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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

Nosense, the Germans were operating from France, last time I checked that was just on the other side of the channel so where is the advantage? do you really believe allied pilots were immune from capture by landing in the channel? do you really believe the Germans could not be rescued by their own side? the channel is irrelevant.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/w...f-Britain.html

well... the RAF was playing defensive, not offensive, so the majority of dogfights happened closer to the British coast or over British soil, that in a way is a considerable advantage. As for falling in the Channel: it wasn't much about being captured whilst in the drink, but surviving long enough in the waters.

[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.

[taildraggernut]

Why is it so hard to accept and understand that history is written by the winners?

it's not hard to accept, it's just ludicrous to suggest that because of that it 'must' be all lies, did the Vietnamese win the Vietnam war?.....yes.....whose history tells us so?.......everybody's because it is fact.

There's no questioning on what we think were the good and bad guys, but it still remains that it's all relative to the side you're in.
The Allies won (thank God!), and in doing so they put down the fundaments of our modern society, and in terms of history they made sure that the evil done by "the enemy" was remembered and condemned, but when evil acts were done by them, they dismissed them as done for a just cause.
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.

this is the most incredible thing I have heard yet, frankly it's disgusting and offensive and you have just fallen straight into the Nazi appologist cattegory, as bad as bombing civillians is, there is no justification for exterminating people en-masse in the most inhumane ways conceivable based purely on ethnicity and religion, the civillian populations of Germany were never targeted for extermination, the Allies did't make the decisions to bomb them easily, what had to be taken into account was that these Germans were working in munitions factories, they were creating future generations for their armies, they were responsible for perpetuating the situation, they may have been a 'frightened' populace affraid to turn against their oppresive taskmasters but the fact is their reluctance to act was causing the greatest injustice in the world and the allies were doing something about it and at least made an attempt to warn them.

I mean, it's all relative: persecution and segregation was perpetrated over the years by "us good guys" as well (think of Sir Alan Turing and gay persecution or the African American race laws just to name a couple, and I'm not even going to mention Stalin and his 20+ millions of victims), it was just a clash of different agendas.

This all "good vs evil" thing is so naive, I can't believe people still apply such standards to history and society.

I realise now that your concern for these causes is a smokescreen, it is just merly a way for you to justify your Nazi sympathy by appearing in touch with moderate views.

yeah but a win is a win, at least according to them

very much like school playground, doesn't matter how and by how much, as long as it's a win.. Schneider Trophy anyone?

an uncalled for snipe at the British which as far as I saw was not prompted by any of the alleged Nationalist propaganda you so often cry about, what has the schneider trophy got to do with it? nobody bothered to oppose the British because it was pointless by then, it's not the Brits fault, if only you had the same views when it came to your beloved Nazis and their unfairly advantaged/unopposed conquests in europe.

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?

what is disturbing about it? let me see, it might have something to do with the fact it was brutal/total/mercyless genocide they thought was a 'good cause' like nothing the world had seen before.

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..

George Galloway had noting but 'praise and admiration' for Sadam Hussein, and he's just been elected into parliament here, yes this world is 'crazy and FUBAR', but neville chaimberlain didn't lead Britain during the war, your arguments are a little weak by using the moderate branding of National socialism, it was just a way for Hitler to convince the German populace they needed him in power, yes the Germans thought they were fighting for a good cause, it's just it was all a lie created to hide Hitlers true agenda, the Germans fell for it and fought for it and ultimately paid the price.

well technically that's incorrect, since Operation Sea Lion was put on indefinite hold. Once again, battle of semantics..

remember that folks, if youre ever getting an arse kicking just give up and say it's on indefinate hold and you never really lose......brilliant!

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

well... the RAF was playing defensive, not offensive, so the majority of dogfights happened closer to the British coast or over British soil, that in a way is a considerable advantage. As for falling in the Channel: it wasn't much about being captured whilst in the drink, but surviving long enough in the waters.

and what?....were the Germans more allergic to salt water? what exactly was the advantage for a british pilot in the drink over a German?

if youre going to bomb another country you just have to live with the fact youre over enemy territory, it's just incredible people a criticising the British for having a 'home advantage', at least the British weren't using V bombs...talk about indiscriminate murder of civillians.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Yes, really a nosense... Where did they usually fought? Over France? I understand that the British radar was usefull to intercept the bombers... but doing it near the French coast is a bit irrealistic, don't you think?

IIRC they were fighting near the english coast or over England... then the 109s have to go back for the range issue.

Answering to the second question: it was difficult to save the pilots, since Churchill ordered to attack the rescue planes/ships too. So even if they bailed out they would be dead in water without the help of the rescue planes, while by emergency landing on the ground they could go home on their feet (like many did on the eastern front).

Could the german pilot return to home on their feet from english territory?

