kudos. numbers, referenced.

game, set and MATCH.

Game > yes
Set > yes
Match > no, as Stern will appear with a different twist to his revisionist history.

72 pages arguing about the word "Defeat"?

Wow, not to be an a$$, but you guys really have a lot of free time. :-|

I definitely cannot understand the logic in letting 300 000 soldiers escape just in the hope of making peace with Britain. If forcing peace with Britain was really in Hitler's mind he would have done quite a bit to capture these troops resulting in a considerable blow to the British morally, political (helding 300 000 POWs captive does have some significance in the political game as a sort of bargain mass) and military as Britain had not the interminable numbers of soldiers like the Soviet Union that could man-wise afford to loose millions of its military personal to captivity (speaking from a purely military point of view here - poor lads they were). So loosing out such a number of soldiers would have left Britain even more vulnerable I guess.

Can't have revisionist history.

Stern is as stubborn as he is wrong, you'll have more chance nailing diarrhea to the ceiling that getting him to change his mind. imo its pointless to ague with such people.

Kind of fun to watch though.

Frankly, there is no point. I have tried to bring an impartial perspective, but I suppose that I should write an essay on it, and even then you'd still be in denial.

The fact that the majority of the contributors here is British doesn't help either, but it's evident how this is an all British thing, and the sentiment for it is as strong as it is biased.

I have been called names, mocked, bullied, but in fact nobody picked up in an unbiased way on the facts I have exposed, and even when pointed to German point of view as seen from an American expert, there was little or no space for discussion, it was all about who can shout in the louder and ruder way.

The bottom line though is that there is an unsuspected amount of people that still believe that only the Germans should be blamed for all the evil, bad and deadly things that happened in WW2.

Stern, with respect, the problem is that many feel your position is not impartial, and strongly disagree with your conclusions. And we are not 'in denial', we are in disagreement. (Your use of 'loaded' phrases such as 'denial' and 'biased' below imply that you have reached a position of complete factual objectivity and that any disagreement is ignorant prejudice.)

Once again your assumptions are clear: as your own viewpoint coincides perfectly with objective reality anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint disagrees with objective reality and is 'biased'. In my opinion your apparent inability to recognise that your viewpoint (or anyone elses for that matter) has at least some subjective elements is either deluded or more likely arrogant.

Again you wilfully confuse 'disagreement' with 'bias'. Those 'facts', or more accurately 'interpretations' of historical events, were in most or all cases disputed or interpreted in differing ways by other people.

I, for one, don't deny that the Allies could be said to have made some doubtful moral choices during the conflict, but I do hold that the Western Allies held a morally superior position in the war to Nazi Germany, and that the attempt of some to establish moral equivalence between the two is misguided and wrong.

this.

And round and round we go. Well put Ken.;)

It can not be, what shouldn't be!

I don't know. :cool:

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

I agree with your first paragraph.

But how could the Allies/British help the Poles,Jews, gypsies and others? It was not hypocritic as you suggest. It was a factor of distance. The world was a much bigger place then.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Hi all,

I have been reading a book entitled:

Best of Enemies. Britain and Germany. Truth and Lies in Two World Wars.

Author is Richard Milton.

Britain and Germany according to Milton were prior to WW1 close allies. They had a shared culture and a shared Royal Family. WW1 was expected to involve Germany and Britain as Allies against the French.

But after the start of WW1, the propaganda machines of both Britain and Germany changed the situation for ever.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

It's you that doesn't understand. I read the first dozen pages, and posted my thoughts on the comments you made on those pages. I don't need to read another 50 pages to form an opinion on what you wrote in the first dozen.

Firstly, it's not double standards, because I'm not drawing a distinction between which side was killing civillians. Both sides killed civilians, some were killed while military targets were being attacked, some were killed deliberately for different reasons. What number of civilian lives lost is considered acceptable is open to debate (regardless of which side you're on). I do draw a distinction between that and ethnic cleansing. And because of that, you are seriously shocked and think I'm not mature enough for this conversation. Ok.

I'm talking about reality - the reality of whether someone is fighting for the right reasons or not. Your arguement is that the winner is always the goodie, purely because that is the story they will tell. My point is that you have to search beneath the story, and not believe everything the state tells you, and find out the truth. Your arguement suggests that I would believe the crusades were a good thing, which I don't.

Of course I accept that some civilians will die. Are you suggesting that if someone found a way to end a war, but it would involve one civilian dying, that the war should continue instead? If a dictatorship was developing nuclear weapons, and showed the world it had the will and capability to use them as soon as ready, but they kept the factories in a populated town, would you just accept that your country (and population) was going to be destroyed because civilian casualties in an opposing nation would be so unthinkable?

Western governments lied to their people (and those governments were lied to by certain experts too) about the evidence and reasons for going to war with Iraq. I personally think that was wrong and war should have been avoided.

I was simply pointing out to you that we don't always believe that the victors are the goodies, which is what you said.

No it isn't. People can be lied to and suppressed. When a country goes to war, I don't assume that is the fault of every individual in that country.

This attitude stems from the legal priciple of " causation". The old, none of what followed would have transpired" but not for" Germany starting the war. Not one but two World Wars.

Yes, sorry. It could keep doing that until the thread is closed.

I disagree. I think it's better to try than start WWII. To each their own.

It may not always be clear cut, and there can be differing opinions, I agree, but sometimes it is clear cut.

