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

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

RAF > 544 aircrew killed
Lw > 2,698 aircrew killed

To those numbers should be added POW and WIA.

Since you are such the gung-ho luftwaffler I would think you would at least do some research on the Lw and have found that site, which has been around for a very long time.

By 2 November, the RAF fielded 1,796 pilots, an increase of over 40% from July 1940's count of 1,259 pilots. (Dye 2000, p. 35.) How many pilots did the Lw have?

By 14 September the Luftwaffe's Bf 109 Geschwader possessed only 67 percent of their operational crews against authorised aircraft. The RAF had an excess of pilots on squadron strength, as well as a/c.

Due to the failure of the Luftwaffe to establish air supremacy, a conference assembled on 14 September at Hitler's headquarters. Hitler concluded that air superiority had not yet been established and "promised to review the situation on 17 September for possible landings on 27 September or 8 October. Three days later, when the evidence was clear that the German Air Force had greatly exaggerated the extent of their successes against the RAF, Hitler postponed Sealion indefinitely. (Overy 2001, p. 97.)

kudos. numbers, referenced.

game, set and MATCH.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

kudos. numbers, referenced.

game, set and MATCH.

Game > yes
Set > yes
Match > no, as Stern will appear with a different twist to his revisionist history.

[6S.Manu]

72 pages arguing about the word "Defeat"?

Wow, not to be an a$$, but you guys really have a lot of free time.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

you are giving assessments of the situation as if you were playing Risk, the situation was a tad more complicated than that.


ah ok, so you're confirming what I was saying: the killing of civilians before 1949 was ok, so you're implying that the killing of Jews was right? All in all the Nazis considered them their enemy, and to pursue their cause they wanted to eliminate them.. Do you realise the nonsense you're saying to justify the killing of civilians perpetrated by the Allies?


hey, I was going on topic, your friends then start changing topic and then blame me for going off topic. Read my comments re. the BoB, I've exposed them more than once.


you're summing it up on assumptions, not on facts.


apart for the scar thing which I didn't get, you're making assumptions again. The Germans fought until 1945 even when they really were doing it against all odds, do you reckon that the situation in 1940 was such a blow for morale? Who's delusional now?


yeah, you already said that killing kids is fine, if it's a good cause. I don't see how this puts you in a better position than Nazis frankly.


one thing is collateral damage, another is intentional attack of civilian targets. Do you know that the Americans refused to bomb Germany civilian targets when Harris asked for help?


you might have heard that there were secret meetings and tentative agreements between Germany and some of your political and royal family members. Germany was hoping to find another Quisling in the UK, and occupy it like they did with Norway.

Saving the life of 300k soldiers was a huge sign of wanting a truce: the Stukas could have made a slaughterhouse of Dunkirk.



you obviously aren't capable of a sober view on the matters. Calling historical character names or disputing renown theories and possible scenarios is just banter, you have no idea how close you were to a very different scenario in the end of 1940.

I definitely cannot understand the logic in letting 300 000 soldiers escape just in the hope of making peace with Britain. If forcing peace with Britain was really in Hitler's mind he would have done quite a bit to capture these troops resulting in a considerable blow to the British morally, political (helding 300 000 POWs captive does have some significance in the political game as a sort of bargain mass) and military as Britain had not the interminable numbers of soldiers like the Soviet Union that could man-wise afford to loose millions of its military personal to captivity (speaking from a purely military point of view here - poor lads they were). So loosing out such a number of soldiers would have left Britain even more vulnerable I guess.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

72 pages arguing about the word "Defeat"?

Wow, not to be an a$$, but you guys really have a lot of free time.

Can't have revisionist history.

[fruitbat]

Stern is as stubborn as he is wrong, you'll have more chance nailing diarrhea to the ceiling that getting him to change his mind. imo its pointless to ague with such people.

Kind of fun to watch though.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Stern is as stubborn as he is wrong, you'll have more chance nailing diarrhea to the ceiling that getting him to change his mind. imo its pointless to ague with such people.

Kind of fun to watch though.

Frankly, there is no point. I have tried to bring an impartial perspective, but I suppose that I should write an essay on it, and even then you'd still be in denial.

