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

[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.

[Al Schlageter]

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.

Can't have revisionist history.

[fruitbat]

Stern is as stubborn as he is wrong, you'll have more chance nailing diarrhea to the ceiling that getting him to change his mind. imo its pointless to ague with such people.

Kind of fun to watch though.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Stern is as stubborn as he is wrong, you'll have more chance nailing diarrhea to the ceiling that getting him to change his mind. imo its pointless to ague with such people.

Kind of fun to watch though.

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.

[kendo65]

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.

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.)

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

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.

[fruitbat]

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.

this.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by blackmme

I am put in mind of Captain Beard from Blackadder going 'There are two school's of thought on that.... Mine and everyone else's'

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

This 'unbiased' approach to history is simply your personal interpretation and your personal interpretation alone.
Therefore no-one can argue with this 'unbiased opinion' because no-one else is you, and if they do argue they are ipso facto biased and the victims of baseless propaganda.
Well, if it works for you.

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.

And round and round we go. Well put Ken.

[robtek]

It can not be, what shouldn't be!

[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 Sternjaeger II

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 may be impartial, I don't really know. But regardless, you are wrong. You remind me of Stephen Fry arguing that WWII finished in 1990, because only then was Germany reunified etc.

in fact nobody picked up in an unbiased way on the facts I have exposed

They have, you are just too stubborn to see it. You argue that the RAF was on its knees, so people give you facts and figures on aircraft and pilots. You don't understand that Germany lost more pilots from the fight because they were fighting further from home. You're shown the objectives that Hitler set out, that the Luftwaffe failed to meet, so you ignore the facts of what did happen and start talking about what might have happened had Germany not been a bit busy elsewhere. You are given facts, not personal attacks, but you reply by trying to patronise others and put words into their mouths, suggesting a few of us think that ALL civilian deaths are just fine.

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.

What, like some of the descriptions of the Russian army a few pages back? Is there anyone here at all that thinks that?

This thread was about the BoB being the Luftwaffe's first defeat, a fact which you blindly deny.