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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

So forcing your opponent into revising their strategic decisions(withdrawing) and surviving the immediate battle is a non-event? it's like a burglar trying to break into your house and you manage to tackle them into fleeing the scene without him stealing anything, it's a win in my book even if the burglar wansn't caught, I get the impression that these alternate views of history are straw clutching types of arguments used by Nazi appologists who are far too caught up in the glamour image of the very impressive German war machine of the time, finding it hard to swallow that they were effectively beaten by someone they percieve as inferior.

as far as the 'National pride' argument used......isn't it just a side effect of what was achieved by the sucess of that event? which as far as I can see is not much different to any other allied nations sense of pride.

Having seen the way Sternjaeger responds to difference of oppinion by someone British I have no doubt I'm about to get slammed as a union flag waving lunatic.

well I dunno which replies you're referring to, the way I see it is that there are also many Brits who are passionate and can make a difference between history and pride, while some others can't and become aggressive in an unreasonable manner (both here and on PM).

In any case, one would think that a different take on an historical event could be refreshing and offer unprecedented food for thought, without necessarily having to undermine the importance of the events involved, but some perceive it as a personal attack for some reason.

In any case, if you're interested in the topic, most of the other thread went down a civilised path and there was some interesting exchange of information and material on the subject.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

lol last time I argued your point I have been attacked by the (chiefly British) members of this forum, who dismissed my statement as ridiculous. I was trying to make a historical-strategic point, they marched down the road of national pride and similar propaganda.. Don't expect this place to have a historically objective view of things, this is pretty much the house of double standards

Amazing how 70 years after the event there are still people who treat the subject as a propaganda war. Did the Luftwaffe succeed in its set goals of crippling the RAF, which was one of the conditions required before an invasion could even be contemplated? Did the Luftwaffe achieve air-superiority over the seas around SE England, preventing the RN from operating against any potential invasion fleet (not forgetting the Kriegsmarine was still recovering from the Norwegian invasion, with most of its cruisers and destroyers sunk or crippled and no real battleships and no aircraft carriers to counter the British battle fleet)? Did the Kriegsmarine or Wehrmacht have the equipment to actually transport enough troops to pull off a successful invasion? Did Germany succeed in invading Britain?

The historical-strategic point is that the Luftwaffe did not succeed in any of its set goals, it's highly debatable whether enough or any troops could have been landed, even had the Luftwaffe been able to achieve even local air superiority, and last time I looked Britain hadn't been invaded. Forget all this nonsense about "national pride and similar propaganda" that's just the usual cop-out of someone trying to use spin to gloss over a German defeat. I ain't even British.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Letum

The Axis did not meet any of their major objectives. The British did not have any major objective other than a long term goal of gaining aerial superiority which they failed to do tactically, but gained anyway on account of German strategic decisions.

The British Empire and Commonwealth Objective was ''to deny 'The Axis' Air Superiority over Southern England in daylight''. In this they succeeded.

But you're right in that the Axis failed to achieve any of theirs.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

well I dunno which replies you're referring to, the way I see it is that there are also many Brits who are passionate and can make a difference between history and pride, while some others can't and become aggressive in an unreasonable manner (both here and on PM).

In any case, one would think that a different take on an historical event could be refreshing and offer unprecedented food for thought, without necessarily having to undermine the importance of the events involved, but some perceive it as a personal attack for some reason.

In any case, if you're interested in the topic, most of the other thread went down a civilised path and there was some interesting exchange of information and material on the subject.

Is your passion for the 'alternate view' any different?
I see plenty of unreasonable agression on these forums that have nothing to do with Brits.
I did read those discussions and saw the exchanged information but it all boiled down to this weird phrase 'history is written by the winners' as if to suggest that on that basis history as we know it is the fiction, which is basically in the same category as denial of the holocaust, I'm sure had the Nazis won the war then the phrase might have some validity, we almost certainly would have been 'educated' into some very questionable versions of events, I'm sure Hitler would have had us all believe the war was fought against an evil Jewish empire that ate aryan babies and layed eggs in your brain so we had to kill them with fire, even taking into account any 'attrocity' perpitrated by the allies there has been no evidence of it being written out of history, and it's easy to look back now and say how awfull some allied actions were, would we feel differently if we were actually there though? (just a different take on it).

