1941

I'm confused, so what's this to prove?

Stern, you asked what year the book was published ;) by the way the clue was "October LAST year" This thread reminds me of the Odin thread on the zoo. He thought that the Brits should have lost because they deserved to. He got very upset and ended up banned by BG.

Indeed!

Thanks for the hint, didn't realise it.

I don't think Britain should have lost, I'm very very happy things went as they did, I just hate it when propaganda gets in the way of history, that's all.

A message to you to all the forum members merging in this thread: if you expose an intelligent exchange of ideas and conclusion I am up for it, but I will feel free to ignore every provocative or out of context message, just don't have time to play with all of you ;)

No problem. I find this stuff interesting. I dont think that anyone on the German side realized the consequences of the British still fighting on. In other words no need for the Afrika Korps to exist, no need to build as many U boats, no need to use the paratroops in Crete, no need to keep the Luftwaffe in France Holland and Norway, no problem getting oil from Libya no need to produce as much A/A hardware etc this would make operations in the Soviet Union much easier.

The Battle of Britain was a defensive victory, Britain was attacked - and Britain defended herself - successfully. I call that victory. The Luftwaffe could not continue with the attack on Britain effectively after that point, for many reasons, particularly with the British technological advances in radar and communications, the poor decisions of the Nazi leadership up until then and after, the heavy losses of experienced German aircrews, the failure of the Nazi war machine to produce an effective heavy bomber etc... Most importantly psychologically the RAF now had the edge - after winning the Battle of Britain.

It has been mentioned here that Churchill did not perceive this as a victory which is wrong, - 'Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few' - was specifically describing the victory. Yes he later made a statement to remind people that this had been a battle, and although it had been won the war would continue.

Ok so losses of men and machines on both sides were comparable,(although with inferior machines and fewer numbers the RAF still managed to attrit the Luftwaffe to the point of defeat - not destruction but defeat) this does not negate the fact that, the attack was fought off, so therefore it was victory for the defenders. Tactical, maybe. Insignificant to anyone else other than the British, maybe, but a victory none the less. Many historians and academics regard it as a pivotal victory, pertaining significance to the eventual outcome of the war, I don't like to speculate. But in terms of the battle itself, it was won by the RAF and lost by the Luftwaffe.

I think you are absolutely correct, they assumed that after they had finished the Soviet Union off in a few weeks they could come back and deal with Britain. Clearly they never considered that the UK could form the springboard for America to bring her energy, effort and resources to bare. Then again they obviously never even considered that when they declared war on the US! Is that declaration of war the single biggest strategic mistake in military history?

Regards Mike

Why am I reminded of a football game with a score of 1:0? The loosing team claims the game was a tie because the goal scored on them was an 'own goal'.

I dunno man, it's a combination of facts that makes me think it was a draw:

1) Germany didn't achieve its results as planned, but it didn't give up, it turned its attention to another front.
2) Britain did sustain a lot of damage by the bombing raids, which continued well into 1941.
3) There was no change in terms of territorial dominance (heck, channel islands weren't even freed until the end of the war!), just a war of attrition, with Britain sustaining more of the damage.

1. It didn't give up, it just stopped trying... uhuh gotcha....

2. Yes but unless one of those raids had a nuke onboard it wasn't going to change diddly....

3. Yes you are correct there was no change of territorial dominance. Trouble for your argument is that one of the stated aims of one side was to affect a change of territorial dominance and the stated aim of the other was to prevent this!

And yet you think it was a draw.....

Regards Mike

ok, let´s not use the terms victory or defeat or draw. germanys goal was to force gb to the negotiation table or destroy gb air force to the point, that an invasion can be considered. since neither of those two goals were achieved, i call that a big failure at least. whereas england reached their goal, preventing air superiorty of lw, which i´d call a success.

though i can understand, why u say it´s a draw stern, with the reasons you have given, i on the other hand think it is still a defeat. yes they delayed their plans and moved onto another frontline, but on the other hand, would they have done the same, if "Operation Seelöwe" were successful? what if hitler used this failure as an excuse, not to lose his face? yes, it is highly speculative, but we didn´t live at that time, we only know, what historians found. but even a historian doesn´t know, what went on in the individuals head. we are talking about the us, germany, france and so forth, but we are not taking into consideration the personality of their leaders.

so long uri

PS: sorry, but since english is not my native tongue, my ideas and opinions are not as eloquently put as they should have been.

Mike, it's not the first time I say this (funnily enough it's always with Britons): I'm afraid we will have to agree on disagreeing over this matter.

Uh, since we're on it and since I provided some examples of what I reckon successful achievements of the UK, if anything to show I'm not following some personal crazy agenda of a discrediting campaign against GB, can you please give me some examples of historical, social etc.. events that you reckon Great Britain is guilty or should be ashamed/sorry for?

On your first point, I have (had) three German grandparents and one British. I don't consider myself a) your typical brit b) prejudiced.

As to your second point what on earth does that have to do with anything?! Why are we now 'judging' Great Britain?
To be honest Stern you are coming over as having an 'issue' (unspecified) with the British.

Regards Mike

well, I've been questioned in this thread for being biased and anti-British just cos I'm saying that the common perception of the Battle of Britain as a victory for Britain is conceptually wrong.

So as much as I had to show my unbiased attitude, I'm expecting others to do the same. The fact that you have 3 German grandparents doesn't add much to the equation.

I find it interesting that this was mostly an air battle, rather than the usual sea, land or combination of all 3. I am not sure how often that has happened before or since, or whether the Battle of Britain was the longest lasting battle in the air that there has been. Lots of other battles have involved air power in association with sea and land forces, but this battle seems to have been more about one air power vs another air power in a trial of strength and will.

Happy landings,

So by your reckoning Stalingrad wasn't a defeat for the German Army? Mereley a setback? Battles are fought over objectives. Surley? There is a difference between a Battle and a War. Winning this particular battle enabled the UK to stay in the war, Hitler wanted the UK out of the war. How's that not a victory?

It was a defeat in the BoB. You don't measure numbers, you measure objectives. The LW's objective was clear, destroy Fighter Command. They couldn't. Using the 'nobody won because there were other forces in other parts of the world' is irrelevant. Whatever the encounter was, it was won by the RAF.

It's Ironic that the Island Mentality is used against us, we're an island and it was that mentality which meant that instead of just rolling over, as many other countries did, we stood our ground. I'm wary of using the 'we' because I know that it wasn't me, it was my Grandparents, however by us having and using that mentality, you have the freedom to criticise it.. Such is life..


