The Spanish, Portugese, French, Germans, Italians, Dutch and Belgians were all in the 'race' for colonialism and some others were major Imperialist powers too, no point singleing any one country out, let's draw the line at the beginning of the 20th century and argue about what's happened this side of that line.

Very sensitive post and I agree to most of it.

On one thing I would like to comment though. You rightly say that by pointing out British atrocities with the purpose to relativise German atrocities is wrong. I strongly support this.

But just a few lines later you start to compare British atrocities to German ones suggesting that whatever the Brits came up with is on a lower scale than what the Germans did. I do not make a statement about the content itself but you do exactly the same that you blame others to do: relativise by comparison. Relativism goes both ways and should be refuted both ways.

An injustice remains an injustice and hence uncomparable. They stand there and should be all regarded and considered independently without going into: country X or country y has done worse. Because this is what relativism is about. The same holds for instance for all the comparison between Nazi Germany's crimes and Soviet crimes. Both are there. Both are outrageously horrible. The existance of one does not make the other one smaller.

Just because Jack the Ripper killed five people does not make killing one man "only" a lesser crime.

So even if country x had no extermination scheme or killed only 10% of those killed by country y does not make it having less darker spots in history.

Let's draw a line on 21st century :)

That is basically the gist of it. I am not trying to justify german crimes in any way and take them at face value. The problem really is that whenever british misdeeds come up, it's attempted to justify them (we also brought a lot of good to the world, others were worse then us, we were forced to take drastic measures to bring victory, etc). You won't find this kind of relativism in Germany, at least not in a way to justify the actions of the people back then and make them "right". Just irritation that others still try to justify their own actions in such a way. Crimes are crimes. Maybe a major problem is that a lot of the british perspective comes from a mindset that for many people in Europe already is considered a bit of an anachromism, that nationality defines who you are and what you are accountable for. That is purely speculative, however.

63 pages in just one week. This must surely be the troll thread of the year. Well done.

bwahaha, and it took you 63 pages to come in and leave a mark? ;)

Actually as Bewolf pointed out this thread has miraculously avoided actual trolling, bar the few insults thrown around (more to do with personal sensitivities)

But I would like to see evidence of anybody 'justifying' past actions in terms of colonialism.

It was a Spanish general, Valeriano Weyler, who established the first reconcentrados or “concentration centers” in Cuba in his drive to suppress the 1895 rebellion. Britain introduced concentration camps on a massive scale during the Boer War from 1899 to 1902. To deny the Boer guerrillas food and intelligence, Gen. Lord Kitchener ordered the British Army to sweep the Transvaal and Orange River territories of South Africa “clean.” Civilians—women, children, the elderly, and some men of fighting age—were herded from their homes and concentrated in camps along railway lines, with a view to their eventual removal from the territory. The Boers, to whom these camps became a symbol of genocide, called them laagers.

Polish historian Władysław Konopczyński has suggested the first concentration camps were created in Poland in the 18th century, during the Bar Confederation rebellion, when the Russian Empire established three concentration camps for Polish rebel captives awaiting deportation to Siberia.

The earliest of these camps may have been those set up in the United States for Cherokee and other Native Americans in the 1830s; however, the term originated in the reconcentrados (reconcentration camps) set up by the Spanish military in Cuba during the Ten Years' War (1868–1878) and by the United States during the Philippine–American War (1899–1902).

The CCs in South Africa were not established with the sole purpose of exterminating the inmates like the CCs established 40 years later in Germany. Were the conditions in the SA CCs atrocious? Yes but when it became known there was an effort to improve the conditions which certainly not the case in the German CCs.

Hallo Crow. You are absolutely correct, and I couldn't agree more.:) I was unable to finish my post and had in fact begun a final paragraph beginning 'however' in concurrence with what you have just posted (had to dash for a bus and so aborted it). It is indeed also relative, (relativism itself however being multifaceted and taking many forms in its philosophical context too).

There are those who maintain that there are universal 'moral' truths, going back to the age of Socrates and Plato. Few people here would argue for example, that the theft of an apple has any moral equivalence to the premeditated murder of an individual. Thus, most modern legal-punitive systems will have a curious blend of both moral absolutism ('murder is unquestionably wrong in any circumstance') as well as relativism ('murder is not as serious a crime as theft') with both being penalised accordingly.