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Amazing how 70 years after the event there are still people who treat the subject as a propaganda war. Did the Luftwaffe succeed in its set goals of crippling the RAF, which was one of the conditions required before an invasion could even be contemplated? Did the Luftwaffe achieve air-superiority over the seas around SE England, preventing the RN from operating against any potential invasion fleet (not forgetting the Kriegsmarine was still recovering from the Norwegian invasion, with most of its cruisers and destroyers sunk or crippled and no real battleships and no aircraft carriers to counter the British battle fleet)? Did the Kriegsmarine or Wehrmacht have the equipment to actually transport enough troops to pull off a successful invasion? Did Germany succeed in invading Britain?

The historical-strategic point is that the Luftwaffe did not succeed in any of its set goals, it's highly debatable whether enough or any troops could have been landed, even had the Luftwaffe been able to achieve even local air superiority, and last time I looked Britain hadn't been invaded. Forget all this nonsense about "national pride and similar propaganda" that's just the usual cop-out of someone trying to use spin to gloss over a German defeat. I ain't even British.

without going into the speculation over a possible invasion and how it should/could have been conducted,

Just like the Germans didn't consider the interruption of aerial operations a loss, but more of a "we'll get back to you later", the course of the war and the change of tactics meant that the aerial clashes over the Channel were never to be repeated, but considering it a defeat for the Luftwaffe is ludicrous to say the least, I think that the conclusions drawn over the Battle of Britain are often controversial, because there's a somewhat skewed perception of the events.

I suppose it's down to semantics, since it's also the use of words like "battle" and "victory" that doesn't apply in an uniform and effective way to those events.
The whole name "Battle of Britain" referred to the aerial operations over the Channel was an invention of the British propaganda machine, the Luftwaffe didn't perceive that as a battle per se, but the first part of Operation Sea Lion, so the interruption of the operation because of other commitments wasn't losing a battle.
In a way it's kinda surprising one has to explain such things, but I suppose the job made by propaganda was so good that "The Battle of Britain" earned its place in the history of UK, rightly so, but with a somewhat distorted significance.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

Is your passion for the 'alternate view' any different?
I see plenty of unreasonable agression on these forums that have nothing to do with Brits.
I did read those discussions and saw the exchanged information but it all boiled down to this weird phrase 'history is written by the winners' as if to suggest that on that basis history as we know it is the fiction, which is basically in the same category as denial of the holocaust, I'm sure had the Nazis won the war then the phrase might have some validity, we almost certainly would have been 'educated' into some very questionable versions of events, I'm sure Hitler would have had us all believe the war was fought against an evil Jewish empire that ate aryan babies and layed eggs in your brain so we had to kill them with fire, even taking into account any 'attrocity' perpitrated by the allies there has been no evidence of it being written out of history, and it's easy to look back now and say how awfull some allied actions were, would we feel differently if we were actually there though? (just a different take on it).

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

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.

[6S.Manu]

Imo the most was done by the Channel itself.

The German failed their operation because their fighters didn't had enough range to provide a true air superiority over England. It was a great mistake.. they shouldn't have started the operation without the use of droptanks.

Because the Channel's existence many German pilots were lost in the sea, while the English ones could bail out or make an emergency landing: in airwars the territory you are fighting above has really a great importance.

In my opinion it's clearly a GB's win, but not one to be really proud of: it's like a 1:0 home win during the extra time because of a German's goal in their own net...

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

In my opinion it's cleary a GB's win, but not one to be really proud of: it's more a 1:0 home win on the extra time because of a German's goal in their own net...

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?

[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.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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?

Probably. IMO during the war GB's propaganda made this win greater than it really was, but I'm not claiming they were wrong in doing this. They need it to increase their morale since the war wasn't over.

Of course, after 70 years, claiming that GB kicked Germany's ass is classless. Above all since people who's actually speaking did partecipate to the war... I'll never understand national pride...