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

[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?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by blackmme

Denial Lets not bring Egypt and the North African theatre into this!

So there was no change whatsoever in the tactical situation or strength of the Luftwaffe between july 1940 and October 1940!

what do you think, that when one starts a war with a certain number of aircraft they think you won't have any losses?! Battle losses were taken into account even by their incompetent leaders, they probably didn't think they would have lost as many, but and the production numbers show that the Luftwaffe soon replenished the losses with the production of new planes.

Besides the evolution of aircraft was so fast that Emils would have been obsolescent by 1941, it was a costly, disposable force.

My gosh Stern, there really is no point discussing with you is there on this subject? Everything you accuse the people you disagree with of you are exhibiting to a greater degree.

Regards Mike

uhmm if you say so.. it doesn't make it right..
I don't accuse nobody, who's "the people"? I'm making a point, either you agree or disagree..

Originally Posted by bongodriver

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

see my answer above: losses are always taken into account. The change of tactics doesn't mean they lost, they kept on dropping bombs or V1/2s over the UK.

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

yes, it wasn't as fast and easy as they thought. They still kept on dropping bombs with a more efficient and less costly manner, and one harder to stop.

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

no, but it's a different one. You keep on applying the same logic to different countries, it doesn't quite work like that, but then again, it's a typical empire mentality, nothing to be blamed for of course!

[bongodriver]

see my answer above: losses are always taken into account. The change of tactics doesn't mean they lost, they kept on dropping bombs or V1/2s over the UK.

yes, it wasn't as fast and easy as they thought. They still kept on dropping bombs with a more efficient and less costly manner, and one harder to stop.

Yeah...because when they tried a face to face fight they got a bloody nose, so they resorted to poking us with a long stick.

Oh losses are taken into account.....so they predicted the losses they'd suffer and were just fine with it....like an act of charity to make the Brits feel a little better about themselves?

no, but it's a different one. You keep on applying the same logic to different countries, it doesn't quite work like that, but then again, it's a typical empire mentality, nothing to be blamed for of course!

This just doesn't make sense....applying what logic to what countries?

Ah the empire mentality.......another little jab at the Brits....so the Germans never had designs on an 'empire' ?......come to think of it while the British were empire building I seem to recall they weren't alone in that race at all.