The comparison made was not any attempt to validate or in any way mitigate a wrong ( 'The existence of one does not make the other one smaller.') I agree absolutely. The intent was to show how these observations are perceptual and indeed relative, and dependent on many variables. Others however would argue that they are comparable in terms of immorality. The concept of 'Morality' is a very murky area, and worthy of its own thread. I understand how this was not clear from my post, as it was unfinished and did not represent my views in their entirety. Really, I should not have posted it in that form.

So, no real disagreement here Crow.......'Two wrongs' most certainly do not make a right, and neither can diminish nor mitigate the other. Agreed (had a few lagers so sorry for any spelling mistakes if there is). Bottom line, we are all the same......end of story. What happened in Germany could conceivably happen anywhere, given a similar or identical set of conditions.

Interesting stuff, but we should probably get back to the BoB. LOL @Feathered's comment, yes a 'Troll nade' was successfully detonated. :grin: Evidence being Avro has not made a single contribution to the thread, he's just watching the small arms fire and artillery strikes, whistling away innocently from a nearby hill. :grin: Avro successfully started a ROF vs COD war at the Zoo, too. A master of his art. :grin:

Cheers. :)

Yeah a great chap indeed. But I find this discussion much to my interest. There is actually discussion, exchange of ideas, and its much more civilized than it used to be at the zoo.

I am pretty much just read only in it, largely because Thor, Beo' and 41SC already described, probably better than I could, the thoughts I can agree with the most.

All this talk of which country did what etc.....pointless. Humans did things, period. If you like you can hide behind pourous fluctuating boundaries waving flags of identity, but in reality we're just monkeys with elaborate ideas.

The day we cast of these false ideas of Nationhood and simply evolve together is long overdue. :rolleyes:

lol:grin:

Even monkeys still fling poo at each other.......

That's the point of it =)

So I am standing in line at the auto parts store when this guy walks in carrying a box of candy..

Whoops

Wrong thread.. Or is it? ;)

Nah, Ace, it's the right thread.
Are you sure it wasn't a box of donuts?........uhhh, doooonuts....

I may not have the same skincolor as Homer but at least I have the same haircut.

Er, if it wasn't for the English Channel, England wouldn't have been England, history would be different all together.

actually, the biggest real difference for the outcome of the BoB would have been to delay it for a couple of months in order to wait for the 109's fuel droptank.

Wow, just found this thread and read the first couple of pages. I'm amazed the thread has made it to 64 pages without being closed.

immediately followed by:
Wow, Pot Kettle.
Classy.
so it must be true
Britain has only recently stopped paying for the wars. If the treaty was unfair, Germany should have concentrated on renegotiating it. Going to war again was hardly the solution was it.
As above, that's a pointless comparison. Were it not for the channel, world history would be completely different.

Are you a modern day Nazi? (I'm not even being tongue in cheek)

Yes you can argue that the treaty wasn't fair, but WW1 itself was hardly fair was it - millions of people (on all sides) died, so it's understandable that nice and cute fairness has been lost. To then use an unfair treaty as an excuse for the mass genocide in WWII is laughable. We can look at the treaty to see why Germany went to war, but if you think that economic hardship excuses the slaughter of millions of people you need help.

Agreed.

In these days/years there was to must blood (people) and to little money so the solution was war.
Is it not the same these days?!

:evil:

What agenda are you driving Triggaaar???

Nobody tried to excuse anything!!

Your position/self-image must be poor to be swinging the "Nazi-bludgeon" so early in this thread. :D

Yes, that is what I think.
You are clearly deluded.

I am interested in reality and understanding. I just stumbled on this thread and was amazed at the posts in the first 6 pages.

That's not how it looks to me.
No, pretty modest and self effacing self image. Just can't get my head around a couple of the views here, one of which basically says that if you make a country pay for their crime then it's your fault when they commit another.

Thank you so much for your intelligent and accurate analysis.

I should have been offended when I read you calling me a modern day Nazi, fortunately it's evident that you're not capable to endure a mature historical conversation, so I won't even bother giving it any consideration.

You're unfortunately a little late to the party Triggaaar.

The first 6 pages are probably the worst - it improves a lot after Page 36 or so :)

By the way Sternjaeger is apparently Italian and lives in the UK. edited: cheapshot

I must be american ;)
Yes it must get better - only read the first dozen pages.