Was it a Battle, a campaign, a skirmish? That's arguing over nomanclature.
Nothing to do with the result.

Look, if you can't tell the difference between an attack (over 1 day) and a Battle then there's no point arguning this. Pearl harbour was attacked. It triggered the war in the Pacific, in which there were many battles. As far as the attack went it was mainly unsuccessful. Going by objective.


I agree with all of that.

No Stern to be honest I think you are questioned about being 'anti british' because you come over as being a bit 'anti british' not because of your views on the Battle of Britain (but thats just my opinion and doesn't mean you are or indeed of course that your views are wrong).

One example is being asked to come up with a list of times Britain has been in the wrong through history. Its not relevent to either my contribution to this discussion or the subject at hand.

As far as I am concerned prior to your previous I have thoroughly enjoyed our very civil discussion. As we both clearly have an interest in Flight Sim's and History I think there is much more that unites than divides us and thats good enough for me.

(edited to add 'a bit' the original was far too harsh and rude!)

Regards Mike

I have no interest in being anti-British, I wouldn't live here if I was.
On the other hand I am a HUGE fan of fairness, and never liked when governments use propaganda to alter the perception of reality.
I had no problem in doing it, I don't see why you have problems with it, please indulge me..
Fair enough, and you have all my respect for this.

No, Stalingrad was a decisive battle because it altered the frontline and was the beginning of the end in the Russian campaign for Germany.

Considering its short term and long term effects, the Battle of Britain might as well never have happened.

Oh no, you need to measure both, you can't just look at the facts that draw in your favour, otherwise we're talking of the aforementioned Pyrrhic victory..

[quote]
It's Ironic that the Island Mentality is used against us, we're an island and it was that mentality which meant that instead of just rolling over, as many other countries did, we stood our ground. I'm wary of using the 'we' because I know that it wasn't me, it was my Grandparents, however by us having and using that mentality, you have the freedom to criticise it.. Such is life..
[quote]
Man, let's not play the Island banjo for too long, the truth is that your real strength was in the fact that you're an island, and as such you would have needed to be invaded by an adequate force. They knew this and they failed in their objective on the long run, but not because you overcame them, it was their lack of perseverance.
you'd be surprised on how a single word can make the whole difference. Look what's happening with Victory vs Draw here.

it wasn't me who mentioned Pearl Harbour, still there's people here who think it was a Japanese victory.. what did they exactly win?

..and we still manage to agree, fantastic! :mrgreen:

I`ll bite :-P
Short term : Seelowe postponed (indefinitely )
Long term : diverting resource from the whole point of the war and allowing the Allies to re-take France and then invade Germany.
Apart from that I agree no effect at all :grin:

yes, I mean IF no Battle of Britain was ever fought, how would it have affected the rest of the war?

The numerical odds of the Luftwaffe against the Allies in the ETO would have been no match anyway.

Don't have a heart attack Stern, but I kind of agree with you here, with one reservation.

Germany's attacks and threat of invasion didn't alter anything as regards the British resolve to defeat Germany in the longer term.

The resolve to defeat Germany was there before the Battle and was unchanged subsequent to it.

It did mean though, and here's the reservation, that even after 9 months preparation, the Luftwaffe which attacked Russia the following June was not as numerically strong or experienced as that which attacked the UK. Had the full force of the German land and airforces attacked Russia.... well the rest is conjecture.

Britain maintaining its belligerence meant that German forces and materiel were occupied elsewhere as has been mentioned.

The attrition suffered as a result of the Battle of Britain added to this did make a difference.

In my opinion, of course.

Decisive battle or Soviet victory Stern?

I would say the front line moving isn't that important (does it have to move a centimetre, a metre or a hundred kilometres to count?). It's a victory because the Soviets achieved their objectives and the Germans failed to achieve theirs. Same as the Battle of Britain we can discuss which was more important but at the end of the day that is subjective, the truth is they were all important victories in the final outcome. That they were both victories is beyond doubt.

Regards Mike

The Russians won the war when they were waving their flag over the Reichstag, you can talk about winning or losing at the end of a conflict, you can also talk about battles that influenced the end of the war (i.e. Stalingrad), but they can't all be win or lose, otherwise it'd be more a case of
the Germans advancing like this:

1941: win win win win! win win win! win win und mehr win!
1942: ach, was ist passiert? Nicht mehr win?
1942/1945: ach! lose! lose lose lose! Mehr lose?! Nein nein nein!!! Himmel! lose lose ....

etc..

ww2 wasn't a football championship with scoreboards, it wasn't even the old fashioned way of fighting, with a frontline and one (or more) direct battle in one battlefield. Because of its different entity and development we can't attribute win or loss until the end of the conflict.

..izzat a joke? ;-)
well, for a crippled air force, as some are some are lead to believe, they did damn well, establishing air superiority over such a vast area in such a short time. Again, I don't think the numbers were affected that much, besides the precious experience gained by pilots during the Battle of Britain was of serious use in the eastern campaign.
They wasted a lot of ammo, aircraft, fuel and lives, but not as much to cripple them forever. The sustained strain of enlarged fronts with the Russian campaign, together with the aerial defence of mainland Europe and the Mediterranean were probably the true blow for the Luftwaffe. By 1943 the German pilots based in Sicily already had a sense of defeat and knew that the only sensible solution was to fall back into the mainland.

So we now have to prove a negative!
It should be easier to summise what would have happened if the Luftwaffe had succeeded in achieving it's objectives and the RAF had failed to achieve its.

The Germans would have won.

The British government would have fallen. Churchill would have taken the rap. Halifax would have become PM and a peace settlement would have been agreed (at very unfavourable terms to the British).

Regards Mike

no no, I said if there was no battle of britain at all and things remained as they were.. would it have made any difference?

And yes, things might have gone monumentally wrong if Germany won against Great Britain, thank god it never happened!

So there are no individual victories only final victory?

I guess we can now conclude our discussion (and look forward to the next one). I believe you to be utterly and completely wrong.

Regards Mike

Under an academic, historical point of view, yes.

it's all down to how you scale your point of view on history. When looking at a conflict in its entire size, you can't take into account every single minor battle that happened, but only the effects it had, regardless of who felt like he won that day.

The Battle of Britain was not a minor battle and the effect of the Luftwaffe not achieving it's aim and the RAF achieving it's aim (there are words for these conditions) are simple to understand, look at the geopolical world around you to see them.

