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

[robtek]

It can not be, what shouldn't be!

[MB_Avro_UK]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

How do Spartans fit into this theory? :p

I don't know.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[MB_Avro_UK]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

It most definately would have been much, much worse had Germany won. I am glad the Nazis lost in many ways.
Those stories about german minorites being persectued is most likely Propaganda. However, Poland indeed acted very, very agressivly towards Germany during the days of the Weimar Republic, after WW1 even tried to grab more land from Germany militarily.

Funny, however, how some individuals once again try to deflect this debate about Britain at Germany, as usual hiding behind Poles, Jews, Gypsies and other victims who they did not lift one finger for during the war. The usual hypocrisis.

I agree with your first paragraph.

But how could the Allies/British help the Poles,Jews, gypsies and others? It was not hypocritic as you suggest. It was a factor of distance. The world was a much bigger place then.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[MB_Avro_UK]

Hi all,

I have been reading a book entitled:

Best of Enemies. Britain and Germany. Truth and Lies in Two World Wars.

Author is Richard Milton.

Britain and Germany according to Milton were prior to WW1 close allies. They had a shared culture and a shared Royal Family. WW1 was expected to involve Germany and Britain as Allies against the French.

But after the start of WW1, the propaganda machines of both Britain and Germany changed the situation for ever.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm sorry but that's a bit lazy: you get in a conversation while it's been running for a while and start blurting out sentences and calling people names just because you don't understand, how should one take this?

It's you that doesn't understand. I read the first dozen pages, and posted my thoughts on the comments you made on those pages. I don't need to read another 50 pages to form an opinion on what you wrote in the first dozen.

so you are shocked about what I said, whereas justifying the killing of innocents to stop a war is acceptable?! Double standards anyone?!?! How can you even begin to think that and consider yourself mature enough for this conversation?!?! I am shocked, seriously shocked.

Firstly, it's not double standards, because I'm not drawing a distinction between which side was killing civillians. Both sides killed civilians, some were killed while military targets were being attacked, some were killed deliberately for different reasons. What number of civilian lives lost is considered acceptable is open to debate (regardless of which side you're on). I do draw a distinction between that and ethnic cleansing. And because of that, you are seriously shocked and think I'm not mature enough for this conversation. Ok.

And yes, if they won the war, on an absolute principle they would have been the baddies, but you reckon they would have said this or were aware of being the baddies?! Nobody thinks of themselves as the baddies..

I'm talking about reality - the reality of whether someone is fighting for the right reasons or not. Your arguement is that the winner is always the goodie, purely because that is the story they will tell. My point is that you have to search beneath the story, and not believe everything the state tells you, and find out the truth. Your arguement suggests that I would believe the crusades were a good thing, which I don't.

I'm still shocked about your partial acceptance of the killing of civilians

Of course I accept that some civilians will die. Are you suggesting that if someone found a way to end a war, but it would involve one civilian dying, that the war should continue instead? If a dictatorship was developing nuclear weapons, and showed the world it had the will and capability to use them as soon as ready, but they kept the factories in a populated town, would you just accept that your country (and population) was going to be destroyed because civilian casualties in an opposing nation would be so unthinkable?

how do you classify the invasion of Iraq after 9/11? Was the killing of all those civilians justified?

Western governments lied to their people (and those governments were lied to by certain experts too) about the evidence and reasons for going to war with Iraq. I personally think that was wrong and war should have been avoided.

your analysis is pointless. History is not a court, it's a chronicle. Historical analysis on the other hand is a form of judgement, but it can be bent and adapted to the different perspectives.

I was simply pointing out to you that we don't always believe that the victors are the goodies, which is what you said.

excuse me, what's a country made of, land only? It's the majority of people of a country that decide for the fate of it.

No it isn't. People can be lied to and suppressed. When a country goes to war, I don't assume that is the fault of every individual in that country.

[Frequent_Flyer]

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.

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.

This attitude stems from the legal priciple of " causation". The old, none of what followed would have transpired" but not for" Germany starting the war. Not one but two World Wars.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Oh no.

It's all kicked off again.

Yes, sorry. It could keep doing that until the thread is closed.

Originally Posted by swiss

LOL. That like negotiating with your own kidnapper.
Hint: As he's in power he doesn't give a sh1t.

I disagree. I think it's better to try than start WWII. To each their own.

What's right or wrong lies in the eye of the beholder, end of story.

It may not always be clear cut, and there can be differing opinions, I agree, but sometimes it is clear cut.

That we learnt from the Romans doesn't make what they did right (not that I judge them by todays standards).
Same for the British empire, just because many people are in a better position than they would have been does not mean that the cause was just or the deaths of innocent people worthwhile.

-Crusader: Those guys conquered a good part of the Roman empire 500 years before that. Europe being part of the caliphate would have been the better option, right?

Travelling through foreign lands murdering, raping and pillaging is bad in my books, but you think it's ok because it's better than letting the Muslims carry on without Christianity. I guess we won't be agreeing on this.

Correct - only you can't use to justify the bombing of civilians as no one knew about it at the time.

I didn't use it to justify killing civilians, that didn't cross my mind. We were looking back at right and wrong, and I was saying that the holocaust was a bad thing (call me radical).

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

how can you even begin to think about simplifying a complicated matter such as WW2 with such a statement?!

Is that what your professor said to you when he/she made you change your mind?

Are you guys even taking this thread seriously anymore?!

Are you trying to patronise us because you think it makes your opinion more valid, or have you just run out of points to your arguement?

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

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

depressingly perceptive.
sigh

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.

free time gladly spent

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.

you have done with your very long, very wrong posts. it doesn't matter if you write a large 700 page book on it, if this is a mere taster it would still be spectacularly wrong.

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.

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.

again with putting words in our mouths. where exactly is that posted? please quote it, references man.

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.

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.

top post

Originally Posted by MB_Avro_UK

I don't know.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

does it matter - we got 9/11 in here as well, hadn't noticed that reference before, what next?

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

Is that what your professor said to you when he/she made you change your mind?
Are you trying to patronise us because you think it makes your opinion more valid, or have you just run out of points to your arguement?

ooooo tiebreaker!