So nobody actually has any evidence, anecdotes or documentation and this is 15+ pages of blah blah blah, my country is better than yours, right?

Did it seriously never occur to any of you to actually reference and research the opinions of the airmen involved or is this forum just a proving ground for baseless, opinionated hypothesis and personal bickering?

No really I don't, where did I say elected you ignorant buffoon, I just don't recall many Germans opposing the new fuhrer...well not until the end of the war when at least for some Germans the penny dropped and they realised what a massive cock up they had made.

Apparently if you manage to find any information that backs up your argument it is just rubbished as baseless propaganda, to be honest I am standing my ground because I have found an overwhelming amount of literature that states the battle of Britain was germanys first defeat.

Thousands of Germans have been put into Concentration Camps or been sentenced to death for opposing Hitler, beginning in 1933 you ignorant twat!
You don't recall, well doesn't makes me wonder because it doesn't fit into your picture from the ugly german.

Well as you so eloquently pointed out, all the nice Germans were killed off by the bad ones........you moron.

And there were many more which opposed and haven't been arrested or killed, some even fought against Hitler in an Uniform of a Country which they only knew about the tales from their ancestors. Don't know what i mean, look at my avatar.
But i don't think simple minded people like you would understand that.

Ok so you find me offensive because I am critical of nazi Germany, despite apparently being of the same mind, but because you are so institutionally anti British you are on my back because I dare to criticise a german because I am British........somewhere in the ballpark pimmelkopf.

Oh and be careful of being too proud of your ancestors, some folk are a little confused by that idea.

Erm, sorry but......what?

Ok, they had a point with the Rhineland, the Sudetenlanland and the Danzig corridor.

Czeckoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, 'Oops looks like Britain doesn't want to play!', rest of Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, North Africa, some more I forget and Russia.

They may not have been 'crazies' but landgrabbing they most certainly were.

Oh sorry, it was referred to as 'Lebensraum'. Sorry, forgot.

Cheesehawk, I do believe I remember from history class in school that the ballot for the annexation of Austria read something like this:

Are you for the annexation of Austria and our Fuehrer A.H.?

They connected support for Mr. Hilter (love Monty Python) and the annexation and I do not think those votes were cast with any measure of secrecy either, so of course the Nazis got the votes and could officially call the result the will of the german people, since nobody dared to vote "no".

Now Germans generally are good, hardworking, straightforward people who have a great sense for right and wrong. This coming to power of a bunch of genocidal maniacs can happen anywhere in the world given the right set of cicumstances.
The Nazis were the scum of the earth, but they were not stupid, ruthless and just plain evil, but not stupid. They managed to exploit the situation in Germany to it's fullest and I suspect with financial backing of....well, who would have backed those bastards? Somebody did for sure.

To fully explain how they came to power would need another extremely lenghty thread.

I do have to disagree on this. Hitler and his Nazi Scum Bag Party definitely had "Lebensraum" in the East on their agenda from the beginning and their main thought was about Poland and likely already Russia (but here there might be also this rivalty between two large despotistic ideologies here). The other conquests however came more from circumstances. The France campaign and the campaign against Britain was to put these two allies of Poland (and later of Russia) out off the war before turning on Russia. This of course is no excuse.

I for my part am happy that these scumbags are gone and even the short 12 years they ruled have been too long.

Another word on "being proud of one's ancestors": In full logic these also need to be ashamed of some deeds of the ancestors or they should be called cherry-pickers. But my guess is these same people who are proud of their ancestors (long dead and therefore unable to appreciate it) just are illogical and irational while some simply can not admit it and get at least close and often beyond insulting people while trying to find a rational reason for their "being proud to be xy" (as if this was an achievement while their birthplace was just pure aleatory event).

Were discussing WWII here, the cherry picking is being done by weirdos who quote the dictionary a lot, so just to be clear, I'm proud of the deeds of my ancestors because some of them were my family, is that enough of a connection for you?

I do not know how did march in Berlin in 1945? :-P

ha! lots of Fremdschämen involved, however

I think that most of the people that have written in this pages do need to read a little more and history not some marvel books or propaganda this in the memory of all, and if I may insist, in memory of the millions of dead of all side even if the Nazis and extreme right parties should dream to fight the next one with even more dead.

Have a fun game :cool:

wow,so much hatred and angry words on this thread now.. :(

I tried to give my contribution,but it's obvious that some minds will never accept to look into history with a truly unbiased attitude.

I understand why many historians don't even bother to spread their conclusions and findings,common people are not ready for harsh reality and prefer living in a pampered state of propaganda ideas.

I personally don't think I will contribute anymore to this conversation unless we all put aside our national pride and look at things objectively.

There is no absolute good or bad as such,it's just a battle of wills.

well perhaps if you didnt have a tag like Sternjaeger you wouldn sound like such a Germanophile, about those angry words.....why haven't you had much to say on Kongo Ottos hatred fueled spume against the british....which I might add he started without the slightest provokation....unbiased....please, not the first time an Italian got sucked in by German propaganda.

p.s. just for the record Stearn....even thought that sounded harsh towards you it's not meant to get to you personally, but all this talk of biased nationalistic propaganda is going both ways.....I'm just not prepared to back down.

Please see the above post Mr 'Unbiased'.

This whole thread is seriously overmodelled, therefore I insist that it should be fixed by the devs in no time!! Also cheating, HOing, vulching and shoulder shooting along with getting a kill using superior E state has been witnessed. That is not all but I am too upset to type anymore! :D

+1

& many thx to have posted this one. I was left myself speechless by some of the above reading.