And about the Channel being irrelevant: do you really think GB could defend itself against the german infantry and panzer armies?

Desparate straw clutching, the Germans made their own bed so they had to lie in it, the Germans tried a bombing operation to gain air superiority, they failed, had they succeeded, the channel would have been a little pond for them to float the panzers across to finish us off, obviously it's a bitter pill for some to swallow but the Germans were just human beings too, they weren't the fantasy Imperial stormtroopers with amazing alien technology that some romanticise about, they weren't as brilliant as some think and the British were not as bad as others think, the channel was not some secret weapon we magically created at the outbreak of war...it's been there a long time....it's not our fault.

[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 taildraggernut

it's not hard to accept, it's just ludicrous to suggest that because of that it 'must' be all lies, did the Vietnamese win the Vietnam war?.....yes.....whose history tells us so?.......everybody's because it is fact.

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.

this is the most incredible thing I have heard yet, frankly it's disgusting and offensive and you have just fallen straight into the Nazi appologist cattegory, as bad as bombing civillians is, there is no justification for exterminating people en-masse in the most inhumane ways conceivable based purely on ethnicity and religion, the civillian populations of Germany were never targeted for extermination, the Allies did't make the decisions to bomb them easily, what had to be taken into account was that these Germans were working in munitions factories, they were creating future generations for their armies, they were responsible for perpetuating the situation, they may have been a 'frightened' populace affraid to turn against their oppresive taskmasters but the fact is their reluctance to act was causing the greatest injustice in the world and the allies were doing something about it and at least made an attempt to warn them.

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 realise now that your concern for these causes is a smokescreen, it is just merly a way for you to justify your Nazi sympathy by appearing in touch with moderate views.

Are you calling me a Nazi? Seriously?

an uncalled for snipe at the British which as far as I saw was not prompted by any of the alleged Nationalist propaganda you so often cry about, what has the schneider trophy got to do with it? nobody bothered to oppose the British because it was pointless by then, it's not the Brits fault, if only you had the same views when it came to your beloved Nazis and their unfairly advantaged/unopposed conquests in europe.

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..

what is disturbing about it? let me see, it might have something to do with the fact it was brutal/total/mercyless genocide they thought was a 'good cause' like nothing the world had seen before.

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

George Galloway had noting but 'praise and admiration' for Sadam Hussein, and he's just been elected into parliament here, yes this world is 'crazy and FUBAR', but neville chaimberlain didn't lead Britain during the war, your arguments are a little weak by using the moderate branding of National socialism, it was just a way for Hitler to convince the German populace they needed him in power, yes the Germans thought they were fighting for a good cause, it's just it was all a lie created to hide Hitlers true agenda, the Germans fell for it and fought for it and ultimately paid the price.

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.

remember that folks, if youre ever getting an arse kicking just give up and say it's on indefinate hold and you never really lose......brilliant!

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..

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

and what?....were the Germans more allergic to salt water? what exactly was the advantage for a british pilot in the drink over a German?

if youre going to bomb another country you just have to live with the fact youre over enemy territory, it's just incredible people a criticising the British for having a 'home advantage', at least the British weren't using V bombs...talk about indiscriminate murder of civillians.

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?

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

and what?....were the Germans more allergic to salt water? what exactly was the advantage for a british pilot in the drink over a German?

What? Are you serious?

The german pilot is over England since he is trying to GAIN air superiority (a thing that was irrealistic to attain since the low range of their main fighter machine) and one of these things happens to him:

- His plane is damaged by an english fighter -> he bails out (captured) or he ditches (probably dead/captured/safe)
- His plane is damaged by flak -> he bails out (captured) or he ditches (probably dead/captured/safe)
- His plane has a issue and he has to return home. -> he try to return home... probably he ditches again (probably dead/captured/safe).

The British pilot is over England trying to AVOID german air superiority:

- His plane is by a German -> he bails out or he try an emergency landing (safe)
- His plane is damaged by flak -> no possible... there's no german flak over England
- His plane has a issue and he has to return home. -> He lands (safe).

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

if youre going to bomb another country you just have to live with the fact youre over enemy territory, it's just incredible people a criticising the British for having a 'home advantage', at least the British weren't using V bombs...talk about indiscriminate murder of civillians.

Nobody is critizing UK for that advantage: it's been a german's mistake to start the battle without a good long range fighter (the 110 wasn't so good... above all then they used it as an escort fighter).

Still the British HAD that advantage: you only need to recognize it as an advantage you gained because of Germany's fault. It's a Germany's mistake, not a UK's success. It was a score on their own goal... in extra time since Hitler ordered to bomb the cities.

[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..

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

Desparate straw clutching,

Is this referred to me?

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

they weren't as brilliant as some think and the British were not as bad as others think, the channel was not some secret weapon we magically created at the outbreak of war...it's been there a long time....it's not our fault.

It's what I'm saying...