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

[ATAG_Dutch]

Woah there Bongo mate, you took my statement entirely out of context.

There's no-one more emphatic than I in affirming that we bloody won the Battle no matter what any of the latter day excuse mongers drone on about.

I wasn't making any excuses for anyone, but it is my opinion that but for the Channel and the existence of the Royal Navy, Germany's land and airforces combined would've stuffed us. Until such time as the empire, the dominions and the U.S. came to our aid.

But I repeat, we did win and won hands down.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Woah there Bongo mate, you took my statement entirely out of context.

There's no-one more emphatic than I in affirming that we bloody won the Battle no matter what any of the latter day excuse mongers drone on about.

I wasn't making any excuses for anyone, but it is my opinion that but for the Channel and the existence of the Royal Navy, Germany's land and airforces combined would've stuffed us. Until such time as the empire, the dominions and the U.S. came to our aid.

But I repeat, we did win and won hands down.

it's a delusional idea man, it's propaganda for little people, history tells otherwise.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

it's a delusional idea man, it's propaganda for little people, history tells otherwise.

Here we go again eh Stern?

History does not tell otherwise, and propaganda works both ways.

1) Hitler did not wish for war with Britain

2) He thought he could bring us to the negotiating table by threat of or actual invasion and establishment of air superioity.

3) Goering said the RAF would last 'two weeks'.

Hitler got what he didn't want, i.e. war with Britain

He didn't force us to the negotiating table or succeed in invading or establishing air superiority.

RAF fighter command had more pilots and aircraft at the end of the Battle than the start, which is more than can be said for the Luftwaffe.

Hitler for once, didn't get what he wanted, which was a 'Free hand in Europe', and suffered the first real setback he'd encountered since coming to power.

I fail to see which part of 'winning' you don't understand.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Here we go again eh Stern?

History does not tell otherwise, and propaganda works both ways.

1) Hitler did not wish for war with Britain

yes, someday you'll open a history book that is not together with the Sun and you might realise that you're talking nonsense..

Hitler didn't want to wage war against Britain mainly cos he didn't need it (as much as this is a beautiful country, it didn't have any strategic or resource value whatsoever, at least back in the late 30s), he regarded it as a possible European ally against the "Bolshevik threat".

2) He thought he could bring us to the negotiating table by threat of or actual invasion and establishment of air superioity.

that was Plan B. Plan A was what I mentioned above.

3) Goering said the RAF would last 'two weeks'.

Goering dressed up like a Nazi Elton John and had his same competence in terms of air warfare. The truth is that the Luftwaffe was a potent machine throughout the Battle, and had they stuck to the original plans of crippling airfields and factories, you would have had no air superiority over your own country.

He was arrogant and obviously 2 weeks was a ridiculous statement to make his boss happy, and as you know, his boss was a fan of ridiculous statements right until the end, when he was moving imaginary battalions on the map.

Hitler got what he didn't want, i.e. war with Britain

Hitler was extremely short tempered, had he arranged things better, making sure that a suitable invasion flottilla was ready, he would have steamrolled his way all the way up North.. Let's not forget how much they advanced in Russia and how close they got to Moscow, do you really think that, had they really wanted to invade Britain, the Channel or the Royal Navy would have stopped them?

He didn't force us to the negotiating table or succeed in invading or establishing air superiority.

yes, simply cos you were of no interest and had no resources that he could be interested in, and his military command realised that it would have been too much logistical effort to conquer such an irrelevant country, because, let's face it, they kicked you out of the European mainland and spared a slaughter of British troops in Dunkirk.

Hitler simply said "enough of this, it's taking too long, we'll get back to them once we're done with Russia". Big mistake, cos in the meantime the Americans joined the party.. but hey, had they kept a better relationship with their Allies, they would have known better..

If the Americans didn't join in, you would have been sad spectators of the horror going through Europe. You wouldn't surely have been able to invade the European mainland by yourselves.

RAF fighter command had more pilots and aircraft at the end of the Battle than the start, which is more than can be said for the Luftwaffe.

yes, cos they were moved to other fronts. Also, shall we comment on the preparation and skills of your poorly trained pilots back then? Some of those poor guys were sent up with less than 25 hours on the Spitfire and Hurricane.

Hitler for once, didn't get what he wanted, which was a 'Free hand in Europe', the first setback he'd encountered since coming to power.

I fail to see which part of 'winning' you don't understand.

Great Britain was no mainland Europe, he had no interest in invading you, his idea of Seeloewe was just a childish tantrum, and for that tantrum thousands of people died.

The Battle of Britain was a draw. Nobody ever won it.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Great Britain was not mainland Europe, he had no interest in invading you

All of that great rambling post simply agrees with what I said, apart from you considering the Battle a 'Draw'.

And I don't read The Sun.

[bongodriver]

You may want to extend that argument to....well, what about a quarter of the world?
You are aware your are constantly shooting your own food with this argument? Why won't try something like "whatever the reasons, in hindsight it was the right thing to do"?
Lots of people would agree with this, even on the other side of the argument. But insisting on post war findings being the reason for pre war descisions serves nobody with a real interest to understand what was happening back then.

Where have I given the impression it wasn't the right thing to do, a quarter of the world? they had no obligation to join the fight, they made their own decisions, it's not like we could hold the canadians , aussies, kiwis and south africans to ransom over it, no we did the right thing ok, and the Americans only joined in......well lets just say it wasn't because we made them do it eh!

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Where have I given the impression it wasn't the right thing to do, a quarter of the world? they had no obligation to join the fight, they made their own decisions, it's not like we could hold the canadians , aussies, kiwis and south africans to ransom over it, no we did the right think ok, and the Americans only joined in......well lets just say it wasn't because we made them do it eh!

And how did it come that aussies, kiwis, indians, south africans had to make that choice in the first place?

The UK conquored all of the world and from my POV, if you want to blame Germany for conquoring all of Europe you have to stop being a British Citizen, or at least argueing from that basis on, and become a human being just like everyboy else. Only from that perspective is fingerpointing justified.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

All of that great rambling post simply agrees with what I said, apart from you considering the Battle a 'Draw'.

And I don't read The Sun.

it was a draw. The Battle of Britain was about air superiority over the Channel. You didn't gain air superiority over the Channel area even after the Battle of Britain was over, did you? You had to wait for the Americans to show up in order to achieve that.

Just kidding about the Sun mate

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The Battle of Britain was about air superiority over the Channel. You didn't gain air superiority over the Channel area even after the Battle of Britain was over, did you? You had to wait for the Americans to show up in order to achieve that.

Nope, it was about air superiority over Southern England and the Channel in preparation for the threatened invasion. Britain certainly did achieve air superiority over Southern England, the Channel was kind of like the net in a tennis match.

And I wasn't there personally, not having been born until 22 years afterwards.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Hitler was extremely short tempered, had he arranged things better, making sure that a suitable invasion flottilla was ready, he would have steamrolled his way all the way up North.. Let's not forget how much they advanced in Russia and how close they got to Moscow, do you really think that, had they really wanted to invade Britain, the Channel or the Royal Navy would have stopped them?

Yes, that is what I think.

The Battle of Britain was a draw. Nobody ever won it.

You are clearly deluded.