The Battle of Britain Was The First Defeat For The German Luftwaffe.

[Sternjaeger II]

Oh for the love of...

Again with Bungay?!

Bungay is the Tom Clancy of history books: try and mention a Bungay book at any university and see what reactions you get.. a consultant-self-proclaimed-historian, he doesn't even have a PhD in History.. and yes, you should have the decency to get one if you want to work as an historian, not make it a hobby and publish biased junk that feeds the nationalistic ego.

Read James Holland's book on the Battle of Britain, that's the definitive book on the subject.

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Oh for the love of...

Again with Bungay?!

Bungay is the Tom Clancy of history books: try and mention a Bungay book at any university and see what reactions you get.. a consultant-self-proclaimed-historian, he doesn't even have a PhD in History.. and yes, you should have the decency to get one if you want to work as an historian, not make it a hobby and publish biased junk that feeds the nationalistic ego.

Read James Holland's book on the Battle of Britain, that's the definitive book on the subject.

I presume you don't include the bits where he seems to agree with you then!


I like to keep an open mind and Bungay lays out his argument very clearly. Far better than the Holland book IMHO which just regurgates stuff really.

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by blackmme

I presume you don't include the bits where he seems to agree with you then!


I like to keep an open mind and Bungay lays out his argument very clearly. Far better than the Holland book IMHO which just regurgates stuff really.

Regards Mike

Mike, to give you a parallel it's like saying that my GP, who's interested in cars, is expressing an opinion on what's the problem with my car is. I can listen to his opinion, and maybe he's right, but I'd rather talk to a mechanic.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Read James Holland's book on the Battle of Britain, that's the definitive book on the subject.

'The Battle of Britain' - James Holland, published by Corgi:

Page 811, para 3:
'.....at the end of the summer, Germany was significantly worse off than she had been in May.....'.

'....It has been fashionable in recent years to play down the importance of the Battle of Britain, but to do so is wrong. It was a key - if not the key - turning point in the war....'

Page 812 para 3:
'...Germany lost the Battle against Britain.....the Luftwaffe was not big enough to do what it set out to achieve.'

Page 822, para 2:
'...that does not mean the efforts of the RAF - or of Britain as a whole - in the summer of 1940 should in any way be belittled. And the myth does largely hold true. Britain was staring down the barrel in the summer of 1940 and her survival dramatically changed the course of the war.

Page 810, Para 2;
Hans Ekkehard-Bob still insists that the Luftwaffe did not lose the Battle of Britain, and prefers to think of it as more of a draw. Ulrich Steinhilper disagrees. He thinks the RAF broke both the back and spirit of the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1940 and that they never again recovered. Certainly, by June the following year, when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, the Luftwaffe was a much smaller force than it had been the previous May, unable to fully recover from the heavy losses it suffered during the summer of 1940, in terms of both aircraft and experience.'

Also, the opinions of 'historians' regarding war crimes do not constitute prosecution or conviction, and to describe a race as 'stubborn' is racial or nationalist stereotyping, not that I object to this description personally.

What I'd like to see, is a short post on what you think was positive about the political, moral, strategic or tactical policies and decisions made by any British leader, either civilian or military, in Britain between the years 1935 and 1942.

To hear you talk, Britain was a nation of total incompetents, which leads me to conclude you have an agenda far from the unbiased perception of history you espouse.

[bongodriver]

Eagerly waits while Sterjaeger shuffles frantically through some books

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

'The Battle of Britain' - James Holland, published by Corgi:

Page 811, para 3:
'.....at the end of the summer, Germany was significantly worse off than she had been in May.....'.

I never said they were any better, they suffered serious losses, but at no point during the Battle of Britain (and well into 1941) they were in risk of being overwhelmed by the RAF. They pointed their cannons and aeroplanes at another frontline. The question of morale is simply because the promises of Goering turned out to be as real as a 7 quid note, and because he wouldn't listen to his generals.