You know I have seen so many old arguments trotted out on this thread. To all those reading this whether 'biased' or 'unbiased' I highly recommend Stephen Bungay's 'Most Dangerous Enemy' it is almost universally praised and covers much (all I think) of the strategic and tactical topics covered by this thread.

One last thing. I saw a post on here that describes Dowding as incompetent, now he certainly had his faults but they were outweighed 1000 to 1 by his accomplishments. Lord Dowding was and has been judged by history as a leader of rare genius.

Regards Mike

I agree.

Unfortunately, in a previous book recommending thread, some members, and one in particular, held that book up as an example of what has been called 'propaganda for the little people'.

He didn't state at the time whether or not he'd actually read it.;)

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' :grin:

Regards Mike

:grin: You got it.

I knew you would have gone for it ;)

yes, so what? Can't this be true? Is this society flawless or it's annoying that a foreigner points out your flaws? Let's not get all nationalist and sentimental, cos we wouldn't go far..


the majority of historians, and a certain Winston Churchill himself..
"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.
The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive"

to which Harris replied

"
I ... assume that the view under consideration is something like this: no doubt in the past we were justified in attacking German cities. But to do so was always repugnant and now that the Germans are beaten anyway we can properly abstain from proceeding with these attacks. This is a doctrine to which I could never subscribe. Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier. The feeling, such as there is, over Dresden, could be easily explained by any psychiatrist. It is connected with German bands and Dresden shepherdesses. Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the East. It is now none of these things."

From Wikipedia:
"Allegations that it was a war crime
Though no one involved in the bombing of Dresden was ever charged with a war crime, there are those that hold the opinion that the bombing was a war crime.
According to Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, lawyer and president of Genocide Watch:
The Nazi Holocaust was among the most evil genocides in history. But the Allies’ firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also war crimes... We are all capable of evil and must be restrained by law from committing it.[132]
Historian Donald Bloxham states, "The bombing of Dresden on 13–14 February 1945 was a war crime."[133] He further argues there was a strong prima facie case for trying Winston Churchill among others and a theoretical case Churchill could have been found guilty. "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'pedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorization."[133]
German author Günter Grass is one of a number of intellectuals and commentators who have also called the bombing a war crime.[134]
Proponents of the war crime position argue the devastation known to be caused by firebombing was greater than anything that could be justified by military necessity alone, and this establishes their case on a prima facie basis. The Allies were aware of the effects of firebombing, as British cities had been subject to them during the Blitz.[135] War crime proponents say that Dresden did not have a military garrison, that most of the industry was in the outskirts and not in the targeted city centre,[136] and that the cultural significance of the city should have precluded the Allies from bombing it.
British historian Anthony Beevor wrote that Dresden was considered relatively safe, having been spared previous RAF night attacks, and that at the time of the raids there were up to 300,000 refugees in the city seeking sanctuary from the fighting on the Eastern Front.[137] In Fire Sites, Austrian historian Jörg Friedrich agrees the RAF's relentless bombing campaign against German cities in the last months of the war served no military purpose.[138]"

and this is the full page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...n_World_War_II

..is that biased?

Please do not take it personally, I had to make a full exam on the analysis of propaganda and it's a fact that it was probably the best invention to bend public opinion.

come on mate, you know what I meant, do we really have to go down the list of numbers and troops etc? You barely had enough men and aircraft to defend your mainland in 1939/1940.

Yes, but strategically you can appreciate that a naval battle on such a narrow bit of sea would have been a carnage. The Channel would have been infested with U-Boats and the Royal Navy wouldn't have much of an easy time sinking enemy barges, especially if the Luftwaffe gained air superiority (which they didn't, but that was the idea: air superiority, air cover for flotilla, invasion).

well, it's your choice not to feel ashamed, but as much as you glorify your successes you should also be objective and admit your flaws, otherwise you might be perceived as arrogant.

funny, you say you weren't there but you take it personally as if you were.
Great Britain didn't simply have the sheer number of aircraft and pilots to provide for a proper aerial superiority blanket. The Americans, with their 200+ airbases from which they operated, did. They weren't necessarily better, there simply were more of them.

debatable is just a polite word for wrong, call it whatever you want to call it.

yep, them again. You wouldn't have gone far without them, if you don't accept it you're just proving my point about blank stubborness.

See? We can agree on stuff :)

yep, he was no better than many other incompetent generals on both sides, but his bill consisted in some unnecessary 600k civilian casualties and 55k brave RAF airmen and pilots.

If detesting the attitude "we're the good guys so we can get away with the carpet bombing of German cities and TWO atomic bombs on Japan, cos all in all it was them who got it started and they killed more anyway" makes me biased then yes, I'm a biased historian.

It's not good guys vs bad guys, the Germans had the motto "Gott ist mitt uns" on their belt buckles, not "Sieg Satan!".

It's about winners and losers, not who's good and who's bad, if you don't use this perspective you'll never give an unbiased judgement of history.

Oh for the love of...

Again with Bungay?!

Bungay is the Tom Clancy of history books: try and mention a Bungay book at any university and see what reactions you get.. a consultant-self-proclaimed-historian, he doesn't even have a PhD in History.. and yes, you should have the decency to get one if you want to work as an historian, not make it a hobby and publish biased junk that feeds the nationalistic ego.

Read James Holland's book on the Battle of Britain, that's the definitive book on the subject.

I presume you don't include the bits where he seems to agree with you then!
:grin:

I like to keep an open mind and Bungay lays out his argument very clearly. Far better than the Holland book IMHO which just regurgates stuff really.

Regards Mike

This whole thread started with a simple statement on how the Germans (and it seems it's allies) took the defeat in the Battle of britain, now a bunch of self proclaimed unbiased historians hijacked it and turned it into 'the oppressive british empire and it's criminal bombing of Dresden!!!'