That we learnt from the Romans doesn't make what they did right (not that I judge them by todays standards).
Same for the British empire, just because many people are in a better position than they would have been does not mean that the cause was just or the deaths of innocent people worthwhile.
Travelling through foreign lands murdering, raping and pillaging is bad in my books, but you think it's ok because it's better than letting the Muslims carry on without Christianity. I guess we won't be agreeing on this.
I didn't use it to justify killing civilians, that didn't cross my mind. We were looking back at right and wrong, and I was saying that the holocaust was a bad thing (call me radical).

Is that what your professor said to you when he/she made you change your mind?
Are you trying to patronise us because you think it makes your opinion more valid, or have you just run out of points to your arguement?

depressingly perceptive.
sigh
free time gladly spent
you have done with your very long, very wrong posts. it doesn't matter if you write a large 700 page book on it, if this is a mere taster it would still be spectacularly wrong.
again with putting words in our mouths. where exactly is that posted? please quote it, references man.
top post

does it matter - we got 9/11 in here as well, hadn't noticed that reference before, what next?

ooooo tiebreaker!

Excellent TrollGrenade Avro :)

1904 Entende Cordiale? Throw this book away, it probably has a chapter on wooden Spitfires :rolleyes:

Trig, an excellent reply to the nonsense however you are attempting to change the minds of committed apologists for the Nationalist Socialist Party.

As sad as it is, these people will attempt to equate Belsen and Aushcwitz to Hamburg and Dresden whilst conveniently forgetting Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Portsmouth, Coventry, Liverpool, Bristol and the many others where they sowed the seeds.

It was not nice however war never is. 150-200,000 civilians have died in Iraq since it was invaded however none of them were processed through industrial killing facilities.

That is the difference.

Your line of arguement means that it doesn't matter how many men/machines you lose, you can just right them all of as evaluated risk. That makes no sense. When drawing up the plans to invade, you would make such evaluation, and you'd find out whether you met your objectives after the event. Given that the objective was not met, the losses were not worth it were they.
Germany's objective was to clear the way for an invasion that year. They failed. Britain's objective was not to gain air superiority over the channel, it was to prevent invasion, and they succeeded.

Do you think the operation is still live? No, so you realise it failed, and Britain didn't get invaded.

No it wasn't, you need to look up some modern data.

If the German objective was to kill a lot of British civilians, and the British objective was to prevent the death of any British civilians, then Germany won the BoB. But they weren't the objectives, much as you might like to twist them to your arguement.

You think that because some British pilots have said they were on the edge of collapse, that the objective 2a had been met? Of course not, don't be silly.

Firstly, you're saying that in different circumstances the Luftwaffe could have won - so what, they didn't, which is all we're arguing about. Secondly, you are very out of date thinking that the RAF was close to collapse (not that it would help your arguement even if it was true).

That's some weird comparison right there, but I'll go with it. If it's footy, we're really talking Champions league here, not you and some mates. Can you imagine a situation where Bayern Munich are playing Manchester Utd and half way through the game Bayern say sorry, they want to see the end of Germany's got talent? The suggestion that Germany made up the plans in the morning, started and then decided a few weeks later that they really ought to get back to the important stuff is madness. It was a planned attack, with a planned amount of aircraft and personnel, and a timeframe. They under-estimated Britain's strength and failed their mission. That they continued fighting elsewhere doesn't suddenly make a defeat a draw. Your arguement that Britain did not gain territory is embarrassing.

That's a very fair comment :)

You may be impartial, I don't really know. But regardless, you are wrong. You remind me of Stephen Fry arguing that WWII finished in 1990, because only then was Germany reunified etc.

They have, you are just too stubborn to see it. You argue that the RAF was on its knees, so people give you facts and figures on aircraft and pilots. You don't understand that Germany lost more pilots from the fight because they were fighting further from home. You're shown the objectives that Hitler set out, that the Luftwaffe failed to meet, so you ignore the facts of what did happen and start talking about what might have happened had Germany not been a bit busy elsewhere. You are given facts, not personal attacks, but you reply by trying to patronise others and put words into their mouths, suggesting a few of us think that ALL civilian deaths are just fine.

What, like some of the descriptions of the Russian army a few pages back? Is there anyone here at all that thinks that?

This thread was about the BoB being the Luftwaffe's first defeat, a fact which you blindly deny.

As I reached the end of the thread I see Kendo had already put it more eloquently than I managed.

Personally I wasn't drawing distinction between Hamburg, Dresden, London, Coventry etc (no bias to which side), it's the killing of people that you already control that I pick out. Let's not even start with Stalin.

PS - I totally own this page ;)

I'll come back in a few days to see what's happening with the patch, and hopefully this thread will have disappered.

My money is on the patch dissappearing.

well, on a philosophical perspective.. it seems that the vast majority of the people, no matter the time or era, are blind and deaf and stupid idiots, who would not see the forest from the trees.

There's no point in trying to debate this, as long as people are throwing in name calling, and view any attempt to look at any other (god forbid to try and do it from the german) point of view than the british/allied one as neo-nazism or worse..

This is the main reason history repeat itself, and it's a very sad thing to see..

I'm thinking on starting a pool to bet on whether this thread will hit 100 pages. Any takers?

disagreement is kinda given for granted, denial is a different matter altogether.

You guys de-contextualise the air battle of 1940 as an episode per se, not considering it part of a more fluid, multi-layered and complicated warfare.

"THE Battle of Britain" was happening only in England, there was no perception or interest as such in Germany on the matter. Surely, you lived it personally cos you were the ones being attacked and bombed, nobody is questioning that, but it had little or no reach to the Germans.