Regards Mike

So by that you're saying that if the LW achieved it's goals there wouldn't have been an invasion?
Long term effects of the Battle were that German High Command had to procede with the Russian Offensive before the UK was out of the war, the 2 fronted war was born. This pressured them into launching an attack 2 years (by Hilter's own reckoning) too early, which in turn led to the defeat in the East, surley even you can admit to that. Playing down the significance of the defence of Britian to make it fit your argument is silly.

I disagree, it's all about objective. Not cost. First world war bears this out, time and time again. Was Stalingrad a defeat for the Russians because they lost so many men, and Stalingrad was virtually destroyed? The Germans wanted Stalingrad, the Russians stopped them. A win for the Russians.

The island banjo? it's ingrained into the phyce of the UK, again you try to lessen the importance of the actions of the UK in the first 2 years of WW2

OK, I'm quite happy to say the LW 'gave up 'through lack of perseverance, however giving up in any other battle would be, and is, considered a loss.
Find me one example where an Army gave up fighting and it was considered a win?

A draw would be neither side achieving it's goal. A win is one side achieving their goal. A defeat is not achieving your goal.


I'm sorry but you asked me plainly "So what do you make of Pearl Harbour? Was that a Japanese victory? It was a part of a larger conflict."

I said that objectivley, it wasn't a Japanese victory. They wanted to destroy the US Fleet whilst it was docked, they didn't. That was not my point, my point was that Pearl Harbour was not, and should never be considered a battle. It was a surprise attack. In the space of a few hours.

So, my main point is that unless you achieve your goal whilst not letting your enemy achieve theirs, you're a loser.

What you're using as an example of a draw would be seen as a defeat in any other circumstances, it's the equivilent of a boxer not coming out of his corner, that's not a draw.

Somewhere in a parallel universe the Germans did win the battle of britain but there was no healthy debate over that episode because free speech, democracy and all the freedoms we know today would have disappeared 71 years ago, "Never in the field of human conflict......"

After Dunkirk, Hitler really would have liked Britain to roll over and say OK you win we'll just let you get on with it in Europe. As they didn't then Britain was far too big a threat to be left alone to recoupe and re-arm especially with the Commonwealth/Empire behind her. The obvious course would be a swift invasion as in France and Poland. The problem was the Channel or rather the British Navy that out gunned and out classed the German Navy and would blow any invasion fleet out of the water. The only answer to the British Navy would be to bomb it into submission and the only way that could be achieved was by gaining air superiority so the bombers could do their stuff. And that was what the Battle of Britain was about. Germany set out to destroy the airfields and planes of the RAF by bombing them out of existance. The RAF fighters went up to stop the bombers and the German fighters tried to protect their bombers. The odds were that Germany may have succeeded if Churchill hadn't ordered a bombing mission against Berlin in retaliation for German bombs hitting civilians around London. At that point the German command lost the plot and ordered an all out attack on London so giving fighter command some breathing space to get their act together.

If Britain had been successfully invaded then it would have been almost impossible for America to enter the war in Europe. Germany failed to get across the Channel and D-day was a mamouth undertaking for the allies. How do you suppose the Americans could have done it across the Atlantic? In the Pacific they could go from one island to the next building up a supply chain as they went.

Once America entered the war then Britain became, in effect, a giant aircraft carrier and staging post just off the coast of the European mainland.

Apart from a lack of resources probably the biggest obstacle that Germany faced throughout the war was her misfortune in placing a megalomaniac dictator and his cronies in absolute power who had a rather shakey grasp of tactics and resolutely refused to listen to those who had until he was forced to or it was all a little too late.

If i would have posted and pissed off as many people as this bloke i would have been banned long ago.

Cheese

I don't think anybody is pi$$ed off here, but thanks for your valuable opinion.

Certainly haven't pissed me off. I think your completely and utterly wrong and I believe that has been demonstrated on this thread but I have really enjoyed the discussion.
Carry on Stern.

Regards Mike

as said before, agreeing to disagree would probably be the easiest way of this going around in circles ;)

Good with me.

Guess what beer i'm drinking....:)

Regards Mike

Spitfire? ;)

:grin: cheers and have a good evening Stern.

Regards Mike

Well....to sum it up, they never really coped with it, it hurt so bad they still feel it, and have had 'issues' with the Brits ever since.

Jepp, we really do, these crazies always drive on the wrong side of the road. But hey they have to pay 1,5€ for a can of beer, so thats understandable. :shock:

this is a quote because I'm tired of typing loads....


Up to the late 1700's, everybody travelled on the left side of the road because it's the sensible option for feudal, violent societies of mostly right-handed people.

Jousting knights with their lances under their right arm naturally passed on each other's right, and if you passed a stranger on the road you walked on the left to ensure that your protective sword arm was between yourself and him.

Revolutionary France, however, overturned this practice as part of its sweeping social rethink. A change was carried out all over continental Europe by Napoleon.The reason it changed under Napoleon was because he was left handed his armies had to march on the right so he could keep his sword arm between him and any opponent.

From then on, any part of the world which was at some time part of the British Empire was thus left hand and any part colonised by the French was right hand.

In America, the French colonised the southern states (Louisiana for instance) and the Canadian east coast (Quebec). The Dutch colonised New York (or New Amsterdam). The Spanish and Portugese colonised the southern Americas. So The British were a minority in shaping the 'traffic'.

The drive-on-the-right policy was adopted by the USA, which was anxious to cast off all remaining links with its British colonial past

Once America drove on the right, left-side driving was ultimately doomed. If you wanted a good reliable vehicle, you bought American, for a period they only manufactured right-hand-drive cars.

From then on many countries changed out of necessity.

Today, the EC would like Britain to fall into line with the rest of Europe, but this is no longer possible. It would cost billions of pounds to change everything round.
The last European country to convert to driving on the right was Sweden in 1967. While everyone was getting used to the new system, they paid more attention and took more care, resulting in a reduction of the number of road accident casualties.

From September 2009 Samoa now drives on the left instead of the right.
The main reason for this is that they want to use right-hand-drive cars, for instance from Japan and New Zealand, which both drive on the left.

So there you go...the rest of you only do it because the French told you to........wonder what happened last time Germany was dictated to by the French......

OOOOHHHH! but the expensive beer thing hurts man! thats a low low blow :(

There was simply no invasion fleet ready within two weeks (remember

That's all sounds very reasonable but the decision to move against Russia was not decided instead of carrying through the BoB campaign, but the other way around. If you read German papers (I suggest Klee's summary of sea lion, available at AAF Historical studies only), moving against Russia and postponing sea lion to 1941 was considered already in June-July 1940, before the air battle even begun.