Bungay shmungay....whatever


Oh so you admit there was a planned invasion and the British thwarted it....

Back to the original topic, our flaws during the whole conflict were not the topic, none of us have denied it happened, but some question the 'illegality' of it

Right back at ya fella! you weren't there either, nor was Kongo or anyone else on this thread yet only the Brits get cross examined when we display a sense of National pride....

Yep them again, everytime somebody wants to cheapen the argument the shove the Americans upo our ass, we don't deny they came, we dont deny they were instrumental, we never claim to have won single handedly, but I might add that some believe the Americans did......and a Brit is not meant to find that a little insulting?

Well you can't blame Harris completely if those civillians refused to read British 'prpoaganda' leaflets saying BTW you might want to leave were about to bomb you......

No it's about detesting some little Austrian corporal and his claim to regaining Middle ages Saxon lands and clearing it of any non indigenous people, why does Dresden bother you so?......you werent there:rolleyes:
Wow someone actually took a shot at the Americans....the A bombs eh? arguably saved more lives because they ended the war....which quite frankly was becoming a bit of a bore..

so claiming god is on your side makes you the good guy eh?......Allah akbar!

Mike, to give you a parallel it's like saying that my GP, who's interested in cars, is expressing an opinion on what's the problem with my car is. I can listen to his opinion, and maybe he's right, but I'd rather talk to a mechanic.

'The Battle of Britain' - James Holland, published by Corgi:

Page 811, para 3:
'.....at the end of the summer, Germany was significantly worse off than she had been in May.....'.

'....It has been fashionable in recent years to play down the importance of the Battle of Britain, but to do so is wrong. It was a key - if not the key - turning point in the war....'

Page 812 para 3:
'...Germany lost the Battle against Britain.....the Luftwaffe was not big enough to do what it set out to achieve.'

Page 822, para 2:
'...that does not mean the efforts of the RAF - or of Britain as a whole - in the summer of 1940 should in any way be belittled. And the myth does largely hold true. Britain was staring down the barrel in the summer of 1940 and her survival dramatically changed the course of the war.

Page 810, Para 2;
Hans Ekkehard-Bob still insists that the Luftwaffe did not lose the Battle of Britain, and prefers to think of it as more of a draw. Ulrich Steinhilper disagrees. He thinks the RAF broke both the back and spirit of the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1940 and that they never again recovered. Certainly, by June the following year, when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, the Luftwaffe was a much smaller force than it had been the previous May, unable to fully recover from the heavy losses it suffered during the summer of 1940, in terms of both aircraft and experience.'

Also, the opinions of 'historians' regarding war crimes do not constitute prosecution or conviction, and to describe a race as 'stubborn' is racial or nationalist stereotyping, not that I object to this description personally.;)

What I'd like to see, is a short post on what you think was positive about the political, moral, strategic or tactical policies and decisions made by any British leader, either civilian or military, in Britain between the years 1935 and 1942.

To hear you talk, Britain was a nation of total incompetents, which leads me to conclude you have an agenda far from the unbiased perception of history you espouse.:-P

Eagerly waits while Sterjaeger shuffles frantically through some books

I never said they were any better, they suffered serious losses, but at no point during the Battle of Britain (and well into 1941) they were in risk of being overwhelmed by the RAF. They pointed their cannons and aeroplanes at another frontline. The question of morale is simply because the promises of Goering turned out to be as real as a 7 quid note, and because he wouldn't listen to his generals.

It was indeed. The "unfinished business" meant that you had time to refurbish your Air Force and welcome the Americans, while the Germans were still riding the illusion of a success in Russia. IF Hitler knew of the Japanese plans, I doubt he would have let go of the British front so hastily.
I am comfortable to disagree with him on this, Germany lost the war against Britain, not that specific battle. And I agree that on a broader scale the Luftwaffe wasn't just big enough.

I agree, fantastic overall effort!
That's Steinhilper's opinion, a young Luftwaffe pilot who was shot down and captured in October 1940, of course his morale was a bit down by then..

That's a wrong conclusion, since it has been proven that by the end of the war, the efforts of German aircraft construction meant that their numbers, albeit inferior to the allies, showed a growing number of aircraft from 1942 onwards.
it's history written by the winners, call it whatever you want to call it, but Churchill himself didn't feel comfortable at all with it, and you know what a tough cookie he was.

Oh, there's plenty of them:
1) territorial defence system
2) creation of Radar network (the only very good thing that Dowding did)
3) evacuation of children from major cities
4) allowing the requisition of lands to build airfields for the USAAF
5) conducting excellent campaigns in Northern Africa

You even disagree with four out of five quotes from your own recommended 'definitive history'?

Yeah mate, 'unbiased'.

The irony.......sorry hypocrisy is a bit lost on Sternjaeger when he call us stubborn.

Bongo, I have to admit my answer to your points below is a bit half-hearted, considering the playful-aggressive tone you're taking, which belongs more to a pub argument than a constructive historical analysis. Anyway..

That escalated there, it's hard to stay on topic with so many inputs.. saying that the British Empire has never been oppressive and committed crimes though is unacceptable as much as the language and behaviour or other contributors here.

au contraire mon ami, it's important to know who you're quoting, I try and go straight to witting evidence (hence my quote of Churchill's words re. the Dresden affair), and when not available I try and assess an opinion on facts and context, possibly without hindsights.

Operation Sea Lion was organised in precise(ish) stages, the British opposition to the first phase together with the strategic errors committed by Hitler and Goering postponed the plans for an invasion (that wasn't ready anyway). You definitely threw a spanner in there, which caused the battle to last more of the ridiculous 2 weeks predictions of the fat man in white.