You put up an efficient but desperate in some points defence system, which fortunately allowed you to put a marginal but effective limit to the offensive.

The RAF and Luftwaffe lost a similar number of pilots (The Luftwaffe lost more aircrew), and the numbers of the 4 months of intense battle show a similar number in losses proportionally. Let's not forget that the RAF sent up mainly two kinds of fighter planes and that's it, while the Luftwaffe invested more in terms of bombers and fighters.

Because of the poor planning and mistakes made by their Air Marshal, the Luftwaffe didn't manage to produce results as they were supposed to: the RAF was effective ONLY because of FAC and Radar, the real target that the Luftwaffe should have neutralised first.

Everything else is history of course, but the decision of concentrating the majority of fighters and logistic efforts over the Russian campaign wasn't an admission of defeat.

It was a clash, no different from the WW1 ones, the difference being that it was fought in the air instead of a trench.

Both factions were suffering heavy losses, stress and fatigue, but the British had the edge because of the defence position, they didn't have to cross the Channel to bring their offensive (they wouldn't have the means anyway).

Many people talked about "David vs Goliath", with the difference that Goliath didn't die, just lost his interest and moved onto something else. You want to call that a victory? Feel free, but objectively the matter is far more complicated than "win or lose".

The victory of the Battle of Britain was a perfect propaganda idea to celebrate a much needed victory after the shambles of the BEF and Dunkirk, this goes without saying, and of course it is understandable to be happy about the loosening of the attacks, but it's not like they stopped altogether or you managed to cripple the Luftwaffe.

Truth is that the Germans didn't perceive it as a "battle", it was part of an operation which was interrupted by the command as it was going on.

There is a lot of arguing among historians on the definition of "battle", and its sometimes lazy or inappropriate use, especially in a WW2 context.

It really feels like there can't be an objective victory celebration without sliding into propaganda, if you know what I mean.

I don't want to deprive anyone of their finest hour, but this whole concept of "winning" makes me think of Charlie Sheen's winning, more than the real victory that was celebrated on V-Day.

Brilliant. Stunning work.

And now you're suggesting that our point of view is going to lead to history repeating itself. I don't understand that at all. I think that killing is bad, so how can that viewpoint lead to another war?

Speak for yourself.

I think that this is how stern sees it.
Possible outcomes for Germany : Win or Draw
Possible outcome for Britain : Loose or Draw.
We are on a hiding to nothing then.
This thread has developed like Monty Pythons argument sketch :)

No it hasn't.;)

This particular air battle was just part of the entire war effort, no one is saying otherwise. But we are discussing this particular battle and each sides objectives for that battle, and there's nothing wrong with that.
That sounds about right to me, but what's the relevance of this point? People in Germany may not have cared about the battle, that's not relevant to who won it.

You are refusing to look at the facts. The number of RAF pilots increased while the number of Luftwaffe pilots decreased, but that doesn't matter - it wouldn't matter if it was the other way round. Hitler had an objective for the air battle, and it failed, regardless of how well each side was doing with numbers.

Again... so? We're not currently debating why the Luftwaffe messed it up, or why the RAF were able to win.
It doesn't matter whether Hitler 'admitted defeat'. He didn't exactly have a good grip of reality when it came to accepting defeat. Did the BoB destroy Germany's war machine - no of course not. We're not debating the significance of the battle at this point. Simply that Hitler had objectives and failed to meet them. Are we saying this was the most important thing to him - no, we're not trying to attach any level of importance or significance. We are simply saying that it was an air battle where both sides had objectives and one side met their objectives and the other didn't.

Yes, that is a victory. If China were to attach Taiwan (well you brought up David and Goliath), and Taiwan were able to fight them off enough that China gave in (lost interest in you words), do you think that would be a draw? You do not understand the difference between defence and attack, you think a defender cannot win unless they go on the offensive. And as for losing interest - you think it was like this thread where at some point people will lose interest in trying to discuss this with you. When you're at war, fighting for you country, and thousands of people are dying, you don't just lose interest like with a board game.

It is true that it was useful to publicise it as a victory, but when looking back to determine whether it actually was or not, we don't need to look at what was said at the time, it's not relevant.

Again that's not relevant. If you want to argue that it wasn't a battle, fine, stick to that. But you're arguing that 'it' (whatever term you'd like to use) was a draw, and we are arguing that 'it' was a British victory and German defeat.

Seriously, none of us were flying, it wasn't 'our' finest hour. It's just one part of centuries of history and it doesn't make any difference to our daily lives whether it's called a battle or a victory.

We're just sticking to the facts. See post #704 on page 71 which states what the directive was. If you find new evidence showing that that was just a trick, and that Hitler's actual objective was just to distract Britain while he concentrated his war effort elsewhere (and actually he had no plans to invade Britain at all) - wow, that would change things. Suddenly Hitler's objectives would have been met, and the battle/smokescrene would have been a success. But back in the real world, we know what his objectives were, and he failed to meet them. And you bringing random points into the arguement, like 'well the RAF were lucky because the weather changed and there was a load of water in the way' etc doesn't change the facts.

I'm sorry to resort to insults, but it's like arguing with a 6 year old.

ok, let's make a short analogy here, maybe our islander friends will get it better this way:

if a tiger is fighting a cat, and at some point the tiger has to go away because he has to pee, that doesn't mean the cat won the fight.. right?!!

But go ahead, call it a THE GREATEST VICTORY EVER for my part.