You're welcome.
I find your ealier posts shocking:
Germany went to war and killed millions on innocent people, including genocide, and in your posts you don't blame Germany, you blame the Treaty of Versailles (and I'm aware that other nations have waged war over the years too, but here we're just discussing WW1 & 2).

I can't get my head round that. Justilfying or defending what happened led to me thinking of you as a modern day Nazi.

It's one thing to say that looking back you can see how the treaty was so restrictive that Germany would become unstable, but to actually say that the cause of the war was the treaty rather than evil people is ridiculous, and if people were taught that at school you can see how it could lead to radical movement.

I strongly, strongly suggest you read the whole thread before posting and warming up arguments that have been discussed ad infitintum and throwing around insults. So far you did not provide anything that has not been said before.

erm, blaming Nazi Germany for the killing of millions of innocent people is one thing I completely I agree on (as much as I hope you agree the Allies did the same), but the conditions for the outburst of WW2 were caused by a series of long and short term causes, which can't simply be tagged under "Germany", and this is not just me saying this..

You have to bear in mind that after the horrors of WW1, nobody was really too keen in the start of a new war, and the German public opinion had mixed reactions at first regarding the invasion of Poland. It was started in a clever(ish) way though, with the annexing of Austria and "peaceful" invasion of Czechoslovakia as a claim for the lost territories of the Empire, and the escalation to the proper conflict was skillfully fed to the people by the propaganda.

It's not like every German was a Nazi and wanted to conquer the world, that's a somewhat naive view me thinks..

It's just too long a thread to read it all, then go back and start again, quoting bits that jump out at you. No doubt this has all been discussed a million times before, and no one here will say anything that hasn't been said before, so if you don't want to read the same thing again, don't read the thread.

The allies certainly killed millions of innocent people. The differences are in justification. When bombing enemy civilians you may be trying to encourage the enemy to chance their tactics, or weaken their resolve. Or they may be casualties among military targets. None of it is nice, but if you are fighting to ultimately defend your country it can be understandable. There is no such way to defend the holocaust.

This is so wrong I don't know where to start. While over the centuries there has been truth in the saying that the victors write the history, you should not give up on finding the truth. If they had won the war, they would still have been the baddies (as you put it), we just might not know they were.

The Romans took over Europe, they won - they were not the goodies.
The Brits took over half the world - they were not the goodies.
The Crusaders went on a killing spree under the name of god - they were not the goodies.

No of course they weren't. It was your view that the war was not Germany's fault (the country, not every individual) that I am shocked by.

I'm sorry but that's a bit lazy: you get in a conversation while it's been running for a while and start blurting out sentences and calling people names just because you don't understand, how should one take this?
so you are shocked about what I said, whereas justifying the killing of innocents to stop a war is acceptable?! Double standards anyone?!?! How can you even begin to think that and consider yourself mature enough for this conversation?!?! I am shocked, seriously shocked.

Ah and FYI, check out how the Geneva convention was changed in 1949 regarding civilians...

Yeah, well good luck with that. And yes, if they won the war, on an absolute principle they would have been the baddies, but you reckon they would have said this or were aware of being the baddies?! Nobody thinks of themselves as the baddies.. I'm still shocked about your partial acceptance of the killing of civilians, how do you classify the invasion of Iraq after 9/11? Was the killing of all those civilians justified?

your analysis is pointless. History is not a court, it's a chronicle. Historical analysis on the other hand is a form of judgement, but it can be bent and adapted to the different perspectives.
excuse me, what's a country made of, land only? It's the majority of people of a country that decide for the fate of it.

lol, wtf?

Yes, we all see that you do that.

Hais triggaaar

I'd leave stern's comments alone and ignore them, it's like nailing a jellyfish to water. And makes about as much sense.

Oh no.

It's all kicked off again.

Sorry chaps, just thought I'd say hello again.:)

If they could just get the patch released we would have something else to talk about!

Regards Mike

well I'm sorry but my logic is pretty simple: I look at the dates, numbers, statistics before and after (up to at least two years in each direction), which are incontrovertible facts, then draw my personal conclusions, which I expose with no national sentiment, but keeping into account other's (if present).

so you too think that killing enemy innocent civilians is fine? Nice, I'm starting to delineate what sort of mentality goes on here among a certain bunch of people.