I don't get what you mean or refer to? :confused:

We fortunately weren't there, we're just trying to understand what actually happened and why certain tags were given, which although cool, are historically wrong and biased.

The American contribution to the war and their successes over all the fronts were the key to the Allied victory of WW2, let's never forget this. The Russian offensive too can be put in the game, but the rest was ancillary. You took part to the offensive with your contingents, but after Africa, your major operation was a dramatic failure, driven by the foolish arrogance of Montgomery.

seriously? What about those that couldn't be mobilised cos they were in hospitals? Do you know what it means to evacuate a city overcrowded with refugees from other cities in a few days?? Or maybe the fact that people thought it was propaganda? That's a bad, bad way of looking at things mate.

I detest what Hitler did to the world too, but this shouldnt stop me from having an unbiased view of historical events. Dresden bothers me cos it was an unnecessary killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians. If you justify Dresden you justify the Blitz too.

...I shall not comment on your conclusion, it's abhorrent.

God was on everyone's side. American G.I.s were shocked to find that writings on German buckles, they were indoctrinated to think of Nazis as Godless evil killers.

I want to make it clear that I am not choosing sides here. But the bottom line is that the lufftwaffe though very good (the airmen) was terribly mismanaged. Thankfully this was to Englands advantage. And yes, America played a key part in their War Supply. But then WAR is rarily fair, and it certainly is not a Sim or a game, is it?

This thread hasn't been closed, yet? My, the mods must be sleeping in. :rolleyes:

you must have ran out of arguments..

I might disagree with some of the conclusions of a historian, not with the facts he gathered.

Bungay is just a good novel writer, not a historian.

Holland draws his conclusions, I and other readers/historians etc.. draw same or different ones, it's all down to personal interpretation.

But ask what Holland thinks on other matters that are so dear to the Allied cause (strategic bombing and atomic bombing for example..) and see what it suggests.

One of the differences that I noticed among veterans and later generations, is that the former show respect and understanding for their enemies, cos they were fighting for a similar cause.

At no point was this 'ever' denied......please point me to a clear bit of evidence it was 'denied'

if you are an avid 'bookworm' it is very easy to collate snippets and quotes to build a case for an argument....biased or unbiassed....hell I bet you could take quotes from 'mein kampf' and prove Hitler loved Jews.

it refered to the quote I answered to....I don't get how you don't get it.....Dresden?

?

Well whichever way you look at it, British civilians were killed in German raids too, any warnings given?.....or were the warning notes taped to the noses of the V1's and V2's

Question is do you justify the bltz?

Not 'my' conclusion...just the one history came up with

Well to be fair theres some Jewish people that might share that sentiment, who bizarrely enough worship the same god.......but that whole religion thing is something I will never get.

Oh I get it now!

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.:rolleyes:

No they just considered it is better this way - letting the folks smash each others heads while arguing over the most tragic episode of the human kind like a TV scoccer game, so they find no time to moan about the little issues at hand. :cool:

..as I said above, you're out of arguments. I exposed facts, provided you with reference material, you have just being going LALALALALA!!!

An attitude like yours would be derided in any historical discussion circle, regardless of their inclination.

It's grown up people debating here, childish or not. And it's better to have ppl talk and offend themselves but to let it burn in the background and eventually shoot each other.

[QUOTE=Sternjaeger II;338343]..as I said above, you're out of arguments.[QUOTE]

There's no further discussion necessary. I don't post on this forum to have arguments. Or to 'win' at all costs.

But when someone advocates a 'definitive book' then disagrees with four out of five quotes from it, I can only conclude as I have above.

See ya in other threads chaps.;)

http://www.notquitewrong.com/rosscot...tsomething.jpg

That's the only useful contribution I could think of..sorry.

Some of you guys are so immature I just wanna throw pooh pooh in your faces!!!! :twisted:

..you say this...

..and then this, and you expect to be taken seriously?

Truth is that I really do like talking in a civilised manner over this topic, but your condescending and uninformed attitude shows just what person you are, not capable of a mature exchange of ideas, but yet another victim of a barking propaganda machine, that's why you (and others here) know no better.

I have pretty well given up this forum, but reading through this, certain opinions do solidify, "bongodriver"= nut job
Hope these kind of nuts voice up when the EU should help out with tax money
to solve your countries debt problems.
Oh well the bigot & ignorants never die out.
And in case the message still has not gotten through no one cares about you and your idiotic heroic heros, and certainly no one needs you. Stay on your foogy island and keep dreaming your dreams of past glory, thats about all you have left.

And in case the message still has not gotten through no one cares about you and your idiotic heroic heros


But Wutz, I thought everyone loved Benny Hill? :grin:

Engerlund, Engerlund, Engerlund......Come and ave a go if ye fink yer ard enough!!! :grin:

Britain is teh best though, innit blud? :grin:

What are you waffling on about the EU for? Strange boy. In fact, don't answer that lol. I love my 'foogy' Island.......It's foogin GREAT. :D

English self defence *Parental advisory*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyUipLfgy4Y

Cheer up peeps. :grin::grin::grin:

This thread needs some lulz...no disrespect, take it for what it is.

http://i408.photobucket.com/albums/p...rldwar2RTS.gif

Nice try........but nah!

Hahaha! Classic.

Reminds me of this one:

http://youtu.be/Jib7aQBpcAM

:grin: That's excellent!

I agree.

There's evidence in the documented behavior of Hitler (losing faith in and complaining about the Luftwaffe after Dunkirk/BoB), Goering (making accusations of cowardice against his own fliers), the reassignments at OKL (Kesselring being shunted to the Med to provide token support for Italian failures) and the attitudes of German airmen (Typified by Adolf Galland's Squadron of Spitfires remarks).