Truth is.. brits always need their big thug nephews help to get our from the mess they've got themselves into (think any other WWII brit operations). Kind of like the italians :)

But they were great warriors, and look, they won BoB.. Of course they did, otherwise.. what else would have they to celebrate?!! The almighty colonial british empire? Battle of France? Dunkerque? Singapore? Dutch Indies? North Afrika? Market Garden?!!

Using another analogy, is like trying to get away from him the only rotten bone a skinny dog ever had.. of course he'll jump to bite you for trying to get his only reason for life away from him.

It's a normal denial behavior as we know it from kindergarten psychology.

Where is your reference to this statement of 'lost a similar number of pilots'? You expect others to supply references but you are just a wee bit lax in suppling references.

In Aug the Lw lost 424 pilots KIA. MIA, POW while the RAF lost 148 pilots. During the 4 months of the BoB the RAF lost 481 pilots KIA, MIA, POW.

http://cz-raf.hyperlink.cz/BoB/stat.html#production
http://history-world.org/battlelosses.htm

APPENDIX 2. Directive No. 17
THE FUHRER & CINC
FUHRER HQ1 Aug 1940
OF THE WEHRMACHT

OKW/WFL/L # 33 210/40 G. Kdos., Chefs. Geheime Kommandosache.
Fourth of ten Copies.
Chef Sache.
Officer Courier Only.

DIRECTIVE NO. 17

FOR THE CONDUCT OF AIR AND NAVAL WARFARE AGAINST ENGLAND

For the purpose of creating conditions for the final defeat of Britain, I intend continuing air and naval warfare against the English motherland in a more severe form than hitherto. For this purpose I order as follows:

1. The Luftwaffe will employ all forces available to eliminate the British air force as soon as possible. In the initial stages, attacks will be directed primarily against the hostile air forces and their ground service organization and supply installations, and against air armament industries, including factories producing AAA equipment.

2. Once temporary or local air superiority is achieved, operations will continue against ports, particularly against installations for the storage of food, and against food storage installations farther inland. In view of intended future German operations, attacks against ports on the south coast of England will be restricted to a minimum.

3. Air operations against hostile naval and merchant ships will be considered a secondary mission during this phase unless particularly lucrative fleeting opportunities offer or unless such action will achieve increased effects in the operations prescribed under Item 2, above, or in the case of operations serving to train aircraft crews for the continued conduct of air warfare.

4. The intensified air offensive will be so conducted that adequately strong air forces can be made available whenever required to support naval operations against favorable fleeting targets. In addition, the Luftwaffe will remain prepared to render effective support for Operation Sea Lion.

5. Terrorization attacks as retaliatory measures will be carried out only on orders from me.

6. Intensified air warfare can commence at any time from 5 August on. The Luftwaffe will itself determine the deadline after completion of its preparations and in accordance with weather conditions.

s/ Adolf Hitler

Initialed: K[eitel]

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/...rman-A.html#a2

Please take note of '1'. And you still want to say it was a draw Stern when the objectives of '1' was not achieved. :rolleyes:

you just don't get the difference between willingly giving up (due to whatever reasons), and being forced to give up (like in gettin' beaten).. do you?!!

You just don't get it do you. The Lw abandoned the daylight attacks and switched to night attacks because they were loosing, err gettin beaten. :)

It's not just your islander friends that disagree with you.
Well it depends why they were fighting. If the cat has territory that the tiger wants, so the tiger attacks the cat, but fails to make the cat go away and instead gets cut up badly, so the tiger goes for a pee and when it comes back it still can't remove the cat, then the tiger lost. Trying to compare the Luftwaffe's inability to win the battle with either a tiger needing a pee or your mates deciding they can't continue a game of football is embarrassing.

This shows your bias. This isn't about whether Britain are any good at anything or not, it simply a discussion about one battle and whether it was won or not. It doesn't matter who helped whom, who got lucky, who made the wrong decisions, who was commit elsewhere at the same time, simply a case of what the objectives were and whether they were met. But you want to turn it into a willy waving contest. You think that the Brits got themselves into a mess because they didn't sit by and watch Germany take over Europe? What nonsense.

We don't need to celebrate anything, but if you asked us what we could celebrate from WWII, then we'd say we celebrate VE day, not the Battle of Britain,d we don' and celebrate VE day thinking we were special or we did anything on our own, we celebrate because the Nazis were stopped and we have freedom thanks to many allies.

What? You think that the BoB is Britains rotten bone, our only reason for life? You are completely deluded. Most British people don't care a jot about the BoB, most British people don't think of the war except when they're remined on remembrance day. You are so far from reality it's shocking. Take a clip board and go interview some Brits and ask them what they think Britains greatest achievements are - I bet you won't find one single person that says the BoB, because while it was an important victory, it was just one battle in a long history.

When a distant attacker gives up attacking, you can always pretend that they did so because they got bored, needed a pee, had something else to do. Defining whether they were 'forced to give up' is not a simple task. The Luftwaffe could not afford the losses they were sustaining over Britain, so they pretty much were forced to give up, but as long as they had one aircraft left you would argue that they could have carried on if they weren't so desperate for the toilet.

All of the facts are completely against you, but you think we disagree because this is Britains claim to fame. We're not suggesting that you think it's a draw because poor Germany couldn't handle the thought of losing a battle against Britain, that would be equally daft. I don't understand why you can't see the facts. What to the Americans, Japanese, Dutch etc think?

if I am swinging my sword at you, and you rise your shield and parry my blow..

common sense people will name your shield rising a successful defense, not a crushing victory because "I've failed to meet my objective for which I was swinging my sword, namely to wound your flesh"

go figure that!

