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

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

I don't know if America is exactly in denial, but our powers that be definitely put a spin on how we won the war. We fought in proxy, giving the Brits their 100 octane, which has already been proven to have defeated Germany by itself on these very forums (sarcasm off now). That and the other goodies through lend-lease that enabled Britain and Russia to continue the war in our stead, so we could come in at the end and get our share of the plunder (mostly just reinforcing the superiority of capitalism). America was a de facto participant in the war since early 1940, and if the Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbor, who knows how much longer our boys would have stayed here before finally rolling up our sleeves to get involved in blood instead of just sweat.

Now that is something I have to take issue with (And i think I'm right in assuming that your irony tongue is well and firmly in your cheek!). I reckon America would've become involved at some stage anyway.

The role of America is all too often underplayed by the British, including members of my own family. I don't consider December 1941 to be the 'end' of the war, nor do I espouse the view that 'we won the war with the help of America and Russia', which in fairness is all too prevalent in some.

There are ordinary people in Britain who realise that but for the economic and industrial power of America, and the quite unbelievable resilience of the Russian people and their armies, Britain would have been hard put to continue the war in any form, which of course is why the UK ended the war in debt to America to the extent that rationing only totally ceased in 1958.

It also bankrupted the Empire, and I'm convinced that Churchill knew this when he said 'no matter what the cost, or the agonies may be', with which statement he made clear that he was willing to sacrifice that which he and the majority of the British populace held most dear.

I suppose that it's this level of sacrifice, to rid the world of a 'monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime' that makes us Brits so adamant.

We bloody won the Battle though. So there.

[MB_Avro_UK]

Hi all,

You know what's not been mentioned so far? And it's a positive.

Neither side shot at parachuting airmen. There was some sort of mutual respect.

Any examples?

Perhaps 'Total War' was not part of the language then?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[adonys]

Shooting parachutes no.. but I remember I've read some accounts saying that the brits were destroying the german life-buoys to not allow the germans to recover pilots downed into the Channel.

[MB_Avro_UK]

The life-buoys didn't work. Their mooring chains broke and they were carried away by the sea currents.

Maybe you are thinking about the luftwaffe rescue float planes for downed airmen? Such as the He-59?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by MB_Avro_UK

The life-buoys didn't work. Their mooring chains broke and they were carried away by the sea currents.

Maybe you are thinking about the luftwaffe rescue float planes for downed airmen? Such as the He-59?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

the ones that were painted with a red cross but also, allegedly, carried out recon missions...

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by MB_Avro_UK

Hi all,

You know what's not been mentioned so far? And it's a positive.

Neither side shot at parachuting airmen. There was some sort of mutual respect.

Any examples?

Perhaps 'Total War' was not part of the language then?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Dowding wanted to order his pilots to shoot 'chutes but Churchill vetoed it.

[fruitbat]

it happened, from both sides from time to time. i've certainly read references to it regarding both sides.

theres also the nice taped conversations of a few Germans shot down during the BoB describing how they enjoyed shooting at houses, buses etc. I have no doubt in my mind that it happened the other way around at the end of the war.

you can still read the transcripts of these lovely people who didn't realise they were being taped.

war brings out the utter shit in some people. on all sides.

a couple of pleasant exerts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...y-2263579.html

[TomcatViP]

I don't want to be moralistic but it's hard to compare the brutality of the Axis forces and the deaths involved in teh liberation of those countries.

Pls see the diag there :

http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm

8M killed by the allies including 1.6 M civilians causalities (yes far too much)

40M by the Axis regimes including 25.6M of civilians ! (and those countries did not really have strategic bomber forces)

Obviously you don't kill 40M of ppl just by signing your name on an order form (at that time there was no nuke to be feared). Millions of others had to be committed in the blood bath.

[Madfish]

I don't think morals are a solution. There will always be opinions anyways. In fact if you just go by numbers then you'd have to face the issue of our planet being overpopulated even though we had those wars anyways. And that is not an excuse but it's an indicator of what will happen again: conflicts!

Earth doesn't have unlimited rescources. There may be countries or individuals who are rich, e.g. have huge territories etc. but as long as they sit on it and don't distribute it there will be crime and there will be wars. Simple as that.

Also keep in mind that almost a billion is in grave danger of starvation with about 5 million dying yearly. So all cruelties of the war aside the real killers out there are usually something the developed countries don't care about. We sit on our wealth and try to defend, expand and exploit.

From that perspective it doesn't even matter what happened during the war or who won what battle - if you want to be moralistic either defend earth and rid if from it's overpopulation or try to save these people dying from hunger. Of course you could add those who die from desease, exploitation and crimes etc. as well. It's just such a complex task that starting and fighting wars seems to be easier and certainly more lucrative to the people behind the wars. The industry e.g.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by arthursmedley

Dowding wanted to order his pilots to shoot 'chutes but Churchill vetoed it.

That's a new one on me.

All accounts I've read say that Dowding's opinion was that German parachuting aircrew were prisoners, no longer combatants and should not be shot at, whereas the Germans would have been within their rights to shoot at British aircrew parachuting over England as they would soon be back in the fight.

Churchill was appalled at this notion but had no 'veto' to make, the Luftwaffe jagdflieger luckily held a different view also.

There are reports of it happening on both sides, although whether by accident or design is purely speculative. The Poles in particular had a 'reputation', but there's no concrete proof as far as I'm aware.