BoB & Spitfire vs Hurricane (vs 109-ish) - an interesting viewpoint

[Rumcajs]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

What is striking is that some people probably think the Nazis knew they were the baddies: it is not the case, in their own view they were doing their best to clean the world and establish a new world order, which is pretty much what was done by the Allies.

I find your words disturbing. I'm more than sure many Germans disagreed with Hitler and the Nazis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance (give it a try to find more)
I have never heard about an "Anti Churchil movement" or "Anti Churchil resistance". It has to be said, you are wrong.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Rumcajs

I find your words disturbing. I'm more than sure many Germans disagreed with Hitler and the Nazis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance (give it a try to find more)
I have never heard about an "Anti Churchil movement" or "Anti Churchil resistance". It has to be said, you are wrong.

Well of course, whenever you have a regime you also have a dissenting part, I'm not saying all the Germans were good or bad, I'm just saying that the Nazis thought they were fighting for a worthy cause, what's so disturbing about that?

The fact that many politicians didn't like how Churchill gained prestige and fame from the war events is not a mystery, as I'm also sure you know that a certain part of the British Royal Family had certain questionable sympathies of "National-socialistic nature", even David Lloyd George and Neville Chamberlain initially had only words of praise and admiration for Hitler, so it's not all that black and white as you might think..

[Rumcajs]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Well of course, whenever you have a regime you also have a dissenting part, I'm not saying all the Germans were good or bad, I'm just saying that the Nazis thought they were fighting for a worthy cause, what's so disturbing about that?

The Germans != The Nazis

You really need to distinguish between the two groups. It's very easy to make disturbing statements if you don't.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Rumcajs

The Germans != The Nazis

You really need to distinguish between the two groups. It's very easy to make disturbing statements if you don't.

absolutely. Germany happened to be the place where the movement started, but Nazi sympathisers were present everywhere: Sweden, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Italy, Turkey..

Again, it's important to pay attention to semantics: "Nazi" doesn't equal "Evil" (well at least not technically!), it was the identification of a political movement based on national-socialism, which is the father of modern Germany politics. And when it comes to politics, I can't think of a country more efficient than Germany (considered its size and economic relevance).

"OMG is he saying that Nazis were efficient?!?" No, I'm saying that there are different political models out there that, if no crazy dictators get on top, can be better than our political models. Dictatorships are the evil aspect of politics: Stalin's dictatorship was way more bloody and insane than Hitler's, but he didn't go down history books as the disgusting monster that he was because he happened to play with the good guys when it was needed..

"Socialism" is considered to be a bad thing as much as "Communism" in the USA, but again it's a demonisation that was caused by the war and politicians.. gosh this is a long concept and it's OT.. PM if you wanna talk about it.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Rumcajs

It has to be said, you are wrong.

Hear hear.

Stern's just back on his soapbox, repeating the same old 'Schneider Trophy', 'Alan Turing', 'the Germans had other priorities', sidetracking, self opinionated, self absorbed cliches he always does. Trouble is, his deliberately provocative style of trolling always invokes a response, which is precisely what he wants, so's he can further his own agenda to his heart's content. After all he sits around all day every day just waiting for another opportunity to impress himself by making the same old tired statements.

Next he'll be asking 'don't you have anything better to do? ' because he quite evidently hasn't.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

Hear hear.

Stern's just back on his soapbox, repeating the same old 'Schneider Trophy', 'Alan Turing', 'the Germans had other priorities', sidetracking, self opinionated, self absorbed cliches he always does. Trouble is, his deliberately provocative style of trolling always invokes a response, which is precisely what he wants, so's he can further his own agenda to his heart's content. After all he sits around all day every day just waiting for another opportunity to impress himself by making the same old tired statements.

Next he'll be asking 'don't you have anything better to do? ' because he quite evidently hasn't.

Whilst I'm having a private conversation on the matter with Rumcajs, you don't miss a chance to renew your beef with me, calling me names and trying to bring the so far civilised conversation a notch down.. and I am the troll

In any case, I'm pretty sure that you know that without Turing things could have gone way way different, yet you call his persecution a cliche'.. I salute your courage.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

you call his persecution a cliche'..