So if you swung your sword to damage someone, and they parried your blow, would you then just walk off? And in you example, you'd retreat totally unharmed - are you suggesting the Luftwaffe lost no aircraft or pilots.

To make you comparison like the Battle of Britain, a single German aircraft flew to Britain, fired some shots at a British aircraft, missed and realised there was no way Germany would win the battle, so retreated, with no losses on either side. If that had happened, there wouldn't have been a 'Battle of Britain'.

Once again you analogies are ridiculous, and do not change the facts.

77 pages? I'm German and I don't care if it was a loss or victory. There have been tons of wars in the past and most of them were cruel. But Hitler was a sick idiot and, like many, didn't deserve a victory in the first place and it's sad he got that far. Call BoB a loss but not stopping him much earlier is already proof that the whole globe had lost to this sick maniac, smaller victories aside.

That said I find it hilarious that so many people make topics like this. One country against the whole world? I for one would say it's totally stupid to assume anyone could win this and it's very sad to see how far and close to achieving his goals he actually got. If Germany would've had the size and potential of Russia we'd be speaking German today. Also if Hitler would've attacked ONLY the UK there's probably no chance that the UK would've survived.

Also please don't forget that in the first years of the war the Germans tried very hard to not piss off the USA. That's one of the reasons why the uboot fleet was never really let lose until it was too late.

It was a lost cause to begin with. Take out a world map and actually look at the size of Germany and then compare it to Russia, UK and the USA alone. Not to mention all the other territories. Of course the BoB was lost but I doubt that anyone really cared considering they were in a war with the whole GLOBE.

sir, when you're parrying a sword blow with your shield, bothe the sword and the shield get damaged.. that's common knowledge..

and don't tell me, after the brits broke the krautz in BoB and saw them on the flee.. they've chased them and throwed them out of Europe, as the victors they were..

Here's my analogy.

2 Boxers slugging it out, both battered and bruised. At the beginning of the 11th round one of the boxers (a) doesn't come out of his corner muttering some excuse about another fight he's got planned, leaving the other boxer (b) standing waiting. That's not a draw. That's 'we bit off more than we could chew'. So ends the Battle of Britain..

The next fight comes along and boxer (a)'s doing quite well against the next boxer (c), wins a few rounds but then gets caught with a good counter punch, meanwhile boxer (b) is back and this time he's brought his mate (d)..

End result = Boxer (a) get's his head kicked in by everyone at the same time (this is the best way to deal with bullys), boxer (b) has given all and will never fight again, leaving (c) and (d) to fight it out for the world heavyweight championship...

You only say Germany lost because you're British and, like a starving dog holding its rotting bone, claiming victory is the only way of finding anything for your pathetic country to be proud of.

Oh.

Technically LW lost to RAF, because LW didn't meet their goals (some may even say that they were not very clear and stable) as attacking side, and RAF successfully completed their goals as defending side. This is a fact. However, I don't think BoB was such a defeat, which could be considered epic blow to LW, after which LW could not or had a hard time recovering, and so BoB should not be presented like it was an a** kicking fest.

Agreed

Doesnt this argument/contradiction issue remind anyone else of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4&feature=fvsr
:)

Perfect. Another draw.

Adonys, that post is more than a little insulting. You obviously have some issues with the British for whatever reason, but as the length of your ignore list continues to grow it is obvious that you also have issues with lots of people. Maybe you'd be kind enough to add my name to your list as well.

Cheers.

Gentlemen,

There seems to be great jubilation here from several posters at the 'evacuation' of the British Army at Dunkirk in May 1940.

Facts:

The British comprised only 10% of the allies at that time. It was not the whole British Army. It was the British Expeditionary Force (BEF).

The RAF in France comprised only 10% of the Allied Air Force.

And yes,the German army was superior to both the French and British. The German soldiers were ex-Hitler Youth and the products of a fanatical dictatorship. And had the experience of combat in Spain and Poland.

Does anyone here know about the murder of 250 rear guard British soldiers by the Waffen SS in May 1940? They ran out of ammunition and surrendered. The next day,the Waffen SS murdered all apart from 3 who managed to escape.

This puts the Battle of Britain into context.


And an important context.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

WOW Just WOW what an ass...

I'm so happy to be on this ignorant tools ignore list, what a load of rubbish.

The USA doesn't exactly have a gleaming trophy, how many disastrous, pointless conflicts have they dragged the UK (there only supporter in some cases) into since WW2.

If any country/government is in denial IMHO its actually america (yes and UK too) and its ignorance of the effort and effect the Russians had in WW2.

Don't forget about helping the Germans as well.

Now that is something I have to take issue with (And i think I'm right in assuming that your irony tongue is well and firmly in your cheek!). I reckon America would've become involved at some stage anyway.

The role of America is all too often underplayed by the British, including members of my own family. I don't consider December 1941 to be the 'end' of the war, nor do I espouse the view that 'we won the war with the help of America and Russia', which in fairness is all too prevalent in some.

There are ordinary people in Britain who realise that but for the economic and industrial power of America, and the quite unbelievable resilience of the Russian people and their armies, Britain would have been hard put to continue the war in any form, which of course is why the UK ended the war in debt to America to the extent that rationing only totally ceased in 1958.

