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

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

All he is saying that an historians definition of victory differs from that of an armchair general, and that war is not a follow up of closed chapters but an ongiong fluid living being that does not care much about individual (national) interpretation of artifically set dates. Stern should have broken off a long time ago already as it became clear that this is a concept of history most people can't appear to get their head wrapped around.

Yeah - to me it seems to be a classic post-modern take on events - perspectiveless.

Unfortunately national perspective counts for a lot. That's what people have been arguing about for the last 37 pages.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

The rest of the post is rather sad..

In my opinion this whole thread is rather sad.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Yeah - to me it seems to be a classic post-modern take on events - perspectiveless.

Unfortunately national perspective counts for a lot. That's what people have been arguing about for the last 37 pages.

In my opinion this whole thread is rather sad.

It's not there for perspectives, national or otherwise, its there for learning mechanics. It's like looking at a car as a work of art or as a piece of machinery. The first is great for passion, the second is great for understanding how it came into being and how it works.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

It's not there for perspectives, national or otherwise, its there for learning mechanics. It's like looking at a car as a work of art or as a piece of machinery. The first is great for passion, the second is great for understanding how it came into being and how it works.

This is from quite a way back now and a lot has been said in between.

I'm aware of the merits of taking an approach to judging historical events that uses recent research, previously unavailable documents from both sides, etc to attempt to reach something approaching neutral, objective truth (though many people doubt whether such a position can ever be truly reached)

From a present day perspective with access to both sides records we can get a more nuanced, detailed, objective picture of the events of 1940. One of the points I tried to make in my previous post was that this can have a downside too - there can be a tendency to use our knowledge of later events in the 41-45 period to construct conclusions that were in no way apparent back in 1940. Stern is doing this when he downplays the significance of the BOB for the ultimate outcome of the war. Such conclusions may or may not be correct - but they were in no way apparent back in Summer 1940.

In my last post I was trying to say that to understand the significance of the BOB in the British psyche you really need to understand what the picture looked like from these islands in 1940. It was viewed as a crucial fight for survival. Too much of Sterns and others comments read like 'after the event' rationalisations - and there is a certain 'meanness' in some of the conclusions that strike me at least as being wilfully unbalanced.

It is understandable that other nationalities may be somewhat bemused by the 'our finest hour' rhetoric. I think the only answer is to make more of an effort to recognise each other's different national perspectives. There may not be any ultimate settled truth to be agreed here.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by kendo65

This is from quite a way back now and a lot has been said in between.

I'm aware of the merits of taking an approach to judging historical events that uses recent research, previously unavailable documents from both sides, etc to attempt to reach something approaching neutral, objective truth (though many people doubt whether such a position can ever be truly reached)

From a present day perspective with access to both sides records we can get a more nuanced, detailed, objective picture of the events of 1940. One of the points I tried to make in my previous post was that this can have a downside too - there can be a tendency to use our knowledge of later events in the 41-45 period to construct conclusions that were in no way apparent back in 1940. Stern is doing this when he downplays the significance of the BOB for the ultimate outcome of the war. Such conclusions may or may not be correct - but they were in no way apparent back in Summer 1940.

In my last post I was trying to say that to understand the significance of the BOB in the British psyche you really need to understand what the picture looked like from these islands in 1940. It was viewed as a crucial fight for survival. Too much of Sterns and others comments read like 'after the event' rationalisations - and there is a certain 'meanness' in some of the conclusions that strike me at least as being wilfully unbalanced.

It is understandable that other nationalities may be somewhat bemused by the 'our finest hour' rhetoric. I think the only answer is to make more of an effort to recognise each other's different national perspectives. There may not be any ultimate settled truth to be agreed here.

good post.

it does seem that the BoB was seen at the time as a barring of the door, a halting of the steamroller that had conquered much of europe in such a short period of time. we were fearfully aware of how ill-equipped our army was after it's narrow escape, even going to the extent of replacing armoured vehicles with flatbed truck and concrete. if seelowe had achieved it's stated aims (however implausible this appears to us after the fact, relying on the destruction of fighter cover over the channel, further degradation of the royal navy, good weather etc etc) then britain would have either been invaded or sued for peace (which elements of the commons were driving for during the battle). this could also have come to pass during the battle of the atlantic, which in fact was a more grievous threat to the nation than seelowe ever hoped to be. no britain - no aircraft carrier off the coast of europe for later use in the war. considering how instrumental russia was in actually defeating germany it may not have affected the ultimate outcome, but having to guard two fronts and divide what was essentially a tactical force (luftwaffe) cannot have helped barbarossa or future endeavours.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Yeah - to me it seems to be a classic post-modern take on events - perspectiveless.

Unfortunately national perspective counts for a lot. That's what people have been arguing about for the last 37 pages.



In my opinion this whole thread is rather sad.

In my opinion it's sad that in 2011 we still can't have an objective approach to historical events without someone taking the national perspective.