This consideration was the effect of Soviet expansion in the East and the final straw in the decision was made in november 1940, after the Molotov visit to Berlin. There the Soviets suggested a "new order" in Eastern Europe which would effectively cut off Germany from all strategic resources. They hinted about annexing Rumania (oil), Bulgaria, Finnland (nickel) dividing up Turkey (chrome) and this put the two countries on an irreversible crash course much sooner than both would want. Maybe Stalin was just probing the Germans after their unexpected victory in the West, maybe they were serious, its difficult to tell, but the decision in Hitler's - who was actually quite desperate to avoid it during the Molotov meetings - mind that war with Russia was inevitable, and therefore he must strike first was made in November after these meetings. Barbarossa was finalized and authorized in the next month. All this had very little to with the BoB.

The German goal was to neutralize Britain, sought by various means (sea blockade, air campaign, the invasion bluff, diplomatic pressure etc.); this certainly failed in 1940. On the other hand I find Wilmott's analysis on the matter - Britain was not neutralized, but Germany was still an undisputable dominant position on the continent, which Britain could not hope to challange - that the BoB was from the military POV a campaign of small scale and limited significance, and change nothing about the strategic situation. It was however an important political/propaganda victory for the British, ie. that could encourage US involvement in the war (which was already taken as a foreign course by FDR regardless of Churchill, his problem was how to sell the idea to the US public and congress).

Now this is perfectly reasonable, us Brits only view it as victory in the sense we saved our bacon from the immediate threat, which as quoted does equate to a defeat of the Germans immediate objectives (for the first time since the start of the war) nobody ever claimed at the time that the war was won at that moment, but we can look back now and say it was pretty much the 'key' turning point, so why can't us Brits just feel a little satisfied that that fight for our lives eventually led to the victory over the Nazi's......you know...the bit we fought on our own (i.e. no USA)

I keep seeing references to the outcome of the BoB being "insignificant". While I agree that it may have seemed that way to the Germans at the time, I would argue that from the West's point of view it could be seen as one of the most significant outcomes of the war. By failing to suppress the Brits the Germans were powerless to prevent the massive build up of the Allied heavy bomber force which caused such massive destruction to Germany, its cities and industry. It also enabled the build up and launch of the D-Day invasion fleet, without which victory (if possible) would have been a very Russian affair.

Without Britain holding out against Germany, the US may very well have focused its efforts on Japan alone. After all, from what other friendly territory could they have established such a huge fighting force and launched such effective strikes on the continent?

While I have a healthy respect for the ordinary German fighting man and the technology he had at his disposal, there can be no denying that the BoB was an embarrassing failure for Germany which tried very hard to beat the Brits into submission and came away with a bloody nose and not a great deal to show for it's not insignificant losses. It seems it is still quite a sore point.

Just my take on it.

BTW: Great job Bongodriver, I see you've had a bit of a mini-BoB on your hands here over the past few days. From what I've read, I suspect your prime antagonist is still in high school.

Less than one year after the "Battle of Britain" Germany attacked Russia on June/21/1941 with 3 million soldiers, 3350 tanks, 7300 artillery guns and about 2000 aircrafts! IMO the Brits were just lucky that Hitler was an old lag and a hopeless ingenuous idiot who simply understimated the risk of a war on two frontlines and the importance of the "USS Great Britain". Fighting the WWI he should have been aware of this.

On the other hand; thank god that the Brits were lucky !

P.S.: But it seems they spend all their luck at that time cause as far as I know they still have no chance to win a penalty shootout against Germany ;)

Not just Germany.....England sucks at football full stop, I make emphasis on England so I dont offend the other UK member states, terribly touchy subject in this nation..

Awesome numbers for sure but tanks and guns are not much use without air superiority. Goering was under such huge pressure to deliver on his promises that I don't believe for a second that he held back any air assets for the next big adventure. He would have thrown as many pilots and aircraft into battle as possible at the time to secure the victory he needed. I don't buy the argument that this was just a half hearted side show. They really meant business and the RAF can be proud to have prevented them from achieving their objective.

That is the most reasonable post here. I feel your pain man.

Soooo, how about donuts then?:cool:

Finally, had to comment on all this.

Stern, in order to defend your basic thesis that there was no winner in the Battle of Britain you seem to have reached a position where your logic has become so stretched it is in danger of snapping completely.

If I understand your argument you are now saying that the BOB wasn't a British victory because essentially no battle is ever a victory, and the only outcome that matters is final victory in the war.

Obviously the Allies lost many battles on the long road towards final victory in 45, and ultimately that is the key strategic goal of any conflict. But to say that no individual battle can be called as win or defeat is bending words and logic too far.

I also want to comment on your point about the propaganda aspect of the battle - how it was built and used by the British at the time. It's undoubtedly true that they made maximum mileage out of the battle - and for totally understandable reasons. To understand the significance it is important to leave aside the recent scholarly debate as to whether the Germans had the capacity to mount a successful invasion or whether Hitler even intended to, and to look at the situation as it was understood in Britain in June 1940.

Germany had smashed through France and the Low Countries in a matter of weeks. The BEF had been routed and had abandoned most of their equipment in France. Germany at that point seemed to be invincible, possessed of overwhelming strength, and sitting just across what to British eyes was an uncomfortably small stretch of water.

Once again, leave aside recent debate as to the true capacity of the German forces to mount an assault or the intentions of the German High Command. As far as the British were concerned in 1940 the situation was grave and of the utmost seriousness. People expected an invasion to come. This was no mere skirmish or sideshow - the country viewed it as a fight for its very existence.

That the RAF was able to resist the Luftwaffe offensive and ultimately force cancellation/abandonment of the German capacity for invasion was viewed as a victory. The nation collectively held its breath in Summer 1940, and let out a sigh of relief when it became apparent that the invasion threat was receding.

This was a key point in the early stages of the war - for the first time the Germans had not emerged with a clear victory. The effect on British morale was obviously huge and this was built up deliberately with wartime propaganda. The Battle of Britain assumed a kind of mythic significance in the British psyche. Funnily enough given your distaste, Bungay's book does a great job of peeling back the mythic element cast in 1940 and succeeding years and re-evaluating the events from new perspectives - that's a key element in his book and one that I thought was done very successfully.