It also bankrupted the Empire, and I'm convinced that Churchill knew this when he said 'no matter what the cost, or the agonies may be', with which statement he made clear that he was willing to sacrifice that which he and the majority of the British populace held most dear.

I suppose that it's this level of sacrifice, to rid the world of a 'monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime' that makes us Brits so adamant.

We bloody won the Battle though. So there.:-P

Destroyers? Those wouldn't be those clapped out 4 stackers would it. If it is, they were bought.

GM (Opel) as well.

Expenditure by the US for the lend-lease program totaled about $48,000,000,000.

70% went to Great Britain and 25% to USSR.

The US received $6,000,000,000 in reverse lend-lease, mostly from the British Commonwealth.

you guys are right, I'm sorry, the tone I've used wasn't proper, and I'm sorry for that, I've got carried away :(

yet.. those are facts, battles the english had lost. and I don't have anything against them, I've even lived in London for a year and a half, and maybe I'll live even more in the future. there's no shame in losing, as long as you fought with all you strength and gave your best.

also, let's not forget this is a game, and we all are united in here by the same thing we have in common: passion for WWII flight sims.

sons can not be blamed of the sins of their fathers and history is history, and can not be changed. we can just learn it true, to avoid doing the same mistakes again in the future.

No indeed. And it wasn't our fight anyway.
Agreed again, although given the arguements here I guess we're not learning it truethfully.

Which battles are you talking about?

Fair play to you for posting this. I think a few of us have had moments on this thread where the red mists have descended (myself included).

I just want to say that I think we all need to learn to let others have their own opinions on this matter. I don't have any problems with Stern and others holding different views from my own so long as they allow me the same freedom.

Also, holding the view that Britain actually did achieve something important in the BOB doesn't at all imply that many of us here think Britain won the war single-handedly or possessed overall superior military prowess to the other nations involved. By most reckoning Germany had the most formidable armed forces in terms of quality of equipment, leadership, tactics, etc.

Anyway things got a little out of hand in this thread. Hopefully the patch may appear today and we can all get back to the game.

Absolutely. I have no problem with any of you guys either on the matter, I respect your opinion and see your point of view, I'm not in total denial! ;)
I suppose I'm a bit scared by how we manage to justify our atrocities "for the sake of the greater good", but firmly condemn other when they do it.

There's no perfection in this world, no absolute good and bad, that's what prompts my attitude towards assessment of historical events, it really has nothing to do with nationalism.

The thread has dangerously derailed more than once, but I'm surprised how far we got with this "hot topic" without getting banned/flamed/stabbed ;)

Well, as hostilities appear to have been suspended, maybe it's time for a short video intermission.

It's only at 360p so I wouldn't bother with full screen.

Respectfully dedicated to all contributors to the thread, and I never professed to be unbiased myself, by Jingo!!;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6RnzoGXMdU

Hi all,

You know what's not been mentioned so far? And it's a positive.

Neither side shot at parachuting airmen. There was some sort of mutual respect.

Any examples?

Perhaps 'Total War' was not part of the language then?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Shooting parachutes no.. but I remember I've read some accounts saying that the brits were destroying the german life-buoys to not allow the germans to recover pilots downed into the Channel.

The life-buoys didn't work. Their mooring chains broke and they were carried away by the sea currents.

Maybe you are thinking about the luftwaffe rescue float planes for downed airmen? Such as the He-59?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Dowding wanted to order his pilots to shoot 'chutes but Churchill vetoed it.

it happened, from both sides from time to time. i've certainly read references to it regarding both sides.

theres also the nice taped conversations of a few Germans shot down during the BoB describing how they enjoyed shooting at houses, buses etc. I have no doubt in my mind that it happened the other way around at the end of the war.

you can still read the transcripts of these lovely people who didn't realise they were being taped.

war brings out the utter shit in some people. on all sides.

a couple of pleasant exerts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...y-2263579.html

I don't want to be moralistic but it's hard to compare the brutality of the Axis forces and the deaths involved in teh liberation of those countries.

Pls see the diag there :

http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm

8M killed by the allies including 1.6 M civilians causalities (yes far too much)

40M by the Axis regimes including 25.6M of civilians ! (and those countries did not really have strategic bomber forces)

Obviously you don't kill 40M of ppl just by signing your name on an order form (at that time there was no nuke to be feared). Millions of others had to be committed in the blood bath.

I don't think morals are a solution. There will always be opinions anyways. In fact if you just go by numbers then you'd have to face the issue of our planet being overpopulated even though we had those wars anyways. And that is not an excuse but it's an indicator of what will happen again: conflicts!

Earth doesn't have unlimited rescources. There may be countries or individuals who are rich, e.g. have huge territories etc. but as long as they sit on it and don't distribute it there will be crime and there will be wars. Simple as that.

Also keep in mind that almost a billion is in grave danger of starvation with about 5 million dying yearly. So all cruelties of the war aside the real killers out there are usually something the developed countries don't care about. We sit on our wealth and try to defend, expand and exploit.