Un-frigging-believable :!:

In October 2010 Germany paid the last rate of reparation for WWI - after 92 years.

LOL. That like negotiating with your own kidnapper.
Hint: As he's in power he doesn't give a sh1t.


They were not? Who says that? You?
What's right or wrong lies in the eye of the beholder, end of story.
I for one dont agree with your judgment.
-We learned a lot from the Romans-> good thing
-Brits: same thing, most of their colonies were better of while being part of the empire.
-Crusader: Those guys conquered a good part of the Roman empire 500 years before that. Europe being part of the caliphate would have been the better option, right?


Correct - only you can't use to justify the bombing of civilians as no one knew about it at the time.

Lol! Where do I say anything like that?

So, by your judgment stern, I am a bnp supporting advocate of the slaughter of civilians.

My statement stands.

Yes we see your logic. Germany attempted to knock GB out of the war and failed, therefore it was a draw. Right, if you say so. :rolleyes:

u r supporting triggaaar and his position, hence, you think like him..

or has this become an alliance of people that don't like me and find any good excuse to have a go? :confused:

Motivate your points and bring valid arguments to support your theory, I'm sure you can do it.

how can you even begin to think about simplifying a complicated matter such as WW2 with such a statement?! Are you guys even taking this thread seriously anymore?! :confused:

Failure to meet objectives? Check
Loss of irreplaceable experienced crews? Check
Tactical defeat? Check
Ultimate strategic hammering by failing to meet objectives which would have led to capitulation of the UK? Check

Simplistic I know, but hey.

erm, it's kinda hard to keep on repeating the same things over and over, but hey...

Loss of irreplaceable experienced crews? They had losses, but learned a lot from the experience, if you look at the pilot organic numbers, by 1941 they recovered the lost pilot with new ones and had learned an immense lesson in terms of tactics. Don't really see it as much of a "defeat" there. Loss of personnel and material is an evaluated risk in warfare.

Tactical defeat? Hardly, it was more of a tactical stalemate. No changes in the frontline, only war of attrition between air forces and extra damage to civilian targets with thousands of civilian casualties. The Battle of Britain was followed by months of bombing offensive, and up until 1945 the Germans used their V1s and V2s. I really struggle to consider that a "victory".. Operation Sea Lion was never cancelled, only postponed.

Ultimate strategic hammering by failing to meet objectives which would have led to capitulation of the UK? Really? Have you read about the historical analysis that was published a few pages ago? The Germans didn't really have the same take on the whole Battle of Britain affair..

You see what I mean? You're judging a historical event from your side, not from an impartial point of view.

As for the damage GB sustained:

loss of many pilots (more or less experienced)? Mega check. By the end of the big aerial offensive, the RAF was on its knees, they had pilot with as little as 25 hours on the Spit that took off to engage bombers and fighters.

extended damage to civilian and military targets? Tens of thousands of civilian casualties, whole cities and factories turned into rubble, interruption of primary services. The situation was pretty grim by the end of the bomber offensive, it was obvious that mentioning a "victory in repelling the attacks" was of paramount importance back then. What they failed to say to the population obviously is that it wasn't a case of the RAF having crippled the Luftwaffe for good, but that the German forces were concentrating their efforts on a new frontline.

BoB was rather a skirmish, nothing more, nothing less. A first phase in the operation Sealowe, not a battle per-se.

You think that if Germany wouldn't have really wanted to start and carry the war in the east, could have not dispose of the english?!! By that time, or shortly after, they've got their droptanks, and that would have changed everything in a BoB phase 1 operation.

Simply, they've stopped it because there was no point in trying to enforce it at that time: Britain was in no way a threat for the continental Europe, and they've rather go east, as the Lebensraum doctrine was stating it. And after that, the russian bear gave them too much trouble to care about the silly brits and their island anymore.. until the americans came decided they want to have a go visit Paris..

No, I was simply offering advice, nor was there any mention of the rather OT issue of bombing the bejaysis out of enemy manufacturing/civilian centres in my post, nor of the wholesale slaughter of ones own civilian population. Although I think that little distinction is very important to remember in terms of justifying acts undertaken in times of war.

there is NO justification whatsoever in the bombing of innocent civilians, as it was discussed and approved in the 1949 Geneva convention (after the lesson learned with the strategic bombing of German cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

The fact that you still believe there was a justification for those bombing is abhorrent to say the least, it's like justifying the Blitz or the concentration camps.