Clearly the reassignment of strategic priorities relating to Operation Sealion was not without some sense of 'loss' attached to it. The fact that Germany was forced, by RAF resistance, to re-evaluate their strategic plan also provides evidence that a defeat occurred and caused a setback which was considered insurmountable in light of other strategic priorities. Then there is the cumulative effect which the loss of resources had on future operations which is hard to estimate in concrete terms but can't be disregarded.

All of that is common knowledge which requires no reference. Some of it is interpretative or subjective but, overall, enough circumstantial evidence is present to make a convincing case for the argument that Germany (and thereby the Luftwaffe) was defeated in the Battle of Britain.

Further supplements to this argument can be found by quoting the Luftwaffe personnel themselves.

Adolph Galland in reference to BoB, clearly he felt that something was at stake during the campaign.

General Werner Kreipe.

And by their operational orders.

The stated aim of Sealion:

Clearly not accomplished.

The stated aim of the Luftwaffe:

Clearly not accomplished.


As far as I am concerned the reality of history weighed against those stated strategic aims is more than enough proof that Germany lost the battle. Whatever back-pedalling the Nazis did to make things look more palatable, or whatever pillow humping the Propagandists of Whitehall did to make their triumph look conclusive, is irrelevant.

To conclude:

When you set out to do something you can either succeed or fail in your endeavor.

Those are the only two possible outcomes.

Being given cause to renege on your original course of action and adopt another indicates a realisation that your original desired outcome can not be achieved which is a failure in it's own right whether in the soundness of your plan or the method in which you implemented it.

Nazi Germany clearly stated their desire to subdue Britain by force and tasked the Luftwaffe with carrying out the initial stages of that plan. A determined attempt was made by the Luftwaffe to do so in which they failed which is proven by the fact that their objectives were not met.

This is, regardless of interpretation, and in any sense of the word, a defeat.

Right. So.....how did they cope with it?

Its a sad state of affairs when reading this thread is more fun than the game;)

They abandoned their plan to invade England and continued with their other campaigns.

Jimmy, I appreciate your input, it would be useful if you could give the source of your quotes though.

I came to the conclusion that there will never be an agreement about the outcome of the aerial battle of 1940, that's why I regard it as a draw.

The most obvious fact is that Germany didn't achieve its goals as expected, Britain managed to defend his status quo of non invaded country (apart for the small Channel islands).

This can obviously look as a blatant victory of the RAF, but there's more into it than just this conclusion.

The aerial battle that raged over the Channel and England was in a certain way a war of attrition: the frontline didn't move, the two contending parts threw their best air force capabilities, but without a proper defeat of either of the sides, just a weakening of their potential.

Focussing on the simple fact that the Germans didn't achieve what they wanted with the Operatio Sea Lion doesn't change the fact that it's Great Britain who paid the heavier toll, because of the extended bombing damage, other than the RAF losses. It's hard to consider that a win.

I believe that it (rightly) became a matter of national pride, which is completely understandable, but the connotation of victory is hardly the outcome of the Battle of Britain.

The Battle of Britain was just an attack on a siege situation, if we talk about winning the war then I couldn't agree more, but the Battle of Britain (again, mistakenly named so), was just an early attack wave against a fortification, which surely went monumentally wrong, but it wasn't there that the whole war was lost.

it was formally never abandoned.. Hitler was still blabbering about invading Great Britain in 1944..

What do you mean with "cope with it"?

I think the Nazi propaganda machine tried to convince the people that the campaign was successful (don't forget that after the failed BoB, there has been the Blitz and after the Blitz frequent incursions of low level attacks if I remember well) so possibly the broad public was not much informed about an eventual defeat or whatever name you want to give it. And soon public attention turned towards other theatres of war. So from the point of view public opinion might not have been much affected apart from those secretly listening to BBC and not taking BBC programme for too much of a propaganda itself.

About the military, I cannot tell.

In terms of planning:
Well, I guess Hitler hoped that wiping the SU off the maps (which was likely his primary goal anyway) would take away one potential ally for GB and hoping to keep GB on their island until he had finished Stalin so a two front war could be avoided (the initial motivation for seeking a decision in the West first). It might have worked if the campaign in Russia would have ended in a German victory (not likely in hindsight imho).

Beowulf: This clip is fantastic. Lol, all the remaining sparrows are so curious and want to see the end of the fight. Lol. Good find

Being lazy I tried to keep the quotes in the realm of common knowledge to avoid specific referencing. The Adolf Galland quote is probably from "Die Erste und Die Leszte" and I don't know where the Kreipe quote came from in particular but it is a well known and commonly used one.

In regards to the rest of your post, the OP did not ask if the Battle of Britain was a victory for the RAF which makes your points, though logically sound enough to be debatable, contextually irrelevant. I'm not going to be drawn into a debate which doesn't have any bearing on the point under discussion in this thread.

But...

The primary motivation of the RAF and Britain itself in 1939-41 was to play for time and to survive. The goal of any besieged faction who cannot mount an offensive of their own.

They achieved those aims, although at great cost, and I would call that a victory but given the decline of the British Empire in subsequent decades and the recent resurgence of right wing nationalism it might have been a Pyrrhic victory as you suggest.

If "Germany didn't achieve its goals as expected", then Germany lost and GB won, PERIOD.

Germany lost 1,922 aircraft (including 879 fighters, 80 Stukas and 881 bombers). German Luftwaffe losses from August 1940 until March 1941 were 2,840 aircraft. Casualties of the German aircrew were 3,363 KIA, 2,117 WIA and 2,641 taken prisoner.