The fact that the majority of the contributors here is British doesn't help either, but it's evident how this is an all British thing, and the sentiment for it is as strong as it is biased.

I have been called names, mocked, bullied, but in fact nobody picked up in an unbiased way on the facts I have exposed, and even when pointed to German point of view as seen from an American expert, there was little or no space for discussion, it was all about who can shout in the louder and ruder way.

The bottom line though is that there is an unsuspected amount of people that still believe that only the Germans should be blamed for all the evil, bad and deadly things that happened in WW2.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Frankly, there is no point. I have tried to bring an impartial perspective, but I suppose that I should write an essay on it, and even then you'd still be in denial.

Stern, with respect, the problem is that many feel your position is not impartial, and strongly disagree with your conclusions. And we are not 'in denial', we are in disagreement. (Your use of 'loaded' phrases such as 'denial' and 'biased' below imply that you have reached a position of complete factual objectivity and that any disagreement is ignorant prejudice.)

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The fact that the majority of the contributors here is British doesn't help either, but it's evident how this is an all British thing, and the sentiment for it is as strong as it is biased.

Once again your assumptions are clear: as your own viewpoint coincides perfectly with objective reality anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint disagrees with objective reality and is 'biased'. In my opinion your apparent inability to recognise that your viewpoint (or anyone elses for that matter) has at least some subjective elements is either deluded or more likely arrogant.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I have been called names, mocked, bullied, but in fact nobody picked up in an unbiased way on the facts I have exposed, and even when pointed to German point of view as seen from an American expert, there was little or no space for discussion, it was all about who can shout in the louder and ruder way.

Again you wilfully confuse 'disagreement' with 'bias'. Those 'facts', or more accurately 'interpretations' of historical events, were in most or all cases disputed or interpreted in differing ways by other people.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The bottom line though is that there is an unsuspected amount of people that still believe that only the Germans should be blamed for all the evil, bad and deadly things that happened in WW2.

I, for one, don't deny that the Allies could be said to have made some doubtful moral choices during the conflict, but I do hold that the Western Allies held a morally superior position in the war to Nazi Germany, and that the attempt of some to establish moral equivalence between the two is misguided and wrong.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Stern, with respect, the problem is that many feel your position is not impartial, and strongly disagree with your conclusions. And we are not 'in denial', we are in disagreement. (Your use of 'loaded' phrases such as 'denial' and 'biased' below imply that you have reached a position of complete factual objectivity and that any disagreement is ignorant prejudice.)



Once again your assumptions are clear: as your own viewpoint coincides perfectly with objective reality anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint disagrees with objective reality and is 'biased'. In my opinion your apparent inability to recognise that your viewpoint (or anyone elses for that matter) has at least some subjective elements is either deluded or more likely arrogant.



Again you wilfully confuse 'disagreement' with 'bias'. Those 'facts', or more accurately 'interpretations' of historical events, were in most or all cases disputed or interpreted in differing ways by other people.

this.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by blackmme

I am put in mind of Captain Beard from Blackadder going 'There are two school's of thought on that.... Mine and everyone else's'

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

This 'unbiased' approach to history is simply your personal interpretation and your personal interpretation alone.
Therefore no-one can argue with this 'unbiased opinion' because no-one else is you, and if they do argue they are ipso facto biased and the victims of baseless propaganda.
Well, if it works for you.

Originally Posted by kendo65

Stern, with respect, the problem is that many feel your position is not impartial, and strongly disagree with your conclusions. And we are not 'in denial', we are in disagreement. (Your use of 'loaded' phrases such as 'denial' and 'biased' below imply that you have reached a position of complete factual objectivity and that any disagreement is ignorant prejudice.)

Once again your assumptions are clear: as your own viewpoint coincides perfectly with objective reality anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint disagrees with objective reality and is 'biased'. In my opinion your apparent inability to recognise that your viewpoint (or anyone elses for that matter) has at least some subjective elements is either deluded or more likely arrogant.

Again you wilfully confuse 'disagreement' with 'bias'. Those 'facts', or more accurately 'interpretations' of historical events, were in most or all cases disputed or interpreted in differing ways by other people.

And round and round we go. Well put Ken.