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.

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!

I think it was both. Munich agreement could have created a hope that Poland may be happily fed to Germany too, and that other counties would be reluctant to enter the war or at least they would want to hold active actions for some time. Pre war territorial gains of Germany were almost like probing of willingness of other countries to fight: take something; no opposition, then take more.

Good that the tread opener jumped back in and brought the discussion back to the main esscence, which fed the plebs for the last 69 pages:
Us and them!

And someone still wonders, how the 2nd WW was possible? :rolleyes:

I am frankly disconcerted about the fact that people had an "us vs them" perspective on most of the posts of this thread, I really think it's either a huge case of "lost in translation" or approach to the topic in an incorrect manner.

Yes, the war actually started with both Germany AND Russia invading Poland.

No, Germany haven't invaded the rest of Europe, in case you've forgot, both Britain and France declared war against Poland invaders (though not on Russia..), so actually Germany was in a state of war with France and Britain.. so, that's not an invasion (as in we've invaded them over night), but a legit part of the war actions.

Yet.. DO you know about this little declaration?!! Read it carefully please, and go dig it into the war magazines archives in case you think it's forged:

"Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to." (Polish Marshal Rydz-Smigly as reported in the Daily Mail, August 6th, 1939)

What if actually Poland was acting as the small thug, knowing it has binding treaties with other two BIG thugs (read France and Britain) to jump in for it, no matter what?!!

There are voices saying that actually Poland was salying german population from the german territories taken from Germany and given to Poland at the end of WWI, and that was actually the reason for which Germany invaded Poland.. read Polish Atrocities Against the German Minority in Poland, and read it full, not just the main article in there


Things are much more complicated than they are presented to us by "official history"..

PS: also, there's another thing I keep hearing in this "if Germany would have won, history would have been very different".. implying it would have been much worse than the actual outcome.. yet.. I find this disturbing.. are you VERY SURE things wold have been much worse?

have any of your big-mouths-stating-this-bold-declaration countries spent the past 50 under the paw of the communist russian bear?!! do you have any idea what was like to live in eastern Europe from 1945 to 1990?!! Germany killed 6 millions in concentration camps, official record (which actually might be a much pumped-up number), but do you have ANY IDEA how many of my eastern europe fellows died in russian gulags?! the 50 millions number tells you anything?!! do you have any idea what happened in the countries and towns occupied by the soviets at the end of WWII?!! has the word mass rape any meaning to you?!! do you know that whole industries were dismantled from these countries and went to the brother russian as war compensations, leaving east european countries with nothing?! and then enslaved for the following 50 years to pay ten times the named war compensations (namely at the "fair" prices imposed by the russians)?!!

I'll tell you just one story, I've heard it countless times from all the elders I've talked with which were living those times.. when germans came, if you had two pigs, they would have taken one, and eventually give you something (no matter how symbolic) in exchange for it, and leave you the other.. when russian came, they would have taken both pigs, rape your wife and daugthers, take anything which could be carried away and eventually set everything remaining on fire..

THIS was your better alternative..

You may not be aware of the history of The Daily Mail in the 1930s under proprietor Lord Rothermere. It had well-publicised Nazi sympathies. In the context of the other rubbish they were publishing then the above 'story' should not be relied on as necessarily true.

Just a brief search on this as I don't have the time at the moment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

Lord Rothermere was a friend and supporter of both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, which influenced the Mail's political stance towards them during the 1930s.[25][26] Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them.[27]

Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists.[28] Rothermere wrote an article entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine".

“ The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing on Germany (1933). ”

—Lord Rothermere, publisher


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...e-Romania.html

http://peterblack.blogspot.com/2010/...and-nazis.html

http://conservapedia.com/Daily_Mail

"In the 1930s, the Daily Mail was politically sympathetic to fascism, and Lord Rothermere wrote articles praising the British Union of Fascists and their leader Oswald Mosley in particular for showing “sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine”. One headline notoriously read "Hurrah for the Blackshirts". However, he toned down his support after the Fascist party was involved in street violence. The Mail’s political stance was also influenced by Rothermere’s personal friendship with both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party – the only newspaper to support them both consistently. Rothermere sent Hitler a telegram of congratulations after Germany invaded the Sudetenland in 1938. The paper also published The Protocols of The Elders of Zion in serial form, and ran inflammatory articles about Jewish immigrants.[4]

Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy was supported by the Daily Mail until after the Munich Agreement, but the newspaper changed its stance after the Nazi invasion of Hungary in 1939. This change of attitude may have been influenced by Chamberlain’s threat to close them down."

