This whole thread started with a simple statement on how the Germans (and it seems it's allies) took the defeat in the Battle of britain, now a bunch of self proclaimed unbiased historians hijacked it and turned it into 'the oppressive british empire and it's criminal bombing of Dresden!!!'
Bungay shmungay....whatever
Quote:
|
Yes, but strategically you can appreciate that a naval battle on such a narrow bit of sea would have been a carnage. The Channel would have been infested with U-Boats and the Royal Navy wouldn't have much of an easy time sinking enemy barges, especially if the Luftwaffe gained air superiority (which they didn't, but that was the idea: air superiority, air cover for flotilla, invasion).
|
Oh so you admit there was a planned invasion and the British thwarted it....
Quote:
|
well, it's your choice not to feel ashamed, but as much as you glorify your successes you should also be objective and admit your flaws, otherwise you might be perceived as arrogant.
|
Back to the original topic, our flaws during the whole conflict were not the topic, none of us have denied it happened, but some question the 'illegality' of it
Quote:
funny, you say you weren't there but you take it personally as if you were.
Great Britain didn't simply have the sheer number of aircraft and pilots to provide for a proper aerial superiority blanket. The Americans, with their 200+ airbases from which they operated, did. They weren't necessarily better, there simply were more of them.
|
Right back at ya fella! you weren't there either, nor was Kongo or anyone else on this thread yet only the Brits get cross examined when we display a sense of National pride....
Quote:
|
yep, them again. You wouldn't have gone far without them, if you don't accept it you're just proving my point about blank stubborness.
|
Yep them again, everytime somebody wants to cheapen the argument the shove the Americans upo our ass, we don't deny they came, we dont deny they were instrumental, we never claim to have won single handedly, but I might add that some believe the Americans did......and a Brit is not meant to find that a little insulting?
Quote:
|
yep, he was no better than many other incompetent generals on both sides, but his bill consisted in some unnecessary 600k civilian casualties and 55k brave RAF airmen and pilots.
|
Well you can't blame Harris completely if those civillians refused to read British 'prpoaganda' leaflets saying BTW you might want to leave were about to bomb you......
Quote:
If detesting the attitude "we're the good guys so we can get away with the carpet bombing of German cities and TWO atomic bombs on Japan, cos all in all it was them who got it started and they killed more anyway" makes me biased then yes, I'm a biased historian.
It's not good guys vs bad guys, the Germans had the motto "Gott ist mitt uns" on their belt buckles, not "Sieg Satan!".
It's about winners and losers, not who's good and who's bad, if you don't use this perspective you'll never give an unbiased judgement of history.
|
No it's about detesting some little Austrian corporal and his claim to regaining Middle ages Saxon lands and clearing it of any non indigenous people, why does Dresden bother you so?......you werent there
Wow someone actually took a shot at the Americans....the A bombs eh? arguably saved more lives because they ended the war....which quite frankly was becoming a bit of a bore..
so claiming god is on your side makes you the good guy eh?......Allah akbar!