The Lw never really recovered from these losses.

Germany paid the heavier toll as GB was not knocked out of the war. Damage during the BoB and the Blitz was quickly repaired.

I was getting back on track to the OP. Jim Blonde's reply was very similar to the one I gave the OP at the very beginning of this convoluted thread.

By whom? And there we have it. :lol:

Sorry folks, I said I was out. I tried. Honest.

that's the tangible evidence I was looking for :rolleyes:

Interesting numbers, but I have different ones

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

GB Strength at the beginning of the conflict:

1,963 serviceable aircraft

Germany strength at the beginning of the conflict:

2,550 serviceable aircraft.

544 aircrew killed 2,698 aircrew killed
422 aircrew wounded
967 captured
638 MIA bodies identified by British Authorities
1,547 aircraft destroyed 1,887 aircraft destroyed


So Germany had more planes and lost slightly more, but in fact it proportionally lost less aircraft. The huge difference in terms of aircrew is because apart for the 109s, all attacking aircraft were multi-crew (the skilled crew members like pilots and navigators lost were in similar numbers of the ones lost by the RAF).

As I mentioned before, it was attrition and it caused similar losses on both ends.
the LW neve recovered from the losses of the Eastern Campaign, not the Battle of Britain. Thanks to replacements they still had pretty much the same number of aircraft when the BoB ended and Barbarossa started.

43000 civilians killed and 46000 wounded is small numbers to you? :shock:

*facepalm* I'm sorry, I can't continue on this with you Dutch..

Why?

'The war was lost' puts you in the Nazi camp. Or at best the axis powers camp.

'The war concluded with the outcome that it did because.....' shows unbiased opinion.

'The war was lost' demonstrates what I would refer to as bias.

Not in a very clever way, either.

Yeah but what do you mean specifically? How did who cope with it? Do you mean the Luftwaffe as a force or the aircrews themselves?

The battle didn't seem to have any real overall influence on the way the Luftwaffe operated as a force. No serious strategic revisions were made and no big restructuring took place. Some people might have liked them to occur but it seems that the Luftwaffe was considered merely a supporting arm of the German war machine rather than a driving force behind it. Time and resources were against Germany also, all but the most delusional must have known it.

As for the crews, maybe biographies, diaries or PoW debriefings can tell. They remained optimistic enough to fight hard for the years after but I'm sure that a few must have seen the writing on the wall. Not many though, most people aren't that imaginative and contemplating defeat is not a good warrior trait.

Let's see if we can not sum up this thread up..

AXIS 0
ALLIEDS 1

Nuff said?

The losses in terms or aircraft were trivial to the Luftwaffe and RAF alike, both sides had the capacity to produce more aircraft than they had pilots to fly them. The kill figures just make a good score-card for the drones who provide the labour.

The losses in experienced crews were the deciding factor.

Basically the core of Luftwaffe veterans was depleted to a point which subsequent attrition never allowed full recovery from whereas, on the RAF side, they didn't have that many combat veterans to lose. Mainly the RAF lost inexperienced replacements with whom the British bought themselves time where they could probably withdrawn to the north and saved themselves the trouble since the Germans could not make a strategic impact on Britain by air power anyway, nor is it entirely convincing that they could have invaded in light of their entirely inferior naval strength and the logistical demands of such an undertaking.

Also, 43,000 fatalities looks like a big number, well, it is a big number. However, in terms of bombing casualties during WW2, is isn't really that big. Civilian losses during many late war allied raids reached totals like that in less than a week, sometimes even in a single raid. Take Dresden for example, current estimates put the toll from that one night at 25,000 killed. Hamburg, 50,000, Pforzheim, 18,000. In Tokyo the largest casualty figure from a single conventional raid is estimated to have been 88,000 killed in one night during February 1945. (Figures all from Wiki for what it's worth)

Destruction of civilian and industrial property is widely acknowledged as only having a marginal effect on the war effort by both sides, this is a well documented and incontrovertible fact. People can relocate, industry can go underground.

Just look at German aircraft production figures in 1944. The combined weight of the sustained RAF and USAAF bombing campaigns made absolutely no dent in German industrial capacity at all in regards to aircraft production. Figures show that production actually steadily increased during the entire campaign as demand increased. Basically the allied plan to disrupt aircraft production in the Reich by bombing factories was a total failure in terms of their specified objective and it wasn't until ground forces secured those centers that production halted.

The true success of their efforts came from the attrition of resistance and the depletion of strategic resources.

Are you guys still at it?

War's over, has been for a long time, remember the dead on all sides and the lives they never had.

Don't try to rewrite history by arguing about what cannot be argued about.


And how did the luftwaffe pilots cope with their defeat? Everyone differently in his own way.

On that bases you can say
Britons 0
Romans 1

Or
Normal people 0
Hooligans and looters 1

any more wacky comparisons?

Whacky?.......OMG you really are in complete denial.

how can a country that ended up split in two and occupied by 4 different nations for decades not consider itself defeated?

I'm all outta popcorn :(

Surley success can only be measured against objective?

The German objective was air supremacy over southern England, the British objective was to stop that. So that's a victory for that particular phase.

Problem with the Battle of Britain is that at the time nobody really knew it had finished, it just sort of changed into the Blitz period.

Back to the OT, I think a lot of the LW people were disillusioned with German High Command ofter the BoB. In the same way that the RAF became disillusioned with the fighter sweeps and bomber escorts of the later years.

As for the score... Wasn't it 2-0? (tounge is firmly in cheek!)

Bingo.