It most definately would have been much, much worse had Germany won. I am glad the Nazis lost in many ways.
Those stories about german minorites being persectued is most likely Propaganda. However, Poland indeed acted very, very agressivly towards Germany during the days of the Weimar Republic, after WW1 even tried to grab more land from Germany militarily.

Funny, however, how some individuals once again try to deflect this debate about Britain at Germany, as usual hiding behind Poles, Jews, Gypsies and other victims who they did not lift one finger for during the war. The usual hypocrisis.

Before talking about people 'deflecting' debate maybe you could refamiliarise yourself with the title of this thread!!

And then ask which individuals broadened the discussion initially.

edit: sorry Bewolf. Bit of an over-reaction

I'm not so sure.. Even if Germany won, I'm sure the german nazi scums would have been removed from the history's scene much faster and with less casualties than the soviet ones.. The german nation was at that time much more educated than the russian one

but of course, we can never be sure, and things went as they went..

I was not aiming at you, Kendo, I consider your posts quite sensible, though I can see how one feels targeted by association. And you are right about the initial topic, but that was left a long time ago.

That is purely speculative. I'd not have wanted to take that risk, to be honest.

and to all the people saying how it went off topic, it's probably the natural progression of a discussion on this thread, don't think for a minute there's intention in derailing the original topic.

What emerges though is that there is still a lot of misconceptions and different takes on how things went.

Sounds so familiar (minus the raping). What country were those elders from?

Soviets were not beasts per se, however there should be a distinction made: behavior is very different when soldiers are on offensive side, which hasn't suffered much losses, and when soldiers are retreating with lots of casualties or are back on offensive after lots of defeats. Germans were less nice while they were retreating, and Soviets were constantly fed with ideas of revenge by propaganda. Sadly it takes not much for war to make beast from human.

Romania

we were occupied by the Germans, both when victorious and when defeated, and also as allies and enemies.. and by the russians, both when defeated as enemies and victorious as allies.. and the only difference was between germans and russian, not if victorious or defeated, not if allies or enemies.. russian soldiers at that time were simply steppe barbarian hordes, leaving a trail of rape, death, fire and destruction behind them..

How do Spartans fit into this theory? :p

Sparta was an Oligarchy.

Democracy is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.

Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. Throughout history, most oligarchies have been tyrannical, relying on public servitude to exist, although others have been relatively benign.

The Führer and Supreme Commander
of the Armed Forces


Führer Headquarters,
16th July 1940.
7 copies

Directive No. 16 On preparations for a landing operation against England

Since England, in spite of her hopeless military situation, shows no signs of being ready to come to an understanding, I have decided to prepare a landing operation against England and, if necessary, to carry it out.

The aim of this operation will be to eliminate the English homeland as a base for the prosecution of the war against Germany and, if necessary, to occupy it completely.

I therefore order as follows :

1. The landing will be in the form of a surprise crossing on a wide front from about Ramsgate to the area west of the Isle of Wight. Units of the Air Force will act as artillery, and units of the Navy as engineers.

The possible advantages of limited operations before the general crossing (e.g. the occupation of the Isle of Wight or of the county of Cornwall) are to be considered from the point of view of each branch of the Armed Forces and the results reported to me. I reserve the decision to myself.

Preparations for the entire operation must be completed by the middle of August.

2. These preparations must also create such conditions as will make a landing in England possible, viz:

(a) The English Air Force must be so reduced morally and physically that it is unable to deliver any significant attack against the German crossing.

(b) Mine-free channels must be cleared.

(c) The Straits of Dover must be closely sealed off with minefields on both flanks; also the Western entrance to the Channel approximately on the line Alderney-Poitland.

(d) Strong forces of coastal artillery must command and protect the forward coastal area.

(e) It is desirable that the English Navy be tied down shortly before the crossing, both in the North Sea and in the Mediterranean (by the Italians)1. For this purpose we must attempt even now to damage English home-based naval forces by air and torpedo attack as far as possible.