From that perspective it doesn't even matter what happened during the war or who won what battle - if you want to be moralistic either defend earth and rid if from it's overpopulation or try to save these people dying from hunger. Of course you could add those who die from desease, exploitation and crimes etc. as well. It's just such a complex task that starting and fighting wars seems to be easier and certainly more lucrative to the people behind the wars. The industry e.g.

not quite the case from what i read.

there were isolated instances, one where an RAF pilot came down after being machine gunned on his chute which was witnessed by a comrade, and another where a polish pilot shot at a luftwaffe pilot on his chute. emphasis on "isolated" though, as well as being unclear if they were actually hit intentionally, or simply hit by some of the stray lead that you are exposed to if falling through a battlespace.

stereotypically speaking (dangerous i know) our czech and polish pilots were a tad more bloodthirsty than the british ones. but generally it wasn't in the slightest "necessary" if the german pilots were bailing over UK territory - captured anyway - but there was always a certain level of surprise that the german pilots didn't do it, some sections even feeling they would have been within their rights to do so. one quote went so far as to say that he would've been a legitimate target on the end of his parachute, because that parachuting pilot could be back in the air by tea time.

i would guess it's an element of self-preservation in it though - you never know when you'll be dangling helpless in the middle of an air battle.


also coming down in teh channel was very dangerous. the north sea even more so - very very few pilots were pulled out of there.

the ones that were painted with a red cross but also, allegedly, carried out recon missions...

That's a new one on me.:confused:

All accounts I've read say that Dowding's opinion was that German parachuting aircrew were prisoners, no longer combatants and should not be shot at, whereas the Germans would have been within their rights to shoot at British aircrew parachuting over England as they would soon be back in the fight.

Churchill was appalled at this notion but had no 'veto' to make, the Luftwaffe jagdflieger luckily held a different view also.

There are reports of it happening on both sides, although whether by accident or design is purely speculative. The Poles in particular had a 'reputation', but there's no concrete proof as far as I'm aware.

More fuel for the fire Avro? ;)

I think that this thread has been through the 'fiery stage' and is back on track.

I've cetainly seen a few interesting posts on the topic.

but the question remains - can we get to 100 pages?

lets see,

Would the Battle of Britain been over in 1 week, if the RAF had had 50's:rolleyes:

What's a 50 ??

.50 calibre guns

Careful chaps I fear the rise of the 50Cal debate :)

Or, would the Second World War have ended had the German nation actually attempted to invade Britain in September 1940?

My money's on 'Yes'.

Royal Navy, Fleet Air Arm, Bomber Command, Coastal Command, all thrown into the mix. And that's if they didn't make it to the shores. If they did make it, Then you would have the army too, and every civilian armed with a bread knife or better.

Speculations are cordially invited.;)

uhmm I dunno, personally I would have avoided the invasion by sea initially, I would have used Fallschirmjaeger units with gliders and Me321s to transport troops and tanks. They could have poured in thousands of men in a day, establishing bridgeheads and carried on the invasion.

It would still have been necessary to gain air superiority though, and concentrate attacks on RAF bases and aircraft factories.

But before all this, the introduction of external fuel tanks for the fighters would have been of paramount importance.

So, the technological needs were:

1) droptanks for the Luftwaffe
2) development of gliders and glider systems

strategy:

1) converge bombers on airfields and aircraft factories
2) establish air superiority
3) arrange massive para-drops
4) capture airfields and/or prepare improvised land strips
5) combined attacks of bombers and u-boote towards the RN
6) mine channel
7) ask for support from the Italian Navy


all in all it would have been too much of a logistic strain and effort in 1940/41, but still feasible, had they decided to avoid the invasion of Russia.

Occupying Great Britain would have left only two frontlines to defend: southern Italy and the East, but had GB actually fallen, the US would have never intervened in the ETO and would have instead tried to find a truce with Germany (at least until the atomic bomb was ready..).

Fortunately the German high command was very narrow sighted and led by an impulsive psychopath, but it still remains that under a military point of view, the Reich's one was a formidable armed force which was appallingly wasted.

you missed hitting the radar, thus leaving the massive 321s open to interception.

did they have gigants in 1940?

this was in fact the thing about the battle, the only time the luftwaffe actually kicked a hole in the radar net was a chance raid by epgrp 210, which took out a generator. however the luftwaffe never realised what they did, and utterly failed to exploit it.

drop tanks would have allowed the fighters more time over london, but that was at a stage when the battle was already shifting in the UK's favour - hitting london took the pressure off the airfields. a fair chunk of those hit had in fact not been active fighter command fields, but the pressure was off the ones that were. it would have allowed the fighters to cover the bombers for longer, but they would've been stripped away by the methods park used (and which 8th airforce would face over europe later in the war), in that he sent many smaller formations to intercept bombers along the course of their ingress and egress. this also relates to the myth of the big wing's success and how it was not the way to deal with the battle of britain.

so, stages 1 and 2 of your plan are what they tried to do, although they didn't know about the shadow spit factory elsewhere in the country and only hit southampton iirc.

simply carrying out the plan they had, but actually targeting only active fighter command fields and radar stations, as well as aircraft factories, and not being goaded into bombing london. that could have gained them the ability to surprise RAF fighters on the deck more often, get raids in and hit targets without being intercepted as effectively, and possibly led to local air superiority over the south coast of england, idea being that fighter command pulls out of the most affected airfields. then sending paratroops to capture the southern bases that have been bombed out of use, and resupplying the landing force that way... that could've ended badly.

it relies on intelligence the germans didn't have on quite what chainhome was and how it could be knocked out - not hitting the masts themselves, but going for buildings around them

The whole battle was probably one of those "false flag" things that you hear guys with tinfoil taped to their heads talking about.

You know what I mean, the government just let the Luftwaffe pound London so that the populace would hate the Nazis more. I bet that MI5 were planting most of the bombs themselves.

I'm also going to speculate that, had the Nazis invaded, the long lost kingdom of Avalon would have probably re-emerged from the mist and a glorious host of Arthurian warriors, clad in resplendent, glittering armour would have sallied forth to smite the beastly Huns and turn the tide in favour of their beloved Chrisendom.