I also have to say that I am a little concerned that some of our German friends seem to have great trouble dealing with the trauma caused to their own national psyche by WW2. There seems to be a split between distaste and revulsion at what the Nazis represented, and an understandable patriotic urge to support their own country. So we seem to get an almost hysterical defensiveness mixed with shame concerning Germany's defeat. It seems apparent that some (maybe the younger ones) harbour a worrying tendency to want to refight the battles, justify or rationalise away the events of the war.

Sorry for the cod psychology, but I'm just commenting honestly on what I've read in this thread. No offense intended.

All he is saying that an historians definition of victory differs from that of an armchair general, and that war is not a follow up of closed chapters but an ongiong fluid living being that does not care much about individual (national) interpretation of artifically set dates. Stern should have broken off a long time ago already as it became clear that this is a concept of history most people can't appear to get their head wrapped around. The rest of the post is rather sad..

Yeah - to me it seems to be a classic post-modern take on events - perspectiveless.

Unfortunately national perspective counts for a lot. That's what people have been arguing about for the last 37 pages.

In my opinion this whole thread is rather sad.

There are many 'historians' and many interpretations, Stern found the ones that appealed to his views and took them as 'gospel' and tried to convert the unholy, no he should have given up a long time ago because his argument became so full of holes from contradictions and hypocrasy.

National interpretation? I got the impression theres a few different nations that conform to the wider established theory, and not surprisingly a very specific National identity has different ideas

It's not there for perspectives, national or otherwise, its there for learning mechanics. It's like looking at a car as a work of art or as a piece of machinery. The first is great for passion, the second is great for understanding how it came into being and how it works.

In my opinion it's sad that in 2011 we still can't have an objective approach to historical events without someone taking the national perspective.

What you call "classic post-modern" (?) and "perspectiveless" is the only take a historian can afford to take on events. While at uni we studied propaganda a lot, but to understand the phenomenon itself, not as a search of truth.

In this thread I've been called names, I've been insulted by people that just popped by to have a go at the "high school kid", I've been accused of being anti-British, while all I did was motivating a point that isn't only mine, but of experts, historians and people of the time as well.

I'm not expecting everyone joining in a conversation to produce their qualifications (especially because we can all lie here), but one's preparation and cultural level easily emerges from what one writes, and frankly I felt a bit in the middle of a silly patriotic turmoil, but the wrong kind of patriotism, the one that sparks up only when some "old enemy" or someone else (read any foreigner) questions the pillars of your "culture". Britons are very protective of their heritage, and much rightly so, but are rarely capable of objective hindsight on it, there's a basic fear that someone somewhere is trying to deprive them of their achievements, and are ready to justify anything they say or do (or that the Kingdom says or does) regardless of it making sense or not. It's a very empire-like mentality, and if the old fashioned concept of empire has long gone, the mentality is still all there. I've heard many here celebrating the glories of the past and moaning about the lack of glory in the present, and rolling in and out of that nostalgia for the past it's what's left for many. I don't find this wrong, but it should still allow for some common sense and objectiveness.

My intention is not to deprive anyone with anything, brave people will be brave people forever, but western culture has been so biased in the portrayal of WW2 over the years that things have taken a very wrong shape. This is very dangerous, because it doesn't allow for an objective and unbiased judgement of history. This doesn't mean to me that the Nazis shouldn't be condemned as evil, but the Allies too committed questionable crimes and forced denial afterwards, so much that in a history talk meeting I attended some months ago, a gentleman arrived to define the city bombings during the Blitz as "not a war crime" simply to justify the actions of Bomber Harris and the drop of two atomic bombs over Japan, while there's no justification or theory in the world that will change the fact that these attacks were deliberate and a war crime as much as the German ones, so much that the 1949 Geneva Convention was all about human rights of civilians.

I've heard horrific explanations here "because it was getting boring" on which I deliberately did not comment, because it shows what little respect and objectiveness there is for the subject.

My take on Bungay is because in the world of academia he isn't (yet) considered worth mentioning, and even if my ideas seem to agree more with him than with James Holland (but then again it was semantics, Dutch or whoever it was picked strategically short sentences and put them out of context), I still don't repute his approach an academic one.

uh and thank you Bewolf, as usual your ability to sum up concepts in a few lines is outstanding and spot on :)

You've been called names? Seriously...grow a pair and man up, take a look back at some of the crap that got flung my way.

Quit with all this island banjo crap, are you a historian or a psychologist, read the original topic and answer me why us island rednecks have had to endure 30 odd pages of insults against our nation and a denial of any achievement, some have suggested we should let it go because it's history........doesn't
Seem to apply to you though.

My getting boring comment was just sarcasm, but if you want to make an island mentality issue out of it what can I do.

grow a pair? man up? Seriously Bongo? :confused:
Besides, was it me flinging that crap at you?

I wasn't insulting your nation, I was just trying to give an assessment that I know would have proven unpopular among the average Briton. I care about the objectiveness of history, not the nationalistic takes on it. Unfortunately I'm afraid that's all you can do instead.
yeah, you see sarcasm the way is used in Britain is considered out of place in many other cultures. Just because we speak your language it doesn't mean that we also think like you do.

NP Stern. My gripe with this thread is not the pride of british nationals for the war and the conduct of the people living on the british isles at that time, it's simply the expectation that those very tight and focused views on these events are being taken as a matter of course in an international forum. That is a bit of a pretentious attitude, especially given the fact that any views differing from the british mainstream are reinterpretated as offensive and a direct assault on british achievements.

My issue is that I got called a Nationalist after my first post because I just said the english channel was a weak excuse for the LW performance in the BOB.

My blood began to boil when this post was alowed to go without challenge...

No apparently I have no right to be insulted, because I'm not allowed to assciate myself with my contry's past....unless it's about something bad the Brits did.....go figure.

Well I'm awfully sorry about that....it's mainly a symptom of having preserved our culture by not being beaten in conflict and assimilated into another, but you are apparently a master theorist on what the British mentality is....yet I just had to explain that one to you.

Reported. Idiotic, tactless and offensive post.

I dare say it was challenged quite massively enough =)

You are right, posts like those are uncalled for, to be expected in such a debate but uncalled for nevertheless. Best course of action here is to ignore them and concentrate on
substance, else everything goes down the drain.

Hope you are aware that others could regard such a matter of fact as "stagnation". And if you go by history, this very attitude usually preludes a negative development in a nations fortunes. It seriously is not 1945 anymore, regardless of what Rupert Murdoch says.

