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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by kendo65

I've got a few niggles with 'half-hearted attempt', but overall a fair and balanced appraisal.

Sternjaeger if you are willing to agree with this bit now:

"The UK can call this a German defeat because it didn't meet the stated aims (conquering Britain)"

then why all the arguing and defensiveness in the last 40-odd pages?! (edit: 50-odd pages. Cant keep track of this thread )

I thought that by now we agreed that the attempt was half-hearted?

As for the agreeing, the fact that the UK can call something a victory doesn't mean that it actually was one. So as much as I do understand why in Britain it's perceived as a victory, doesn't change the facts of the conflict.

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I thought that by now we agreed that the attempt was half-hearted?

As for the agreeing, the fact that the UK can call something a victory doesn't mean that it actually was one. So as much as I do understand why in Britain it's perceived as a victory, doesn't change the facts of the conflict.

I think we are absolutely back at square one. No positions have changed. We should all stop going around in circles and let people read the thread and propose their own points and arguments from here on in....

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by blackmme

I think we are absolutely back at square one. No positions have changed. We should all stop going around in circles and let people read the thread and propose their own points and arguments from here on in....

Regards Mike

how about some tea and biscuits while we're at it?

[#402FOX]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

how about some tea and biscuits while we're at it?

Its Tea & Crumpets old boy

[JimmyBlonde]

The facts of the conflict are that no further attempts were made to invade Britain.

Whether the initial attempt was half-hearted is irrelevant, the outcome ensured that Nazi Germany ran out of time and resources to accomplish its aims due to their preoccupation with more important campaigns.

Had the Luftwaffe swept aside the RAF as intended, and as they probably could have done, that would have been a defeat for Britain whether the invasion was a success or not. There's no middle ground, a costly victory is still a victory even though it might lead to disaster further down the track which, in this case, it didn't.

Would you say that the Channel Dash was a German victory? They got their ships through the channel at a high price but, after the Channel Dash, those ships contributed practically nothing to the war effort. They basically drained resources from other areas and were eventually destroyed.

But they got through the channel.

The RAF clearly contributed greatly to the war after BoB so that compounds the miracle of their survival and, to my mind, adds weight to the argument that BoB was a defeat for the Germans and a victory for the British.

[nearmiss]

There is no doubt that the soldiers and aviators on both sides were fighting for their lives. When the fight is to the death it is never a half hearted anything. Both sides were giving up their lives every day, and you can be assured there was no half hearted effort in the cockpits of either Germany or Britain.

Goering may have been a putz, but the Luftwaffe was not.

Sadly, the German and British soldiers died because they were just in the way. Seems like it, when you realize ole Hitler just changed the war front, and effectively wasted all those people and resources in the Battle of Britain.

Thousands of people died, military and civilian and the jerk just diverted to the other side of Europe. Taking Britain was just a half effort to Hitler, and if that jerk had to fight his way out of a paper sack (personally) he couldn't have done zip. THe little coward proved it up well when he committed suicide, rather than face any kind of punishment for his debauchery.

I say Britain was the winner, because all the power of Luftwaffe was directed towards Britain and the losses were greater militarily for Germany than Britain. The Germans were getting the snot kicked out of them on a daily basis, and it didn't seem to matter how many planes they had in the air they lost huge lots of them on every raid.

Hitler thought defeating Britain would be easy. Figuratively speaking, Hitler got his hand in the mouth of a bear.

History has it's facts and distortions, which is what future generations will share.

Another 15 years and there will probably not be a single survivor left alive on either side that fought in WW2 to corroborate anything.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I thought that by now we agreed that the attempt was half-hearted?

As for the agreeing, the fact that the UK can call something a victory doesn't mean that it actually was one. So as much as I do understand why in Britain it's perceived as a victory, doesn't change the facts of the conflict.

And presumably the 'facts' = what is taken to constitute 'objective reality' is to be determined by you with the rest of our opinions relegated to those of propaganda-besotted dupes.

You haven't addressed my criticism of this stance of yours - the so-called 'facts' that you keep marshalling in your arguments appear to most here as opinion and interpretation, of equal value as the perspectives of other posters but not inherently different in evidence or weight.

Once again your refusal to acknowledge this or reply with massive overwhelming evidence (that is not open to either counter-interpretation or that can be contradicted by other quotes, opinions or 'facts' from the other side) strikes me as a little arrogant.

Until you can deliver incontrovertible 'facts' and evidence and not just resort to constantly saying you are right you won't change opinions.

[JimmyBlonde]

Originally Posted by kendo65

And presumably the 'facts' = what is taken to constitute 'objective reality' is to be determined by you with the rest of our opinions relegated to those of propaganda-besotted dupes.

You haven't addressed my criticism of this stance of yours - the so-called 'facts' that you keep marshalling in your arguments appear to most here as opinion and interpretation, of equal value as the perspectives of other posters but not inherently different in evidence or weight.

Once again your refusal to acknowledge this or reply with massive overwhelming evidence (that is not open to either counter-interpretation or that can be contradicted by other quotes, opinions or 'facts' from the other side) strikes me as a little arrogant.

Until you can deliver incontrovertible 'facts' and evidence and not just resort to constantly saying you are right you won't change opinions.

Sternjaeger wants to have his cake and eat it too, if you give him facts he says that they're misinterpreted. If you give him logically sound and well thought out interperatations he wants facts.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by JimmyBlonde

Sternjaeger wants to have his cake and eat it too, if you give him facts he says that they're misinterpreted. If you give him logically sound and well thought out interperatations he wants facts.

There is an old saying, 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink the water, even if it is the sweetest water'.