No. not what i said.

however, nor were they let go to help further a peace settlement. Part tactical bungle in not encircling and destroying the panicked and fleeing BEF, part speedy reaction on the part of the navy and the often over emphasised little boats, and part luck - didn't some pursuing wehrmacht units run too low on fuel to press on - as well as the wehrmacht's desire to deny us port access to evacuate.

as a side note, is it a general tactic for teutonic fantasists to bring up defeats that the british (in this case) or the allied (in general) forces suffered when they faced with an incontrovertible defeat of their beloved? i'm seeing a certain theme... you know, "well, maybe you think that happened but you see this was done/happened to/carried out by [insert name here], and worse too! so there, we still won". as if it's a game of one-up-manship in atrocities or defeats suffered.

It also had a bit to do that there was still a largely intact French army south of the Benelux. The Wehrmachts main and most immidiate concern was them, not 250 000 odd British troops who were leaving for good and would be out of the game for a good time, wheter they were encircled & destroyed or not. The French had in comparison IIRC had about 2 million troops mobilized who were not going to home. France was not yet defeated.

Either way, the British would be neutralized, destroying them would be a bonus, but at the cost of entering into a bloody vernichtungschlact in the Dunkerque pocket, that would certainly lead to significant losses, most importantly amongst the armored units, fighting on unfavourable terrain. They were needed intact for future operations. In the end it would risk the victorious outcome of the whole campaign - and this was the main concern of Rundstedt, who order the stop of units, and Hitler who approved it. Any political consideration at the time was secondary to military ones - France had to be defeated first.

of course! i was forgetting that massive elephant in the room there, my gratitude kurfurst.

you are giving assessments of the situation as if you were playing Risk, the situation was a tad more complicated than that.

ah ok, so you're confirming what I was saying: the killing of civilians before 1949 was ok, so you're implying that the killing of Jews was right? All in all the Nazis considered them their enemy, and to pursue their cause they wanted to eliminate them.. Do you realise the nonsense you're saying to justify the killing of civilians perpetrated by the Allies? :confused:

hey, I was going on topic, your friends then start changing topic and then blame me for going off topic. Read my comments re. the BoB, I've exposed them more than once.

you're summing it up on assumptions, not on facts.

apart for the scar thing which I didn't get, you're making assumptions again. The Germans fought until 1945 even when they really were doing it against all odds, do you reckon that the situation in 1940 was such a blow for morale? Who's delusional now?

yeah, you already said that killing kids is fine, if it's a good cause. I don't see how this puts you in a better position than Nazis frankly.

one thing is collateral damage, another is intentional attack of civilian targets. Do you know that the Americans refused to bomb Germany civilian targets when Harris asked for help?

you might have heard that there were secret meetings and tentative agreements between Germany and some of your political and royal family members. Germany was hoping to find another Quisling in the UK, and occupy it like they did with Norway.

Saving the life of 300k soldiers was a huge sign of wanting a truce: the Stukas could have made a slaughterhouse of Dunkirk.

you obviously aren't capable of a sober view on the matters. Calling historical character names or disputing renown theories and possible scenarios is just banter, you have no idea how close you were to a very different scenario in the end of 1940.

Hi all,

I'm the creator of this thread.

A couple of German posters have decided to post that the British Army in WW2 was not as 'good' as the German Army.

I'm pleased to hear it.

The British and Commonwealth armies were drawn from volunteers and eventually conscripts.They were not products of the fanatical Hitler Youth.

The German Army of today has thankfully no resemblance to the German soldiers of 1940. In fact, they resemble the British Army of 1940.

Democratic soldiers are not fanatics.


The Battle of Britain enabled pilots from democracies across the world to give the Nazis a 'bloody nose'. And that's a fact.

And thanks to these pilots, we are free to post what we like.

Another German comment here is that Britain and France caused WW2 by declaring war on Germany in September 1939. Hmmm...let's examine the facts shall we?

Who invaded Poland? Who caused the death of 20% of the Polish population?

Who invaded the rest of Europe?

Was it America?

Was it England?

No. It was Germany.

And which country (Shall we guess?) invaded Russia and killed 10 million + of their people.

In other words, try not to take the moral high ground.


Now, let's have as beer. Prost!



Best Regards,
MB_Avro

Avro, at last! How do you do it? Sixty-nine pages in nine days!

Legendary!!!!!

+1
Lets go back to original British declaration of war

Britain and France were bound in a treaty with Poland and were obliged to come to their aide. Hitler and the German high command knew this. They either hoped that Britain and France would not honour their alliance OR they were provoking them into war. Which one was it?

How could the Germans make the same mistake as 20 years before by opening a two-front war? Instead of blaming the victorious allies or the Jews, hitler should have known that what he was doing was recreating the same war/same result again!!!

Bismarck was rolling in his grave twice during the twentieth-century!:rolleyes:

Stern-
Americans refused to join Harris, not because of being noble, but because the USAAF was trained to bomb pinpoint targets, not population centers. The weather in Europe would modify this somewhat.

Avro-
Don't get me started on the behavior/actions of the German Army in Afghanistan

True words.... WW 2 was a total bloody mess and a clash of ideologies! And it was Germany starting the war. We shall never forget that Europe was very close to disapear as a center of culture and innovation. (Beside the fact that we were very innovative in killing each other!) The roots of conflict of WW 2 was WW1, ore to mention it with Brithish words the 2nd 30 years war. Especially the phase after WW I was the "trigger-phase" that enabled the NAZIS to start with their dirty work. -planning a new war-
I think we all should respect each other and do what flight enthusiasts can do best: Fly on our PC´s and respect those who had to suffer and pay the ultimate prize for freedom. The battle of Britain was fore shure the first major defeat of NAZI Germany-Austria. But it was not a fatal defeat. It paved the way for all the things that happened afterwards. From the perspective of the pilots of that time there was no right or wrong. All served their country with great enthusiasm. It was the fault of the politicans to find a sollution of jumping out the road that led to war. - And they failed- I totally agree that we all should have a beer and stop sensless discussions who was wrong or right. Let´s start playing and thank god that whenever we shoot at each other nobody is hurt, because it´s simply a game. Prost!