It was Winston Churchill that spoke first on the radio about "the Battle of Britain", and it became the propaganda name for it, but de facto the air operations of Germany against Great Britain were just a part of the invasion plan, and the bombing of England continued up to 1945 with V1s and V2s.

The glory of the Battle of Britain is a modern phenomenon (you probably know better than me that up until the movie Battle of Britain the public opinion knew or cared little about it. So the idea was to pick up on a moment of national pride and dust it off, but it has been misinterpreted. Surely the brave RAF pilots and everyone involved deserve all the praise in the world for the fantastic effort made to stop the Germans, but the effort to repel the air offensive of 1940 doesn't mean there was a straight victory.

The propaganda was in need of a positive message, so they started claiming the victory of a battle that was perceived as such only from one side.

I dunno if I made myself clear, I reckon I should gather my thoughts and expose them in a more organic form. I am still afraid that national bias is getting in the way here. Nobody is depriving you of your pride or anything like that, it's just a case of a fair assessment of a specific part of the war.

Stern you have made some really interesting points throughout this discussion. But your comment about the glory of the Battle of Britain being a modern phenonomenon kick started by the 1969 movie is absolutely and totally wrong, laughable actually. The Battle and the 'Few' was part of the british consciousness from 1940 onward and revered.

I'll add an edit, I think you must have been trolling with that remark. Quite frankly its the same as saying to any American on the forum that everyone had forgotten about Pearl Harbor until Michael Bay made a (very, very, very bad) movie about it!

Regards Mike

Mike, I know what you mean, I found it silly myself, but it was was I was told by many people who were here in the 60s. There wasn't a lot of celebration for WW2 veterans 20 years after the end of the war.

I can't believe I am reading some of this stuff. The RAF victory in the Battle of Britain is because had the Luftwaffe succeeded the next phase was to be an invasion!

The RAF also caused massive damage to the LW but the main result was that by the end of the air battle the UK and it's Empire was still very much in the fight and the RAF was stronger than before.

At that point in time the UK and it's Empire was the only opposing force to German and it's allies. Had we lost and been invaded the USA would never have joined the war and Russia could very well have been defeated!

Stern don't confuse the overall WW2 remembrance with the Battle of Britain. It was and is an absolute part of the national consciousness and culture. I'm sure as the Few and my parents generation pass away it will of course dim but then it will take on a different form and take it's place alongside Hastings, Trafalgar and Waterloo. (all draws? ;))

Regards Mike

Mike, I remember buying the DVD of the restored edition of Battle of Britain, inside there was a short documentary with interview to the average people on the street, and very few could give a precise definition of the Battle of Britain: many had no idea, some believed that it was how Great Britain won WW2..

I think the examples that you mentioned are bang on: Hastings, Trafalgar and Waterloo were the battles that determined a final victory of one of the sides, comparing them to the aerial battle of 1940 over the channel is a mistake, since they weren't sub-conflicts of a much wider war.

After Great Britain declared war to Germany, V-E day was celebrated in 1945, not in 1940. In the grand scheme of things the aerial Battle of Britain was an early large scale attrition war, which ended up with similar results (apart for the thousands of civilian casualties on the British side) for both sides. No matter how hard you try to think of it, you can't really think of it as a victory.

In hindsight, considering what happened afterwards and how the war ended, you can say that it was a contributing factor to the ultimate victory, but nothing suggests that, had Hitler decided so, the Luftwaffe couldn't have carried on operations against Great Britain for longer.


Let's think of an example which might not be as emotionally linked as the BoB, think of the Battle of Kursk:

Russia lost 3 times the number of men, vehicles and aircraft that they displaced, but they pushed back the Germans and gained territory. It's an awkward situation, cos it cost them a lot more in terms of men and resources, but they managed to push back the enemy and gain territory.

With the Battle of Britain nothing changed.

I won't comment on historical analysis via DVD extra's.

It most certainly was a victory and a very, very important one.

No Trafalgar wasn't a final battle if was very much a 'sub conflict' (to use your term), it was a battle where both (three sides really) sides took heavy losses (both during and after the battle) and one that safeguarded the UK from invasion. I think the comparison is very apt even down to the fact that Trafalgar is IMHO has greater 'cultural' recognition than Waterloo and Hastings.

Regards Mike

It is a victory, it's not as obvious because there was no mass surrender, or no symbolic flag raising, or no territory gained. However it was a victory. If one side achieves thier goal and the other dosn't, it's not a draw. It was a battle for air supremacy ,'to destroy Fighter Command, in the air and on the ground', not part of the invasion, the invasion was dependant on the outcome of the air battle.

It was also a big confidence boost, Britain had 'stood firm', the first country in Europe to do so. I can, and do, think of it as a victory, quite small in the scheme of things, numbers wise, but vital. It was also a battle that favoured the defenders, for all sorts of reasons, not least The Channel, but we've had that for centuries, the Island Mentality.


You cannot ignore the complete failure of German high command, they are after all part of the battle. The ifs and maybes can never be known. All we do know is that Hitler and his generals never returned to try and finish off Fighter Command.

I know we've got previous and I'd like to keep this civil, if it wasn't a draw, and the LW didn't achive their objective how can you say that it was'nt a victory, if not for Britain, then at the very least for Fighter Command. They did their job. The LW couldn't.

Exactly, the Nazi's blitzed across europe as if nothing stood in their way, but got their first taste of resistance from us on our doorstep......but I think the penny has dropped....it wasn't a victory because of our efforts.....it was the tea, nothing seems to be more repugnant to a German than our love of tea, see how many times in this forum a German has tried to insult a brit over our tea drinking.....I guess it's like garlic for vampires.

Great Britain achieved its goal when Germany surrendered.