'....It has been fashionable in recent years to play down the importance of the Battle of Britain, but to do so is wrong. It was a key - if not the key - turning point in the war....'

It was indeed. The "unfinished business" meant that you had time to refurbish your Air Force and welcome the Americans, while the Germans were still riding the illusion of a success in Russia. IF Hitler knew of the Japanese plans, I doubt he would have let go of the British front so hastily.

Page 812 para 3:
'...Germany lost the Battle against Britain.....the Luftwaffe was not big enough to do what it set out to achieve.'

I am comfortable to disagree with him on this, Germany lost the war against Britain, not that specific battle. And I agree that on a broader scale the Luftwaffe wasn't just big enough.

Page 822, para 2:
'...that does not mean the efforts of the RAF - or of Britain as a whole - in the summer of 1940 should in any way be belittled. And the myth does largely hold true. Britain was staring down the barrel in the summer of 1940 and her survival dramatically changed the course of the war.

I agree, fantastic overall effort!

Page 810, Para 2;
Hans Ekkehard-Bob still insists that the Luftwaffe did not lose the Battle of Britain, and prefers to think of it as more of a draw. Ulrich Steinhilper disagrees. He thinks the RAF broke both the back and spirit of the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1940 and that they never again recovered.

That's Steinhilper's opinion, a young Luftwaffe pilot who was shot down and captured in October 1940, of course his morale was a bit down by then..

Certainly, by June the following year, when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, the Luftwaffe was a much smaller force than it had been the previous May, unable to fully recover from the heavy losses it suffered during the summer of 1940, in terms of both aircraft and experience.'

That's a wrong conclusion, since it has been proven that by the end of the war, the efforts of German aircraft construction meant that their numbers, albeit inferior to the allies, showed a growing number of aircraft from 1942 onwards.

Also, the opinions of 'historians' regarding war crimes do not constitute prosecution or conviction, and to describe a race as 'stubborn' is racial or nationalist stereotyping, not that I object to this description personally.

it's history written by the winners, call it whatever you want to call it, but Churchill himself didn't feel comfortable at all with it, and you know what a tough cookie he was.

What I'd like to see, is a short post on what you think was positive about the political, moral, strategic or tactical policies and decisions made by any British leader, either civilian or military, in Britain between the years 1935 and 1942.

To hear you talk, Britain was a nation of total incompetents, which leads me to conclude you have an agenda far from the unbiased perception of history you espouse.

Oh, there's plenty of them:
1) territorial defence system
2) creation of Radar network (the only very good thing that Dowding did)
3) evacuation of children from major cities
4) allowing the requisition of lands to build airfields for the USAAF
5) conducting excellent campaigns in Northern Africa

[ATAG_Dutch]

You even disagree with four out of five quotes from your own recommended 'definitive history'?

Yeah mate, 'unbiased'.

[bongodriver]

The irony.......sorry hypocrisy is a bit lost on Sternjaeger when he call us stubborn.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

You even disagree with four out of five quotes from your own recommended 'definitive history'?

Yeah mate, 'unbiased'.

you must have ran out of arguments..

I might disagree with some of the conclusions of a historian, not with the facts he gathered.

Bungay is just a good novel writer, not a historian.

Holland draws his conclusions, I and other readers/historians etc.. draw same or different ones, it's all down to personal interpretation.

But ask what Holland thinks on other matters that are so dear to the Allied cause (strategic bombing and atomic bombing for example..) and see what it suggests.

One of the differences that I noticed among veterans and later generations, is that the former show respect and understanding for their enemies, cos they were fighting for a similar cause.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Holland draws his conclusions, I and other readers/historians etc.. draw same or different ones, it's all down to personal interpretation.

Oh I get it now!

This 'unbiased' approach to history is simply your personal interpretation and your personal interpretation alone.

Therefore no-one can argue with this 'unbiased opinion' because no-one else is you, and if they do argue they are ipso facto biased and the victims of baseless propaganda.

Well, if it works for you.