Quite agree....the Germans should have just accepted what happened in WWI, then this conversation wouldn't be happening, but then the 4th of july celebrations didn't seem to hurt the US any.......

It was an uncalled for post, but as you know I can only guarantee for my own posts, not others'. I hope you're not comparing my approach to that one though.

I would look at a foreigner's perspective on my country as a refreshing and new one, not necessarily a negative one: as much as I mentioned negative chapters of your history, I also mentioned glorious ones. The reaction I got instead is similar to someone that knows his past is imperfect and gets all aggressive when mentioned.

Let's not be naive, there's no perfect country out there, we all come from somewhere where someone at some point said "mmmh I think we screwed this up a lil bit".

This I genuinely agree with too, and I am not denying getting a little hot heade at times.....more a symptom of being human than British.

look at us, still debating over this at 9am!! Aren't we a sad bunch?! :mrgreen:

time for a black coffee me thinks!

Again I will stress there are no denials of any conduct good or bad from my part, I just don't get the point of all this revision on a past achievement, what was wrong with the established theory, why are people using so much of their time on this, will the world be a better place?

If you can sincerely tell me that the UK would have accepted the same results had they lost WW I, this argument may hold some truth. (For perspective, that would have ment giving up Wales, Scotland, Ireland (all areas without native english populations), all british colonies, demilitarisation of the Midlands under threat of France to occupy them if the huge compensation money was not to be paid.)

I personaly agree, Germany should have accepted it. And it probably would have without the added strains black Friday brought to the world.

In regards to the US, I dare say that WWII changed the US as fundamentally. If you compare the US before and after WW2, the attitudes displayed towards the world had utterly changed. If for the better or worse is debateable.

Funny I was thinking exactly the same......and drinking gallons of tea I might add :grin:

Milk, please!

yeah, i am a Sissi, hehe.

Yes, actually, I do think the world will be a better place if you take other perspectives but your own at least into consideration. The planet is growing awfully small at an ever greater pace, and our example here alone speaks volumes about different nationalities having ever more discourse. The times of comfy nationalities only caring for their own are coming to a dead end, in the modern world that means, in the best case, stagnation and losing attachment to the rest of the world, in the worst one it is potentially dangerous.

it's a good question....but I dare say there would have been bugger all we could have done about it........and theres a good chance the Welsh, Scottish and N irish wouldn't have had too much trouble coming to terms with it.

Hmmm......history repeats itself, all it takes if for the world to drop it's guard in false sense of security and whammo, some nutjob is trying to take over the world, I'm sorry but if the rest of the world want's to be sheep for the next time thats your choice, I like what we have now.

and I'm afraid a bit of National pride will give the incentive to defend it.

IMO, but only as a "political scientist and international relationist" and not as a great historian, I would just say this:

1) I am not sure if Germany could have invaded the UK, just because the Royal Navy would have prevented it.
Maybe sacrificing itself, but nonetheless preveting a great german invasion.

2) The forces in the air were more or less equal, considering all the factors included: Britons on the defence, on their soil, the Channel, radars etc... The RAF would have not been easily liquidated by the LW, a "tactical" air force in 1940.
It was not , IMO, a decisive victory by either the RAF or the LW. It was more of a sign that the British were able to defend themselves, and succesfully, against air attacks.

2) It was the Royal Navy that was fundamental in obtaining victory over the Axis in the WW2 on the western front.
Italy lost the North African campaign not because there were not enough Italian soldiers (and Germans of the Afrika Korps),but because we were not supplied succesfully by our Regia Marina. We had TERRIFIC losses starting from late 1941 on, caused by the presence of the Royal Navy and its aggressive attacks against our main naval supply routes.
Malta was also an important naval base just in the middle of the route.

3) Maritime powers have been (and probably are) quite often the victorios ones.
The Normandy invasion would have never happened had without the great combination of the huge British and the American navies combined.

4) Germany quite always suffered by the chronic lack of a "wide strategic vision" in their wars. Tactically they were great, strategically they just weren't.
We, Italians, were strategically disastrous.... and tactically, so and so...
The British were not.
The thing is: The Axis could win battles, the Allies could win wars.
Just think about the decision to not invade Malta in the summer of 1942 (decision chose by Rommel himself, with the approval of Hitler, not listening to Mussolini and Kesselring in Rome) when all the plans for "Operation C3" had been precisely studied and programmed and the Ramcke Brig. and the Folgore Airborne would have had a decisive role.
In hindsight I say though: PERSONALLY that decision was a sound one for me, as my grandpa was in Sicily in the 1th inf. Superga Division as a medic and that division was chosen for the landing.
Had it happened, maybe I wouldn't be here today :cool:

5) The invasion of the Soviet Union, enough said....
Again, many wrong strategic decisions made by the Germans (or Hitler, you name it)

But talking about all of this now in 2011 , just reminds me of how lucky we are now, and how has the world changed...
How nationalities have somehow lost their "great power" they had, how we live in a totally different world, where country barriers are
fading away, economy has become (luckily or unfortunately, you decide it....) the most important element in every institution, countries lose their
sovereign powers which is in turn delegated to "higher authorities", how ideologies
have faded away (again, lucikly or unluckily, your choice) and youngsters doesn't follow politics in the same way as our fathers did.
The "concept" of "Country" has changed, and we live in a totally different world nowadays...


Cheers
Rick

I suppose it's not the specific case of the Battle of Britain, it's more a case of assigning improper definitions to events and giving special meanings to events that were important only in hindsight for the sake of national pride.

Was BoB a necessary battle? No.
Did it bring any change to the conditions at the beginning of the conflict? No.
Was it a victory for the British? It surely was for morale and propaganda.
Was it a military victory? No.

It's an important debate for many historians, and it's getting harder to deal with when thinking of recent conflicts (from the 80s onwards).

Are you really sure about this......seriously, not necessary from whose perspective? and why the hell did it happen if thats the case?

Obviously because you can't change the actual events of history.....thats only done in forums, what it did do was change the conditions at the time i.e. the Germans expected to invade britain and they were denied so.

and our self preservation....somebody comes at you with a knife intending to stab you, you fight back and sefend yourself successfuly and escape the attack....thats a win for the defender and a lose for the attacker, even though he still has the knife and possibly the intent.

So what....the RAF and LW are not military?

That is a highly probelamtic stance. If every potential development gets rejected just because something "could" go wrong, then I'd say that is a sorry and rather cynical state of mind.

