I'm serously trying to avoid provocation here, what if a person doesn't like reading something because it's NOT true.

We certainly all appear a bit bored while waiting to settle the argument on the virtual battlefield, hehe

The article had a couple good points though. So why do you think it's not true?

do a couple of good points equate to the truth?

the main point of that article was about how Germans are used as the bad guys in video games.......I don't think the British can be held responsible for the video games industry, also I find it very offensive that people use our 'football hooligans' as the definitive ambassadors for what Britain is all about.

Uff.....

Can I assume this means Uff da?.....as in so what....poor you? or whatever it means

What else should I react like? If that is what you get out of the article...well, there's not much left to say.

Well it was the only point with any validity with regards to an unfair image of the germans, did you not notice most of the other stuff mentioned was about Hitler and Nazism?.....or do you think that Hitler also is getting a rough deal here?

Personal opinion on the matter:

Germany couldn't win, some people high up knew it and some were delusional and thought they would. (go back a few pages and read the account of that military exercise).

Overall, they made a half-hearted attempt to force the UK to sue for peace and "close" down one front before starting the second one in the East. It didn't work, they moved on.

The UK couldn't take the fight back to the Germans either for quite some time and when it tried to, it got appalling results (cross-channel raids all the way until the Dieppe fiasco).

Long story short, given the benefit of hindsight and looking at the big picture, things were on a stalemate ever since Dunkirk and until 1942 at least and even then, the turning of the tides occurred mostly in the East (Stalingrad, N.Africa and the Pacific front).

The UK can call this a German defeat because it didn't meet the stated aims (conquering Britain), the other side can call it an effort doomed from the start and they would both be correct.

My personal belief is that most of the sane people in the German high command were looking to force Britain out of the war to secure their flanks before Barbarrossa, the conquering talk was mostly intimidating bravado and propaganda. The British didn't know it at the time so they acted like it was true (better safe than sorry after all) and that's why this registers as a victory to them. The Germans were divided between those who believed their own tale and thus considered it a defeat, and those who viewed it as a side-show from the start and didn't. I think all three opinions are valid for people who were engaged in the battle in whatever capacity.

Moderating notes: I haven't read the entire thread because i was out of town for a couple of days, came back to a multi-pager and i half-knew where it was bound to end up seeing the one-liner opening post.

I've been tempted to lock it every time i take a peek throughout the last few days, but it would be a shame to lose whatever valid comments exist. I will if the slagging matches persist though. The ones so engaged, get off your high horses and agree to disagree sometime instead of getting all personal, otherwise the thread will be locked and you'll spoil it for everyone else. At the very least i see it getting moved to the pilot's lounge as a first step if this persists, then locking if things don't improve.