[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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

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.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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

no, no assumptions made.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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?

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

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

lies.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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

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.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

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.

Originally Posted by adonys

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..

lol what?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

and there are, as far as i am aware, no cases of unnecessary surgery being conducted on RAF pilots to give them a rest.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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

lies.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

which we had. see above.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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..

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.