Today most people on this planet have ready access to information far, far surpassing the possebilities of any era before. They also have access to other countries news and motivations unprecedendet in history. In all seriousness, if ppl do not get their act together under such positive circumstances, they probably never will. The implications of that for a world that just passed the 7 billion mark are, well, not so good.

This is just a matter of will, nothing more.

Well maybe.......all I see is the EU, what a eutopian shiny rainbow coloured happy melting pot that is:rolleyes:, Islamic fundamentalism....Hmmmm.....I like my head just where it is, no offence to them but I dont want to be forced to wear sandals and wail about Allah all the time, potentially the chinese are lining up for something big.........not sure, but if so I don't know what to expect with that one.

Peter, you're right but if you think this thread is bad have a peep at the 'water cannon' thread in the pilots lounge. It took a supreme effort of will not to respond there, in which it is 'open season' on the UK with numerous frankly juvenile, offensive and utterly preposterous insults. How they have gone un moderated is beyond me.....but that's not my call.

I had to laugh though when I realised that its an ITALIAN who lives and works here dishing out the abuse on that thread.....LMAO.:grin: Oh, and according to a Mr El Aurens our country is en route to being a 'cesspool'. This from a 58 year old US bloke. Charmed. Thanks pal. That's ok though, I'll take my 'cesspool' where I'm 8x less likely to be randomly murdered over his any day of the week. No offence, of course. :grin:

I don't take this rubbish seriously. Why? Because I know for a fact had they would never say these things to a persons face....and that is why they do it here. Had they done so, they would most likely be swiftly hospitalized, and when they emerged from their coma (about 3 months later) would probably feel very apologetic about the whole affair. :grin: IRL, I can guarantee they'd be as nice as ninepence; and that's what cracks me up. Hilarious. The internets, eh? :grin:

I have never 'reported' anyone, and never will. I don't believe in it and that's the way it is. I do however understand why you did.

Cheers.

Hitler could have waited to bring such an attack on Britain, but he didn't, he was afraid that waiting too long before dealing with the "British matter" could be counterproductive. It's probably this haste that cost him that battle.
yes, but it didn't affect the offensive potential of the German machine, as some believe. The RAF didn't give the Luftwaffe a blow from which they never recovered: they both lost similar numbers of potential, but soon caught up with production and achieved immense tactical experience from the battle.

fair enough, but this is again your personal achievement. It has nothing to do with the actual outcome of the battle.
of course they are, but for the two air forces it was a mere war of attrition, neither of the two was annihilated by it.

Why there isn't such a strong battle identification with the one that raged over Europe after the Americans joined, which was longer, more dramatic and above all more decisive than the Battle of Britain itself?

The Battle of Britain is considered more by a conflict per se here, unlike the rest that happened, and that's again only because of propaganda needs.

+1

what does it have to do with this? And why don't you bless us with your supreme view on that matter in that thread? :rolleyes:

so? Is being an Italian a bad thing now? Does the fact that Im a foreigner make my judgement less relevant, or isn't my tax money as good as yours? You sir fit perfectly in the category of the "worst that England can offer".

..yep, talking stereotypes, as I said, the worst England.

Ah, another keyboard hero! It goes without saying that talking about adult, mature matters can't be done with little people of your stance, but if I really had to, I can assure you that I would know how to defend myself from someone who can't take a normal conversation and turn to physical aggression to make his point valid. But then again, you would never do it yourself, would you? :rolleyes:

probably because you find amusement in forum wars. I, on the contrary, do believe in the respect of forum rules.

And you do not think that this stance is extrmely narrow and not doing any kind of justice towards both the EU and muslims in general? IMHO that threat perception is totally blown out of proportion. But that would be worth a thread on it its own

Being careful and on the watch is one thing, seeing dangers and threats around every corner is another one.

Provocative questions:

Could it be possible that the UK got burned so much in WW2 that it got its spyche damaged, like a person that got mugged always being afraid of the dark afterwards?

Why does that not apply to countries that suffered much more in WW2, like Poland, Russia or the Benelux countries?

Why is it that the UK had quite good relations with Germany until reunification, then afterwards starting one tabloid campaign after the other?

Those are honest question because quite franky, that is how some UK behaviours come over here.

I really don't agree with this.

BOB was necessary for Hitler because he absolutely didn't want a war on two fronts. He knew he had to take the UK out of the equation because it would be a nasty thorn in his side as he turned east as proved to be the case especially when the bombing of Germany started but also because the UK and Empire had a large economy and would support Russian with materials and would continue to have a very powerful naval force which made bringing in materials from around the world much harder. Had he defeated Britain he could have had access to the oil in the Middle East as a starter.

The conditions at the beginning of the BOB were that Germany was an unbeaten force and had almost mythical attributes assigned to it. The out come of the BOB was enough to bring in massive amounts American credit. This saw the USA producing huge amounts of arms and Churchill cunningly believed that this would make it much more possible for the USA to be drawn into the war.

At the beginning of the BOB Britain stood alone, it looked like defeat was likely to the rest of the world and there was a great chance that the USA might twist Britain's arm in to negotiating (a bit like Suez) or become a political outcast. Churchill feared that Britain would become the most hated country on the planet because he refused to negotiate!

The victory was more than propaganda or moral and I agree it wasn't really a military victory (it was stalemate in military terms) BUT it was a political victory

Sorry but that is not what constitutes uneccessary, you see here again you are just downplaying the significance by using the German perspective here, clear example of your bias here, you are obviously enamoured with a strange romanticism about the Germans, facct is they 'did' come to fight and the British found it necessary to stop them, that has nothing to do with British nationalistic views.

Semantics again, an attempt at downplaying the significance through some 'dictionary' deffinition, the US won their war of independence(with help from the French)....were the British anhilated?


Oh but it does, it's a personal event for both parties, the defender won his objective (survival and escape) the attacker lost his objective (killing the victim) the battle ends there, the war between these two hasn't, you are just not making sense here mate.

Ther you go with that anhillation stuff again.....why?

this topic started on the subject of the BOB, I thought it was etiquette to keep threads 'on topic' so the wider picture of the war has no relevance in this thread, that is not a denial of it's significance....just forum etiquette.

Conflict..battle...skirmish....WTF? give it whatever label you want, it happened, it was a fight, we won our objective....that is plain fact, that is all we celebrate about it, nobody suggests it was a total defeat of the wider German military...it was simply a fight the British won and it's wider significance became apparent later....yay lucky for us.....we survived that one and it all turned out pretty f***ing good in the end....lets celebrate it for it contribution for a better world wiithout the Nazis.......is that such a big deal?