Nope. I call your repeated reference to his 'persecution' a deliberately sidetracking cliche when it has no bearing on the subject at hand.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

Nope. I call your repeated reference to his 'persecution' a deliberately sidetracking cliche when it has no bearing on the subject at hand.

well persecution was mentioned, and I couldn't refrain from reminding this " cliche' ", sorry..

again, the point is not Turing's persecution per se, it's that when in a country certain laws are in vigour, there's not much you can do, is there? And this was not only the case of Nazi Germany, we all have our skeletons in the closet..

[taildraggernut]

whoa whoa whoa, easy tiger, I think you got it all wrong.. let's try and keep it civilised and I will be glad to answer your points..

I think the example of Vietnam exemplifies your confusion on the concept of "winning": Vietnam was divided in two parts, and as much as there was an anti-American feeling, many others didn't really like the idea of living under a Communist regime. Talking about "Vietnamese winning the war" doesn't actually make any sense because of the socio-political implications of the Vietnam war.

Ok, answer my point then, is history as we know it a lie? did the holocaust happen and was it perpetrated by the Nazis? if none of that is a lie then why should the Battle of britain speciffically be a lie?

again, double standards. How can you justify joining forces and arming a mass murderer of the size of Stalin and live with the fact that he killed and persecuted millions more than Hitler and for more futile reasons at times is something I really wanna hear.
I'm not justifying Nazism, I'm just appalled by double standards set up for personal interests "yeah good ol' uncle Joe has a bit of rough hand with his folks, but hey, if this helps us winning against Hitler, let him on board!"
As for area bombing, go look for the other thread on it, justifying area bombing is as valid as justifying a war crime, and funnily enough it's only after that that the Geneva convention cared about the well being of civilians..

I never brought the Soviets into the argument, they have nothing to do with the Battle of Britain directly, I personally don't think there was any choice with that regard, my enemy's enemy is my friend until such time the immediate threat is over, hence why immediately after the second world war the 'cold war' started, do you really think there was a chance of a good outcome had the allies decided to fight the Russians too? Fighting the nazis was the best decision because they were the 'worst' of a bad lot and they started the bloody war in the first place, the Russians didn't, Look, if you start a fight with me and start gouging my eyes out I'm going to kick you in the nuts.....this is a hypothesis both are dirty tactics, which one is worse?
I'm not justifying area bombing, I'm just trying to stop you from using it as a validation for your arguments, it wouldn't have happened if Germany hadn't started the war, I don't care how many alternate views on History you have managed to read, it's just simple fact and you don't have to be British to understand the Germans started the war.

Are you calling me a Nazi? Seriously?

No but I am saying you are a Nazi appologist, based on what I'm reading here, it's just the study material I'm being provided to blame.

that's your view, the rest of the world on the other hand thought that racing without opponents, when in the past the races had been called off for the lack of participants, was puerile and grotesquely silly, and aimed merely at wanting to keep the Cup.. but hey, fair enough, if that's the way you like to win..

and why exactly were there no opponents? oh yes, something to do with nobody else being competent enough to complete the challenge, so we just turned up....no biggie, it was a very prestigious prize and everybody else just effectively chickened out, and apparently this makes the Brits look bad, typical, the Brits get good at something and everybody else just goes home with a right cob on complaining and saying it's just a stupid game and they don't want to play any more.

so were Dresden, Bremen, Hiroshima, Nagasaki... ah no sorry, those were for a good cause!

Maybe, I don't personally know but I think they were aimed at ending the worst global conflict since the first one, as far as I know germany still exists, had things gone the other way I don't think many ethnicities and cultures would even be in history books, and hiroshima and Nagasaki you can blame on the Amricans not the British.

my point was that appearances can be deceiving, and if a German politician has enough carisma to enchant British ones, then it doesn't surprise me he managed to drag the whole of Europe to hell with his talk.

