Adonys, leaving a huge aircraft carrier off the french coast counts as a huge strategic failing. I mean really. Hitler was huffing glue when he conceived of the fatally flawed seelowe, and started on the speedballs when he went for russia having left the western front unfinished. An idiot can see this, with the 20/20 vision afforded to historians. Although you get the impression, wrongly or rightly, that teutonic knight wannabees don't grasp such self evident truths.

Stern, i'm judging from how it panned out.
Those losses in bob were incurred with no tactical or strategic benefit. I would add that, as a defender, you WANT the lines to stay the same. That represents victory over an attacking force.

Anyway, enough of your "logic" for now.

Tattybyes.

By your logic, again, then the U-boat war in the Atlantic, sinking civilian ships, was also not justifiable.

Lol. Continued attempts to derail from battle of britain being a defeat for the luftwaffe.

No, after 1949 there was no justification. Hasn't beem another shooting war like it since, but as ever civilian deaths still outstrip combatant deaths by several orders of magnitude. Also the luftwaffe and ija bombed civilian centres, just to add to your list of guilt.

Although you get the impression, wrongly or rightly, that teutonic knight wannabees don't grasp such self evident truths.

Cheers, man. I nearly p*ssed meself laughing. :grin::grin::grin:

War. Fail. Epic. War fail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CwfCBa6PSM

:D

You're applying hindsight again. Hitler had NO idea whatsoever that Japan was going to attack the USA in 1941, and even if he did, he was sure that the Russian offensive wouldn't have lasted more than a year.

if you say so..

Absolutely! There are no good or bad causes for the killing of undefended, innocent civilians!

I am still motivating what I say, you talk insanity. After 1949 there was no justification? Is that how you feel to explain that? According to your theory then there's probably a way to justify the holocaust as well, isn't it? Or maybe yo're saying that the life of a Jew is worth more than a Russian OST battallion soldier, or one of the thousands German women raped by the Red Army soldiers, or maybe the thousands of children that perished in Germany and Japan under the Allied bombs..

Never said that the Luftwaffe or IJA didn't commit a war crime.

civilian ships transporting war materials? there were cases in which civilian ships were indeed sunk, and there's no excuse for that, but it wasn't a BDO policy.

r u back into this with your off topic contributions? Thought that the mod message was quite clear..

you seem to forget Dunkerque, and the fact that Germany want to solve the war with britain amiably, in order to deal with the real enemy. that's why Germany let the british army evacuate the 300k soldiers from there, and haven't started the actual fight with britain immediately as france fell. they were still hoping Britain will submit.

at the moment, it was not. the plan was to finish with russians quick, with the help of Japan, and then get back to resolve britain problem. the plans are yet only humans, and they might fail, as it was actually the case.

no, i'm not actually, i'm putting myself in a position of occupying europe and keeping it. to do that i wouldn't leave a belligerent country off my shores.
after 1949 it became fact that bombing civilian population centres was unjustifiable. you're applying hindsight here. on the other hand it was always considered a bit unsporting to abuse or kill large sections of your own population, the occupants of invaded lands (to some degree anyway) or prisoners of war.

i do like the way you switch between contextual "fact" and historical revisionism, and all the while taking it off the simple topic of "was the battle of britain a defeat for the luftwaffe" and putting words into people's mouths that they simply did not say.

so, to sum up - yes. it was. it was not a draw either at the time or in retrospect.

jesus man, why did BoB veterans in the luftwaffe show each other their appendix scars? is that the act of a force that drew, that was not pressed into a shoddy plan beyond it's capability, that on the biggest day of operations was appalled to see the supposedly shattered and destroyed RAF put many times it's reported strength into the air against them... how is that not a defeat of the tactical and strategic aims of seelowe?

you don't deny that the axis committed war crimes, and boy were some of them BIGGIES. but you do a hell of a lot to gloss over them and instead discuss the allies war crimes. and don't do the "won't somebody think of the children" schtick, it's pathetically transparent.
how about bombing factories that happen to be in the middle of population centres? surely that's justifiable by your standards?
solve the war amiably? by subjugating the country with military might and an invasion? that's amiable?? oh just lol.

"hey boys they let us escape, let's make friends! those bombs they were dropping on our boats and the strafing runs were just some friendly joshing about, no harm done eh lads"!

as for enlisting the help of the japanese to attack russia... um, seeing as they had a sound thumping at the hands of the red army freshly in their minds, and pretty much ignored the soviets for the length of the war.

seriously.

the plans were the work of a madman with all the strategic and logistical sense of a woodlouse, who enlisted a heroin addicted transvestite to conduct a reduction of british aircover over the channel to allow an unprecedented and unprepared for amphibious invasion, and operated a divide and rule strategy amongst his own staff officers that was inefficient at best, and at worst downright destructive. if you want to convince yourself that it was a case of getting drop tanks in time, or being able to knock russia out of the war in a year then fine, i'll leave you to your teutonic knights fantasy.

So the expedition force was just too fast for the Germans. ok.