Stern, 2.a was not even close to being met and you still want to call it a draw. :rolleyes:

Democracy was what it was in ancient Greece, in which everyone's word had the same weight when taking a decision regarding's city's policy.

It is not the case anymore with XX century's "democracies"

I'll give you a single example about what american XX century democracy is: The Gulf of Tonkin incident (the pretext which actually started the Vietnam war).. How is this different than what they officially say Germany did to Poland? In only one aspect.. Germany didn't won..

Hmm.. in this case, you need to re-read the memories of the WWII british fighter pilots, which were brought on (or even over) the very edge of mental and physical collapse at that time..

EVERY soldier is a fanatic when psyched up by propaganda!

whatever the plan was, it was suspended for other matters. At the time of the suspension of major aerial operation over the Channel the RAF was at the brink of collapse, the Luftwaffe could have won the war of attrition, had they persevered.

Let's give you an example: you're playing football with your friends, at some point the other team needs to leave because more urgent matters require their presence, and so far the score is a draw, but you've been struggling and you know that if they didn't have to leave you might have lost that game. I would understand your enthusiasm for having got away with it, but would you really consider that a victory, or one to celebrate anyway? :rolleyes:

Yet they still kept flying and fighting, so not even close to your statement.

of course they did, what else could they do? They were pushed to the max: the RAF gave their pilots amphetamines, the Luftwaffe benzedrine.. there were cases of nervous breakdown and accidents due to tiredness on both factions.

Sure Stern, what ever you say. The Lw abandoned the daylight phase which was to defeat the RAF and switched to night terror attacks on civilians.

As for the war of attrition, the number of Spitfires and Hurricanes increased during the daylight phase of the battle while the Lw's numbers continually declined from the numbers at the start of the battle in July.

13 Aug 40
Strength Summary
Number Type Strength/Svcble
42 1/3 Kampfgruppen 1482/ 1008
9 Stukagruppen 365/286
1 Schlachtgruppe 39/31
26 Jagdgruppen 976/853
9 Zerstrergruppen 244/189
3 Nachtjagdgruppen 91/59
14 Seefliegerstaffeln 240/125

7 Sept 1940
Strength Summary
Number Type Strength/Svcble
43 Kampfgruppen 1291/ 798 > -191/-210
4 Stukagruppen 174/133 > -191/-153
2 Schlachtgruppe 59/44 > +20/+13
27 Jagdgruppen 831/658 > -145/-199
8 Zerstörergruppen 206/112 > -38/-77
18 Fernaufklärungsstaffeln 191/123
6 Seefliegerstaffeln 52/33

well, according to some of your buddies here that was ok (at least until 1949!) :rolleyes:

sources man, don't forget to mention the sources. As for the number of Spitfires and Hurricanes, I'm not that sure about your statement, but even if you are right it's kind of irrelevant, since you need pilots to fly them.

Had the battle continued, you would have soon seen the entrance in service of Bf109F and subsequently FW190s together with extended fuel tanks, then I doubt that the MkV and Hurri had much of a chance there..

source: http://sturmvogel.orbat.com/LW_OBs.html This is a well known site. I am surprised to you are not familiar with it.

But the day battle didn't continue as the RAF put the run to the Lw.:) The Lw lost in its attempt to destroy the RAF.

The Lw was loosing even more aircrew, ~5 times more.

How many RAF pilots were considered "A" Squadron category, ie. fit for combat, and how many "B" and "C", ie. unfit for combat and essentially only existing on paper?

Considering that RAF started the battle with about 800 fighters, and lost as destroyed about 1100 during the Battle, it would seem the initial pool of pilots was lucky if he even survived the battle with an attrition over 100%.. how many were considered fit for operations out of these hordes of new pilots with six weeks of traning? I doubt if more than a third.

I don't think you mentioned it before, and the assumption you made that I don't know it is based on?

aaawww child :rolleyes: ;)

You surely know that Luftwaffe crews had a "one pilot per machine only" policy, so the highly trained personnel loss rate was in fact on par (if not less) with the RAF. Get your facts straight.

RAF > 544 aircrew killed
Lw > 2,698 aircrew killed

To those numbers should be added POW and WIA.

