimes self-serving beliefs as many other people on this forum. You come across as somewhat elitest, especially when you ascribe those who genuinely disagree with your personal views as having been duped by propaganda.

The way to get us to change our minds is to supply overwhelming evidence. You haven't been able to do that (so far!). Your views appear just as partial and agenda-driven as any other poster in this thread.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by kendo65

You make some good points, but I get a little annoyed when you constantly seem to imply that everyone else is unable to rise above their partial standpoint while your viewpoint is unimpeachably neutral and objective.

It is probably impossible for anyone to attain complete objectivity - too often the conclusions reached are dependent on starting assumptions, etc, and it's very difficult for many people to rise above the cultural and societal baggage they have inherited.

But, I would respect your opinion more if you could accept that your position is just as prone to assumptions and sometimes self-serving beliefs as many other people on this forum. You come across as somewhat elitest, especially when you ascribe those who genuinely disagree with your personal views as having been duped by propaganda.

The way to get us to change our minds is to supply overwhelming evidence. You haven't been able to do that (so far!). Your views appear just as partial and agenda-driven as any other poster in this thread.

First of all thank you for seeing that some of the points I make are good. Second thing, have you ever heard me mentioning the might and power of the Luftwaffe or RAF (or other similar barking) or a "we won" "we lost"?

I talk about the two enemies in third person, I don't have this "faction approach", which others do and betrays an innate (and understandable) bias, but of little or no help for the sake of a fair appraisal of historical events.

[bongodriver]

There were NO changes whatsoever to the tactical situation or strength of the Luftwaffe

Appart from the complete change of tactics to the 'blitz' bombings, and the losses suffered in the BOB

They didn't stop because your opposition crippled them, they stopped cos it was a half-hearted, badly conceived and worst executed plan

But they did stop after 3 months of half hearted trying.

Either you fail to understand the German logic about it, or you're in denial.

does German logic override any other? sounds one sided to me, in denial of what exactly?