By the way, Hitler was a reptilian you know, that whole silly moustache thing was just a ploy to divert attention from his peculiar lizard tongue.

*Disclaimer*

This post is in no way intended to belittle, demean or otherwise deride the imaginative and somewhat plausible contemplative fantasies contained in this thread. It's just that it's Sunday afternoon and the author is in a slightly bemused frame of mind. His primary motivation here is simply to push this behemoth of a thread just one post closer to the 100 page barrier and, hopefully, make a few people laugh along the way.

The British feared invasion even as late as 1942.

I spotted these Tank Traps outside the London Road Railway Station in the town of Guildford, a few miles south of London.

They have a commemorative metal plate attached to one of them which dates their construction as being from 1942.

http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...vro_UK/118.jpg

http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...vro_UK/117.jpg

http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...vro_UK/120.jpg

Jimmy! You are a very naughty boy!

If you listen to wiki leeks you deserve to believe every thing that you do!

MI5 are public servants! Logic would have told us that they would have been too busy waiting for the Tea Trolly to wheel past their desks to go and plant bombs anywhere.

This may have been the case but since Henry the 8th renounced the pope and set himself up as head of the Church of England I'm afraid those Authurian warriors probably have better things to do! (See my note about MI5!)

Unfortunately without DNA evidence your 'V' theory cannot be validated!

[/quote]

Ditto!

;)

The 321 glider didn't make its first flight til Feb 1941 so would be hard for them to be used in Sept 1940.

The 7th Flieger Division and the German 22nd Air Landing Division had taken losses during the preceding campaign battle of France), and were now understrength.

Do you know how much supplies are required by a Division when in combat? I don't think so.

The Channel was already mined by the Germans and the British.

You.

Shall.

NOT.

Die.

Hehe,heh. Top bump mate.:grin:

well I suppose it was developed because of the logistic needs of Barbarossa, if we're going by speculation I'd say that, had an airborne invasion planned before, they might have been able to deliver the 321 earlier.

same as above, despite the losses, if they knew they needed more paras, they would have concentrated on that.
I think I might have a faint idea, I was only 18 when I served in the Army initially, but I've seen enough divisions to know what the logistic needs are ;)
You can appreciate that massive drops from the Ju52s and capturing strategic enemy facilities/vehicles etc.. could have been part of the invasion. Paras are renown for improvising with what they find available.
well, not enough to cause a complete blockade afaik.

Must try to get to 100 pages. :)

see bold text

it's close

how about if they had conducted their air assault using the smaller low level raids that gave a better cost/benefit than the massed raids? hitting multiple targets at as little interval as possible would've played havoc with plotting intercepts, and could have allowed fighters sweeping shortly after to catch the RAF in the air or landing after scrambling in response to the first wave of attacks.

was always one of the problems with fighter sweeps, radar could usually pick out what was bombers and what was a trap. rarely afforded the the luftwaffe the chance to get the required 5-1 k/d ratio that would've been needed to destroy the RAF as a fighting force, and using 109s as close escorts just shackled them. better to use the bf110 and ju88 as the low level raiders unescorted, and rely on not getting picked up by radar, only the less efficient observer corps.

Ditto!

;)[/QUOTE]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...NsUYbI73NtXZ1g

i think the brilliant tactic by churchill was porovcking hitler into bombing his cities( did the luftwaffe really got their bombs wrong when the 1st city was bombed or was it staged?)

it deviated attention form main targets and he new the war of terro actually contrary to its intend boosts morale

edit:


theres no stronger weapon than the moral that gives knowing your self righteous :) and the divine justice that that brings

Didn't Galland say something about the Battle of Britain from his perspective did not end? And that the invasion of Russia just changed priorities?

After reading Spitfire on my Tail by a German Me109 pilot, I get the impression that Galland as a tactition was not highly regarded.

For instance, Galland opposed the use of radios in 109s during the BoB due to their weight penalty.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Steinhilper seemed to have a rather low opinion of galland as a tactician... and as a flight leader. The luftwaffe aces tended to put a kill above the poor katschmareks.

Wasn't the main issue with radios that the fighters and bombers had different crystald, leading to tragedy as missions were called off, and bombers left unescorted. in one case the fighters received the recall, butdespite aerobatics and the fighter formation leader's best efforts to get the bombers to turn back they advanced aline and got torn to shreds.

As much as I like Steinhilper's book,I still do believe he had a somehow narrow view of the war,since he spent most of it as an escaping POW. Galland had his quirks,but together with Mölders he had a great understanding of aerial warfare, millions of times better than the RLM. I often wonder how Möelders would have been like, had he not died prematurely.

Reading the "First and the Last" and other books like the mentioned "Their most dangerous enemies", "Spitfire", "The BoB" Marce l Lullian, "Operation Eagle" Len Deigthon..., I tend to put Galland rahter in the education of the days between WWI and its remains.

I guess Galland was still in his hype of the "easy" days in Spain with "Legion-Condor,-we-just-waggel-our-wings-and-everything-is-right". He was opposing the use of radios in fighters (and I can understand the KISS/S philosophy), but for opposing the first sohisticated air defence, I guess he was not prepared nor was any of the LW stuff, hanging to the beliefs of knight duells. Even if he understood the basics of aerial warfare, he didn´t seem to be great teamplayer. And the team play was, what made the RAF and the FC strong, or not?