Alessandro Bonny lad (yep the infamous 'Stern' and 'respecter of forum rules' from the Ubi Zoo who has been banned more times that I can remember....wonder why) I am anything but 'little' but FYI have threatened no one. :grin: Just making the point that 'key board warriors' (nice self awareness there) who are unconscionably rude on the internet are rarely so IRL, and I'm sure you are very nice to your English colleagues and those who pay your wages. I found the irony of an Italian waxing lyrical about how 'buggered' my country is amusing. Because it is. :grin:

I have however never met an Italian I did not like (usually decent folk), till you. You are obnoxious, arrogant, ill mannered and not particularly bright. PM me if you'd like to discuss things further. Otherwise on with your pathetic UK hate crusade. I LOL in your general direction. Cin cin! :grin:

Mark.

Well I was clear about Islamic fundamentalism and not Islam as a whole...or do you put them in the same category?

The EU in a romantic aspect is what could have been if Germany unified europe without all the ethnic cleansing stuff etc......it could have been good, I wonder why it is so difficult to get the world to unify...it's almost like we all like who we are and dont like change.......not just the British.

Well I can't comment on why some tabloids behave like they do or indeed some of my fellow countrymen, but labelling us all because of this is no better than the stuff you accuse us of no? I like Germans, always had respect for them, and admire their technical ability, and to be honest whats the point in celebrating a military victory over an adversary you consider inferior....surely that would just be hollow, no we were faced with a far superior opponent and that gives a little bit of satisfaction to an underdog.

I dunno how to explain this point anymore :confused:

the British dominion over the US mainland was annihilated, the US started a new independent reality, that sounds like a win to me. At the blurry end of the Battle of Britain, apart for reputations and morale, nothing else changed.

you (badly) repelled a bombing attack that was carried on for several months, their command was tired to wait any longer on Goering's fail, they moved onto something else, end of story.

You gained some heroes to celebrate, both countries learned LOADS in terms of experience, soon the Germans forgot about it thanks to the early successes of Barbarossa. It was just a phase of a more complicated war, not a battle per se.

because in a total war the success is obtained only by complete annihilation of the adversary's offensive potential, subduing it to an unconditioned surrender.
I tried to, and it was my original point, but then all kind of $hit started flying in every direction..
Uh and let's not forget this: the western civilised world is grateful to the Allies for the efforts they made to liberate us from the Nazi scum.

Yeah you got nothing left.....fail

But the British military was not anhilated, and we could have chosen to fight back, we just gave up, not worth the effort with all othe commitments (just like the Germans), yeah funny how this argument suits you here.

Ah so we fought badly now, what happened to the description of exemplary regarding our effort in an earlier post (yeah take a look, you really did say it), sniff...sniff....I smell hypocricy and contradiction again.

That is a condition required to win a war....not a battle....loike the 'battle of britain' which was a 'win' for the Brits......grab that thesaurus....win and victory are practically the same thing non?

That s**t flew as soon as people started rubbishing any part the British played in the allied effort, like we just arent worthy of being associated with it....no for most of the Germanophiles her Allies = the US strictly

Who's Alessandro Bonny? :confused: I'm afraid you're confusing me with someone else? NEVER been on the Ubi Zoo either?

I don't understand why you're turning this thing into a personal beef with me, I don't know who you are, what I know is that you sound like a bit of a nut-job man :!:

And btw your message, albeit hypothetical in its form, is a form of threatening. You might want to re-read what you wrote?

I am a citizen of the world for the matter, I have lived in the US and several European countries before because of my job, and frankly I don't see why the fact that I have Italian origins adds something different to the value of my opinion. If I complain, I complain as a citizen and taxpayer, not as an Italian. I'm afraid that yours comes out a bit like mere racial slur (for which you've already been reported btw).

Well good for you sir.. :confused:

Bongo, frankly I'm not here to win an argument, I have my ideas and they will hardly change unless I'm proven wrong by fact that I repute relevant.

Besides, seeing the latest contribution of this RCAF Orville or whatever his name is, I wonder why I even bother..

double standards are FTW here lately..

Really?....so youre just here for the argument, I saw at least 2 posts where you promised no further contribution yet you are still here displaying massive double standards.....

Had to quote this bit again....it's just so immaculate in its hipocricy

This seems to confirm what I've suspected for a while, i.e. you don't appear to have read Bungay's book.

Consequently your opinions of Bungay's book are not your own and are based on the opinions of others.

Regurgitation of hearsay is no different whatsoever to propaganda in this context and also demostrates a good deal of bias.

Given the above quote, I'm also beginning to wonder whether you've read James Holland's book also, which you advocated as being 'the definitive book'. More hearsay?

Your 'historical references' so far in this thread seem to come from either Wikipedia or a bonus DVD. Surprising from one who considers himself a member of the historical acadaemia.

I'd be happy to stand corrected of course.

Sorry folks, this is a bit out of context from the way the thread has progressed.

*sigh*. You can add 'grass' and 'fibber' to that list too. I'm afraid it is you yourself that is the grade A head case, just look at the amount of time you have devoted to knocking the UK. Obvious issues. If you hate it here that much then 'do one' simple as that. :)

I don't need to re read what I wrote. It's a statement of fact, not related to me, and yes indeed hypothetical.

Nothing to do with you being Italian, no 'slurs' whatsoever (unlike your well documented, persistent insults about the British and their ubiquitous 'character' which you find so disagreeable) so stop the violin playing and 'victim' act, its pathetic. Point being is that people in glass houses should not throw stones. :grin: Its because of the reasons I outlined above.

Anyway, carry on Alessandro (oh and stop lying). :rolleyes: Out of here, you're blinking bonkers mate. Toodle pip. :eek:

Cheers. :grin:

Eh? I am not knocking the UK, I'm trying to make a point that differs from your opinion, trying to show how I validate it, and you turn it into an attack to Britain. This aggressive behaviour is completely uncalled for, and if you can't even back up the things that you say, defining them hypothetical yourself, you just show yourself to be yet another spineless keyboard hero.

You brought in the Italian thing in here, you are connecting my identity with someone else's, you're being offensive and calling me names, just because my opinion differs from yours.

I am afraid that the bonkers one here is you, not me. Oh, and I PMd you as requested, feel free to continue this there, since I believe it's off topic here? :confused: