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

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

You fight Nazis by removing the conditions that make their rise possible

Hmm... I'm sure you don't mean by daft methods like banning the swastika from plastic models and computer games, but I'm interested in how this would be achieved socially and politically without compromising democracy.

When your car's fixed that is. I'm still waiting for my new graphics card. Yesterday the driver of a reputable courier service couldn't find the address. That'll teach me to pay the extra £6.00 for next day delivery. I'm such a stingebag.

[csThor]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

With all due respect how is that achieveable without resorting to techniques that they were infamous for, we fought a war for democracy and freedom of speech, even if that means you choose to be a Nazi. can you explain to me what constitutes the condition for cultivating a Nazi (appart from letting the French humiliate them)

No war was ever fought for noble intentions. That label was slapped on it but given the british behavior in their own colonies (i.e. India) I would very much doubt that the british political establishment of the 1930s and 1940 even had an idea what real democracy was about. British politics of that time could be summarized as "Old Boys Club" containing the same old elites which had been the rulers ever since William the Conqueror had set foot on the island. And, although this is a very personal opinion and contains a lot of irony on my part, Empires do not deal in democratic terms, do they?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

if they ever made one....absolutely, but it's not that different to playing clod as a LW pilot, or day of defeat as a German......all of which I have done....your point?

my point is that as much as you are feeling comfortable, others may not. And yes, it's a matter of not playing that, but knowing that it's there and what it represents.. I dunno man..

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

no, it's more a case of howselective celebrations are. Can you think of any recurrent celebrations linked to the successes in the Pacific? The Falklands or the victory against the IRA? Or any other conflicts for the matter? Not even WW1 gets as much covering and celebration than the Battle of Britain (even if poppies are ideally inspired to WW1).

Well here is where you prove how resistant you are to understand, the battle of britain is celebrated by the British because we were the ones fighting for our survival, we dont force anybody else to celebrate it, it's significance to us is simply that if we hadn't survived then the war for us would have been over at that instant and we would have been under the control of the Nazis....is that not enough of a 'phew!! christ we made it and were still alive, lets rejoice the efforts our brave lads made getting us therough that one' for you?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

so with that in mind, could you explain to me why every time a Brit celebrates surviving a conflict and coming out on top (with help....nobody denies it), fighting against a widely aknowleged force for evil, we just get labeled as Nationalist idiots with an 'empire mentality'

Being concerned about maintaining colonial empires AND freedom and democracy at the same time is tended to be raise doubt, especially if in practice it means mean that a small group of privileged being have all the rights and 99% of the others don't. Being concerned about the freedm German-occupied Poles but not Soviet-occupied Poles, and state of democracy in Europe but not in India, Egypt, South Africa (... its a long list) tends to make people believe you're just another imperialist, who happened to realize he just met the bigger dog in the neighbourhood..

Probably has to do a lot with Churchill - he seems pretty concerned about maintaining the largest colonial empire at that time.

"What General Weygand has called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.

But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour."

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by csThor

No war was ever fought for noble intentions. That label was slapped on it but given the british behavior in their own colonies (i.e. India) I would very much doubt that the british political establishment of the 1930s and 1940 even had an idea what real democracy was about. British politics of that time could be summarized as "Old Boys Club" containing the same old elites which had been the rulers ever since William the Conqueror had set foot on the island. And, although this is a very personal opinion and contains a lot of irony on my part, Empires do not deal in democratic terms, do they?

at the time the empires were being forged no, you are right, nothing democratic anout it and I have said before I am not comfortable with the means used....it is however now history, at the time of WWII, what was left of the 'empire' was largely democratic.

[bongodriver]

Colonial empire?....do people really believe we were holding them all to ransom, WWII was a perfect opportunity for the empire to say 'sod you mate youre on your own'....what the hell could we have done about it?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Well here is where you prove how resistant you are to understand, the battle of britain is celebrated by the British because we were the ones fighting for our survival, we dont force anybody else to celebrate it, it's significance to us is simply that if we hadn't survived then the war for us would have been over at that instant and we would have been under the control of the Nazis....is that not enough of a 'phew!! christ we made it and were still alive, lets rejoice the efforts our brave lads made getting us therough that one' for you?

of course it is, and I understand this perfectly.

One thing though is mourning the fallen and celebrating their efforts for the defense of your country (a sentiment that should be common to ALL countries), another is celebrating the thing as if it was a victory over a football match.

It's really true that you're obsessed with this: last year for the first time I heard the (in)famous chant "Two world wars and one world cup, doo-dah doo-dah!", which might be silly to you, but it resumes pretty well the blur of it. Have you ever heard any other nation doing banter chants about any war? Probably not, cos it's out of place and context. And I'm sorry, but to me there's no excuse for it, if you really have respect for your opponents.

So yes, I accept an attitude of "well done all of us, let's remember the efforts our ancestors made 71 years ago and learn from it", but "yeeeeeah there you go you boche ba$tards, we won the battle of britain, so you can stick your nazi boots up your ar$es" is something that I could have accepted only in the 40s.

The example made in the article about Fawlty Towers "don't mention the war" (or Blackadder for the matter) skit is another example of how you have used "the war" for everything: celebration, drama, comedy, sport etc..

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Not that I disagree with the idea that air superiority , but the Dunkirk record of bombers vs ships is a bit misleading, the bombers concentrated most of the time on the beaches (with dense concentration of troops) and the twon, and not ton the ships themselves. AFAIK the ships only received their attention in the last couple of days, and there were far more than just '4 destroyers' sunk.

It was the number of RN destroyers sunk by air attack, but two more were sunk by a Schnellboot and a U-boot, three on the the 29 May and another three on the 1 June. The French also lost a destoyer to air attack on the 1st, and two others to mine/S-boot in the previous days. However, 19 other destroyers were damaged and more or less rendered inservicable in a matter of days and about 200 smaller seacraft was also sunk.

RN
* Grafton, sunk by U-62 on 29 May;
* Grenade, sunk by air attack off the east pier at Dunkirk on 29 May;
* Wakeful, sunk by a torpedo from the Schnellboot (E-boat) S-30 on 29 May;
* Basilisk, Havant and Keith, sunk by air attack off the beaches on 1 June.

French Navy
* Bourrasque, mined off Nieuport on 30 May;
* Sirocco, sunk by the Schnellboote S-23 and S-26 on 31 May;
* Le Foudroyant, sunk by air attack off the beaches on 1 June.

sunk out of 39 Destroyers participating.

It would appear that none were lost on the open sea to air attack.

[bongodriver]

"Two world wars and one world cup, doo-dah doo-dah!",

Thats generalizing mate, have I chanted that? has anyone on this thread chanted that? have I suggested that chant is something to be proud of? have you any evidence that it is the wider view of the British public?........no

One thing though is mourning the fallen and celebrating their efforts for the defense of your country (a sentiment that should be common to ALL countries), another is celebrating the thing as if it was a victory over a football match.

Proof of ignorance, that is exactly what it was, a victory for our fight to survive....so we honour the people that made the ultimate saccrifce for it, where the hell does a football match come in to it?