Well we have common ground perhaps, let's just blame it all on Hitler and accept what happened was because of him, certainly thats how the British feel about it, no animosity towards Germany per se but there wasn't much else that could be done other than fight a war with germany because Hitler pushed them into it, if only Germany had allowed the allies to march through Germany straight to his door so we could take him out it could have avoided alot of unpleasantness.

well hey, that's what happens when you study history, you get to know about these things called facts. Your comparison shows how intelligently you're facing the topic here..

you like to use this line alot, apparently you are infallible and beyond question, and like to question anybody who disagrees with you's intelligence, I'll let it slide as i'm pretty comfortable with my understanding of things, but if you are going to use lines like 'let's try and keep it civilised and I will be glad to answer your points.. ' then please extend a similar courtesy.

we were talking about the odds of being saved and brought back to fight when being closer to your territory... jesus, are you actually reading the other people's posts or are on a flag waving mission?

Ah yes, I did predict eventually I would get slammed as a Union flag waving looney by you.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

Ok, answer my point then, is history as we know it a lie? did the holocaust happen and was it perpetrated by the Nazis? if none of that is a lie then why should the Battle of britain speciffically be a lie?

no, but there are many darker and controversial events of history that are deliberately overlooked. The holocaust did happen but it wasn't the biggest genocide of history, yet it's portrayed as the most horrific thing ever (probably because it's so well documented). The Battle of Britain isn't a lie, the aerial clashes over the Channel in 1940 were real and fierce, but one side perceived it in a way and the other in a totally different way. The use of the concept of "battle" is somehow wrong, since Great Britain wasn't sure of what was going to happen, whilst the Luftwaffe knew that their intervention was part of a much bigger operation.

I never brought the Soviets into the argument, they have nothing to do with the Battle of Britain directly, I personally don't think there was any choice with that regard, my enemy's enemy is my friend until such time the immediate threat is over, hence why immediately after the second world war the 'cold war' started, do you really think there was a chance of a good outcome had the allies decided to fight the Russians too? Fighting the nazis was the best decision because they were the 'worst' of a bad lot and they started the bloody war in the first place, the Russians didn't, Look, if you start a fight with me and start gouging my eyes out I'm going to kick you in the nuts.....this is a hypothesis both are dirty tactics, which one is worse?
I'm not justifying area bombing, I'm just trying to stop you from using it as a validation for your arguments, it wouldn't have happened if Germany hadn't started the war, I don't care how many alternate views on History you have managed to read, it's just simple fact and you don't have to be British to understand the Germans started the war.

my whole point is that there's no absolute goodies or baddies, we all have our fair share of despicable actions. It's all about who overcomes who and they will claim to be the good ones.

No but I am saying you are a Nazi appologist, based on what I'm reading here, it's just the study material I'm being provided to blame.

I don't think of myself as a Nazi apologist, there's not much that can be justified in their conduct, so no.

and why exactly were there no opponents? oh yes, something to do with nobody else being competent enough to complete the challenge, so we just turned up....no biggie, it was a very prestigious prize and everybody else just effectively chickened out, and apparently this makes the Brits look bad, typical, the Brits get good at something and everybody else just goes home with a right cob on complaining and saying it's just a stupid game and they don't want to play any more.

well obviously you don't know much about the story of the Schneider Trophy: there were no opponents cos France had an accident and lost their plane, whilst Italy wasn't ready yet. It happened before and the race was called off, but the Brits won 2 times in a row already, and to win the Trophy for good you needed to win it 3 times in a row. So they decided to race alone, nice uh?

Maybe, I don't personally know but I think they were aimed at ending the worst global conflict since the first one, as far as I know germany still exists, had things gone the other way I don't think many ethnicities and cultures would even be in history books, and hiroshima and Nagasaki you can blame on the Amricans not the British.

again, look at the broader picture, not the national individualities.

Well we have common ground perhaps, let's just blame it all on Hitler and accept what happened was because of him, certainly thats how the British feel about it, no animosity towards Germany per se but there wasn't much else that could be done other than fight a war with germany because Hitler pushed them into it, if only Germany had allowed the allies to march through Germany straight to his door so we could take him out it could have avoided alot of unpleasantness.

Yes, Nazi Germany started WW2.

you like to use this line alot, apparently you are infallible and beyond question, and like to question anybody who disagrees with you's intelligence, I'll let it slide as i'm pretty comfortable with my understanding of things, but if you are going to use lines like 'let's try and keep it civilised and I will be glad to answer your points.. ' then please extend a similar courtesy.

fair enough.