Germany did not lose the Battle of Britain

[Avimimus]

CSThor, I agree completely.

The economic strain of the war was devastating to the United Kingdom and most Commonwealth countries also racked up decades worth of debt. In comparison the United States barely felt the strain of the war (economically that is) and were certainly could allies to have.

My assumption is simply that if England made peace in 1939, cross-Atlantic trade might well resume with the continent. This would be a disaster. If England did not make peace it would be much harder politically for an Anglo nation to conduct large scale trade with Axis Europe.

Without the Eastern Front I have trouble imagining any of the western allies, let alone the Commonwealth by itself, "walking over Germany" (prior to Trinity/the atomic bomb anyway). In all of the scenarios I assumed that the war on the eastern front would start and would eventually end with a Soviet victory (barring Allied nations joining or supplying the German army).

[revi]

Also amongst the German population was a strong 'denial' that there was such atrocities occurring at Aushwitz/Birkenau. Even today there are some diehards arguing this.

[deadmeat313]

On a similar vein, I have heard that the Germans have their own very different story to tell about the disaster at Arnhem. Bridge too far and all that.

Where the Allies see it as one of those "military operation beset by unexpected difficulties" stories, what the Germans see is that the British dropped their Elite Paratroop force in a major surprise attack - and the local Volksjaeger troops managed to contain, isolate and then defeat them!

To put this into perspective, try to imagine German Fallschirmjäger units trying to capture a British coastal town in 1940 (Lowestoft bizarrely comes to mind), and being thoroughly trounced by Dad's Army. We would bloody well never forget.

I've no sources to back this up. And I'm drunk, so I really shouldn't be posting. If any Germans can elaborate on this I'd love to hear it though.

T.

[kendo65]

Sorry to revisit this off-topic from a ways back, but...

Originally Posted by deadmeat313

On a similar vein, I have heard that the Germans have their own very different story to tell about the disaster at Arnhem. Bridge too far and all that.

Where the Allies see it as one of those "military operation beset by unexpected difficulties" stories, what the Germans see is that the British dropped their Elite Paratroop force in a major surprise attack - and the local Volksjaeger troops managed to contain, isolate and then defeat them!

To put this into perspective, try to imagine German Fallschirmjäger units trying to capture a British coastal town in 1940 (Lowestoft bizarrely comes to mind), and being thoroughly trounced by Dad's Army. We would bloody well never forget.

I've no sources to back this up. And I'm drunk, so I really shouldn't be posting. If any Germans can elaborate on this I'd love to hear it though.

T.

..think it had more to to with the two SS Panzer divisions that also happened to be in the area unbeknownst to the Allied planners

[MaxGunz]

Leaving the British Isles uncontrolled was the first big loss Germany took in WWII, after their senses of course. Britain staying free was the first big Allied gain. The course of the war bears those out and the major fighting was air battle so how can the result not be a loss for Germany? Besides the pilots lost being a significant strategic factor for no gain there is a front to guard, the resources of the Commonwealth and another bigger potential enemy behind.

Go by period German newsreels/newspapers and you get propaganda, not-facts.

[Asheshouse]

Arnhem is interesting. The airborne forces actually achieved their objectives, captured the Arnhem bridge and held the bridgehead for the time specified.

The failure was in the speed of follow up by the armoured forces.

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by revi

Also amongst the German population was a strong 'denial' that there was such atrocities occurring at Aushwitz/Birkenau. Even today there are some diehards arguing this.

The American commanders made Germans from communities local to the deathcamps tour and see the carnage in the camps. They were planning for the denials, no doubt.

Sure enough, even with millions of witnesses there will always be someone to deny it ever happened.

We don't ever want to forget what happened. It will always be a stain on the conscience of nations that knew and did nothing. It is a reminder to the rest of us, the barbarism of humankind can be horrendous--- unchecked.
-----------------------------------------------------

Everyone is watching Myanmar, sitting on their hands and the Hunta is prohibiting help. The Hunta may just be responsible for the deaths of additonal hundreds of thousands of people for not allowing other countries to provide humanitarian aid. Yet, no one wants to engage the Hunta militarily, which is probably long overdue.

Then of course countries know if they send the aid without providing distribution of the materials the Myanmar Hunta will just make their own people pay for the aid... or die.

Is this any less worse than letting Eichman and his murders systematically exterminate people? The people will be just as dead, regardless of the method.

[brando]

"Everyone is watching Myanmar, sitting on their hands and the Hunta is prohibiting help. The Hunta may just be responsible for the deaths of additonal hundreds of thousands of people for not allowing other countries to provide humanitarian aid. Yet, no one wants to engage the Hunta militarily, which is probably long overdue...."

Whether or not anyone wants to engage the Hunta militarily is a moot point, but it's pretty clear that no nation wants to a) start another war in this region, or b) wage war against a nation that is struggling to survive the aftermath of a natural disaster. It's not as though anyone could launch a pinpoint strike that would remove the military junta without a massive amount of collateral damage among the innocent.

We're getting a long way from the Battle of Britain.

B

[Avimimus]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Then of course countries know if they send the aid without providing distribution of the materials the Myanmar Hunta will just make their own people pay for the aid... or die.

Is this any less worse than letting Eichman and his murders systematically exterminate people? The people will be just as dead, regardless of the method.

One could just as easily say that the North American obsession with having houses twice as large as those in the 1950s while we refuse to divert a small amount of our wealth to providing basic universal wellfare and primary education across the globe. Not only is it feasible to solve these problems but the inconvenience, to say the least, is much less than joining the resistance would have been for the average German. More people will die than in Burma, less (in the short term) than died in the Holocaust and they will all be just as dead. It still horrifying. So, whats your point?

What is important about the Holocaust is it shows us how easily we can do what is convenient and how easily a large part of the population (across Europe) was able to turn against a number of very small minorities and wipe them out. This is an instance that should be treated with special care, studied and taught carefully. It is also a legacy that is very much with us.

So, now that your done trolling and I'm done falling for it can we return to topic?

[Vigilant]

Good link planespotter

Terrible name for the thread though Someone is kidding themselves