What you call "classic post-modern" (?) and "perspectiveless" is the only take a historian can afford to take on events. While at uni we studied propaganda a lot, but to understand the phenomenon itself, not as a search of truth.

In this thread I've been called names, I've been insulted by people that just popped by to have a go at the "high school kid", I've been accused of being anti-British, while all I did was motivating a point that isn't only mine, but of experts, historians and people of the time as well.

I'm not expecting everyone joining in a conversation to produce their qualifications (especially because we can all lie here), but one's preparation and cultural level easily emerges from what one writes, and frankly I felt a bit in the middle of a silly patriotic turmoil, but the wrong kind of patriotism, the one that sparks up only when some "old enemy" or someone else (read any foreigner) questions the pillars of your "culture". Britons are very protective of their heritage, and much rightly so, but are rarely capable of objective hindsight on it, there's a basic fear that someone somewhere is trying to deprive them of their achievements, and are ready to justify anything they say or do (or that the Kingdom says or does) regardless of it making sense or not. It's a very empire-like mentality, and if the old fashioned concept of empire has long gone, the mentality is still all there. I've heard many here celebrating the glories of the past and moaning about the lack of glory in the present, and rolling in and out of that nostalgia for the past it's what's left for many. I don't find this wrong, but it should still allow for some common sense and objectiveness.

My intention is not to deprive anyone with anything, brave people will be brave people forever, but western culture has been so biased in the portrayal of WW2 over the years that things have taken a very wrong shape. This is very dangerous, because it doesn't allow for an objective and unbiased judgement of history. This doesn't mean to me that the Nazis shouldn't be condemned as evil, but the Allies too committed questionable crimes and forced denial afterwards, so much that in a history talk meeting I attended some months ago, a gentleman arrived to define the city bombings during the Blitz as "not a war crime" simply to justify the actions of Bomber Harris and the drop of two atomic bombs over Japan, while there's no justification or theory in the world that will change the fact that these attacks were deliberate and a war crime as much as the German ones, so much that the 1949 Geneva Convention was all about human rights of civilians.

I've heard horrific explanations here "because it was getting boring" on which I deliberately did not comment, because it shows what little respect and objectiveness there is for the subject.

My take on Bungay is because in the world of academia he isn't (yet) considered worth mentioning, and even if my ideas seem to agree more with him than with James Holland (but then again it was semantics, Dutch or whoever it was picked strategically short sentences and put them out of context), I still don't repute his approach an academic one.

[Sternjaeger II]

uh and thank you Bewolf, as usual your ability to sum up concepts in a few lines is outstanding and spot on

[bongodriver]

You've been called names? Seriously...grow a pair and man up, take a look back at some of the crap that got flung my way.

Quit with all this island banjo crap, are you a historian or a psychologist, read the original topic and answer me why us island rednecks have had to endure 30 odd pages of insults against our nation and a denial of any achievement, some have suggested we should let it go because it's history........doesn't
Seem to apply to you though.

My getting boring comment was just sarcasm, but if you want to make an island mentality issue out of it what can I do.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

You've been called names? Seriously...grow a pair and man up, take a look back at some of the crap that got flung my way.

grow a pair? man up? Seriously Bongo?
Besides, was it me flinging that crap at you?

Quit with all this island banjo crap, are you a historian or a psychologist, read the original topic and answer me why us island rednecks have had to endure 30 odd pages of insults against our nation and a denial of any achievement, some have suggested we should let it go because it's history........doesn't
Seem to apply to you though.

I wasn't insulting your nation, I was just trying to give an assessment that I know would have proven unpopular among the average Briton. I care about the objectiveness of history, not the nationalistic takes on it. Unfortunately I'm afraid that's all you can do instead.

My getting boring comment was just sarcasm, but if you want to make an island mentality issue out of it what can I do.

yeah, you see sarcasm the way is used in Britain is considered out of place in many other cultures. Just because we speak your language it doesn't mean that we also think like you do.

[Bewolf]

NP Stern. My gripe with this thread is not the pride of british nationals for the war and the conduct of the people living on the british isles at that time, it's simply the expectation that those very tight and focused views on these events are being taken as a matter of course in an international forum. That is a bit of a pretentious attitude, especially given the fact that any views differing from the british mainstream are reinterpretated as offensive and a direct assault on british achievements.

[bongodriver]

My issue is that I got called a Nationalist after my first post because I just said the english channel was a weak excuse for the LW performance in the BOB.

My blood began to boil when this post was alowed to go without challenge...

After Dunkirk you didn't had more left but tea to offer!!
Otherwise why should Churchill Lend & Lease some 50 war weary US Destroyers?
Ah yes because you ran out even on tea.
And your British Army sucked on every major Battle until the USA showed up at the ETO, the same is for the PTO!
But that's maybe because they didn't had allways Canadians and Australians on their side, they know how to fight!

No apparently I have no right to be insulted, because I'm not allowed to assciate myself with my contry's past....unless it's about something bad the Brits did.....go figure.