Guys, how can you possibly not see that after fighting for months over the Channel, the RAF paid a HUGE price in terms of aeroplanes and above all pilots, and so did Germany, but the Luftwaffe had its forces in Africa, Greece, Russia, Norway and mainland Europe? How can that be a defeat? It was a large scale skirmish, which produced almost equal losses and became relevant only when the USA joined and used England as a massive aircraft and troop carrier.

That I completely agree with. And I'm afraid that this "island mentality" is confusing the judgement of you guys, again I'm not expecting this thing to be understood by the common people, but people like you, who have an interest in aviation and history can't talk about this in terms of victory and defeat.

So what do you make of Pearl Harbour? Was that a Japanese victory? It was a part of a larger conflict.

I'm not ignoring that, the German high command took wrong decisions constantly after Dunkirk, but this doesn't mean that they thought they were doing the right thing.
I appreciate the fact you want to keep it civil, and I hope you see I have the same intentions.

The RAF Fighter Command was put in front of an extremely steep learning curve, truth is that the RAF flew and fought with territorial advantage and had to employ only figthers, not bombers or other complex aircraft.

The opposition they put up against the Germans was exemplar, but in some phases desperate. Still their determination together with the ineptitude of the German command meant that they could put up a fight with inferior machines and still be able to limit damage.

In some way they were given a task somehow simpler than the German one: they knew what what they were defending, the Germans didn't really know what they were attacking.

why, because it's in a movie DVD? It's witting testimony, direct accounts from the 60s there for you, not a book written by someone, but audio/video reference.

The outcome of the Battle of Britain was very very important indeed, but it wasn't a victory..

I always get the impression that there's a weird conception of Victory here: take the Schneider Cup, did you win that one too? I'd be embarrassed to say yes to that.

the cultural recognition is debatable me thinks. What do you base it on, the fact that you have a celebrative square in London?

With all this talk of British inferior machines but territorial advantage and German leadership ineptitude blah.....we really just need to weigh up each sides wakness and strenght and it will pretty much equate to an even match....which the Germans came off worst from.

p.s. just to add I'm talking in that particular battle with the immediate forces involved and not the German military as a whole or their other conflicts at the time.

testimony of a very few people, and it may have even been edited deliberately to give the impression, who can say they didn't interview as many if not more people who knew all about it? they just never got put into the final cut.

Go out on the steets of America and ask where France is (theres even a funny video about it)....it doesn't mean the US as a whole is ignorant of geography.

By the rules of the competition at the time....yes we did.

Just out of interest, what exactly is the agenda here with trying to discredit every achievent Britain ever made?

To address your points

1.
I'm seriously going to leave the DVD, I think ignoring a vast amount of information and deciding that a DVD extra is the best source is just daft.

2.
What has the Schneider trophy got to do with this?

3.
Well the square, the preserved HMS Victory, the currency (up to quite recently), the Trafalgar day celebrations (widely celebrated on the 200th anniversary) , the beer... hmmmmmm beer etc, etc.

Regards Mike

Yes Pearl Harbor was a big tactical Japanese Victory.

Could you do me a favour and run the Battle of Midway through your personal 'What constitutes a victory' filter and let me know the results?

Regards Mike

NO, they didn't. GB came off worst because of the bombing damage and casualties, the air forces suffered similar losses.
Imaging walking around Coventry or London in 1940 and say "hey! We won the battle!", how awkward and out of place you reckon it would have been?
The whole postwar celebration of the Battle of Britain on the British side is because there actually wasn't one back then, cos war carried on, and so did the Blitz.

Yeah, racing alone while others deliberately didn't sounds like a great challenge uh? :rolleyes:

No, I've listed before the successes and achievements of Britain.

'The official Government publication called The Battle of Britiain, which tells the story of those glorious days when the R.A.F. hurled back the overwhelming might of the Luftwaffe between August and October last year, has proved of so great interest to the public that all copies have been sold out at His Majesty's Stationery Office, Kingsway, London.

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/r...reenwidth=1903

It's your opinion, mine was an example.

It was meant as a provocation in regards to the definition of "victory". But then again I suppose you think it was a honourable victory..
I agree about the beer... hmmmmmmmm beer ;)

Really? Why there needs always to be this "winning and losing" scenario? Pearl Harbour was a surprise attack, it was a success, but not a victory.

I gave you the example of the battle of Kursk.

Which year is this?

Now why do you think the two things in the eye's of the British people were two seperate things each with their own name?

It's because the Battle of Britain was understood to be about preventing invasion and the Blitz was about bombing the civilians with the aim of breaking the countries will to carry on fighting.

The british public well knew that they had 'survived' that the invasion hadn't happened (how ever likely it was) and they knew that the RAF was responsible.

If you had said to someone in London or Coventry (or many other cities) hey we won the Battle of Britain I fully would have expected them to reply 'But were bleedin well losing the Blitz!'

Regards Mike

Not me about Kursk. I'm interested in your view on Midway.

Regards Mike

I'm sorry Mike, but the RAF was up there mainly to stop bombers, not to fight against Luftwaffe fighters. Although they shot down many, many others delivered their lethal load to hundreds of targets in Britain, making thousands of victims. Is that a victory?

Yep sure is. The Luftwaffe's job (according to FD16) was to make an invasion uneccessary (by getting the Brits to the negotiating table, which Hitler expected) or make it possible.

It failed in both, lots of people were killed by bombs, lots of RAF fighters were shot down and the Germans never got close to achieving either aim.

The RAF succeeded in what it had to do. The Luftwaffe failed in what it had to do.

So yes that's a victory.

Is your definition of a victory that for it to be so you can't sustain any damage or casulties?

Regards Mike