Since you are such the gung-ho luftwaffler I would think you would at least do some research on the Lw and have found that site, which has been around for a very long time.

By 2 November, the RAF fielded 1,796 pilots, an increase of over 40% from July 1940's count of 1,259 pilots. (Dye 2000, p. 35.) How many pilots did the Lw have?

By 14 September the Luftwaffe's Bf 109 Geschwader possessed only 67 percent of their operational crews against authorised aircraft. The RAF had an excess of pilots on squadron strength, as well as a/c.

Due to the failure of the Luftwaffe to establish air supremacy, a conference assembled on 14 September at Hitler's headquarters. Hitler concluded that air superiority had not yet been established and "promised to review the situation on 17 September for possible landings on 27 September or 8 October. Three days later, when the evidence was clear that the German Air Force had greatly exaggerated the extent of their successes against the RAF, Hitler postponed Sealion indefinitely. (Overy 2001, p. 97.)

You're unaware of "channel sickness" stern? Not as well versed as you think then. I'll get back to the rest of your post later.

no, i'm assessing the saituation on the simple basis of don't leave things unfinished before starting on massive new enterprises. you could ascribe it to Machiavelli even.
nothing of the sort. you either assess it as it was in the day - ie no convention prohibiting the bombing of civilian centres - or with hindsight and retrospectively whereby it is unjustifiable. you're wilfully misreading what i say, and then putting words in my mouth. again. in no shape or way did i say that the killing of civilians was justified.

and yet you continue with it, and add more tangents. i have read your comments, and dismissed them as utter tosh, where you switch between "no hindsight allowed" and revisionism. it's amusing. also, for the record, long posts does not equate to a wealth of knowledge. were you never taught the value of brevity?

no, no assumptions made.
luftwaffe veterans of the battle of britain would show off their appendix scars. an appendictomy was often used as a means to get a couple of weeks rest for the pilots whose nerve was near breaking point, and "channel sickness" (i forget the german term) was pretty rife towards the end of the battle. after the tide turned in the east germany was fighting for survival. once the campaign had started in russia there was no hope of a peaceful settlement, it was a war of destruction. i also have not heard or read of RAF pilots undergoing surgery to get rest, although "exhaustion" was oft cited for pulling RAF pilots out of units and sending them on leave/training squadrons, and squadrons were rotated out of the main fighter groups when they were approaching burnout. a policy that the allies had but the luftwaffe didn't ascribe to.

oh, and you, ftr
lies.
lies. the americans claimed they delivered pinpoint bombing raids. well, pinpoint by forties standards anyway. they also did their bombing in daylight, whereas the RAF had carry out nightbombing. this had a twofold effect: the reich was under the threat of bombing 24 hours a day, no rest, no let up; and the bombing had no hope of being as accurate at night time. also, if the americans refused civilian targets why did they bomb dresden twice in daylight? they may have had different priority lists, but there seems to be no refusal.

mmm. political machinations which went nowhere once the luftwaffe's attempt to destroy the RAF in the south of england failed, aka defeat in the battle of britain.

lol. "they let us go, it was a misunderstanding"!
yes, certainly a misunderstanding, they didn't realise how bloody minded churchill and the british in general were. the stuka's were far from ineffective at dunkirk as well. accounts often talk about the sirens of teh stukas and the bombs and shelling. certainly sounds like they let us go. :rolleyes:

you obviously aren't capable of a logical debate, but still you continue to attempt to make the case that the BoB was a draw, and put inflammatory comments into people's mouths. a historical character who was a madman is still a madman, and goering was a morphine addicted transvestite who was only in command because he was the fuhrer's mate and a former WW1 hero. he had no competency for the task he was given.

it was not that close run a thing. RAF strength, in numbers certainly, was up at the end of the battle. luftwaffe numbers not so. our pilots who bailed out flew again, filling those planes that were being built at two factories or helping train new pilots. the luftwaffe pilots were prisoners.

lol what?

and there are, as far as i am aware, no cases of unnecessary surgery being conducted on RAF pilots to give them a rest.
lies.
which we had. see above.
supposition, also the battle would've had to continue through the winter, when no amphibious assault would have been possible across the channel, which was the entire point of the battle. are you sure you know what on earth you are talking about, because you seem to be building an argument made of either misdirection or idiocy.

really cannot tell.:rolleyes: