Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
He may do, but in this case he is denigrating one aircraft while describing another as FAR superior and has been shown to be false. He then attacked the conduct of the Battle of Britain, showing the victors(!) to have got it wrong.

Well i for one have gone to the trouble of checking some ( i dont have a lifetime to check them all) some of his facts and i have got to tell you i go with what he says and NOT with what you imagine reality. He attacked the conduct of the BOB because it was badly conducted by the Brits( you should know this btw) and they only survived it because of German errors in judgement, deployment and general strategy( or lack of it).

Then he used puerile insults against the only political leader who successfully defied the Nazis before 1942.

Stupid is as stupid does...

His own party ( not even to mention the others) said far worse things of him DURING the war so why get all upset? Are you interested in objectivity or have you decided to heap undeserved praise on Churchill?

Perhaps you need to re-read the posts and see why I said this...just a hint, nationalistic rambling wasn't a part of it...

I got it spot on the first time thank you very much. You brought nationality and pride into this as if it's somehow related.

An attack in response to the German's bombing London. Perhaps you need to check your history...

As i recall ( and im pretty good at that) it was no more than three aircraft and the bombs were on an outskirt and accidental due to smog and antiaircraft fire. Hitler forbid the bombing of London as he did not want to invite attacks on Berlin. That is history whatever you have been led to believe.

ch said London should have been left undefended from aerial attack. My point stands. Anyone who had lived through the Blitz, or has relatives who did, anyone who lived through the bombing of Rotterdam, firebombing of Hamburg etc will tell you how stupid that assertion was.

All it did was cost the lives of pilots ( wich were in short supply) while it saved some lives of civilians ( wich there were no shortage off) and thus bad strategy as bombing Lodon could never win Germany the war but losing pilots and machines very well could. It's called strategy and if your not familiar with it you should not insult others who are.

Adolf Hitler was a teetotaller. Talk about Red Herrings...

Well Churchill could speak the language but i thought it was rather pointless to bring it up. Why you try make Churchill more than he was i have no idea and i am sure CH would admit his strenghts if asked.

blah, blah, blah, hey, the Russians didn't lose in Chechnya a decade ago, either...

Well if their still there they clearly want to be there for political reasons. You think the US is stuck in Iraq because they cant win or that the US could not win in Vietnam had they wanted to? They are there for geopolitical reasons and to cause instability; not to "win".

Already dealt with by others...

If you say so.

The full might of the Luftwaffe? You're joking, right? What was defending the thousand year Reich, then?

Deadly serious. You go ask the nearly 70- 80 000 US aircrew who died over Germany how it felt taking part in the destruction of the "thousand year Reich".

MANY more years? How long do you think the war lasted? I'm sorry, but from 1943 the Germans were in retreat everywhere.

I am rather familiar with the war in question and since we are talking about 1940 there were many more years left. You think the Germany was any less resourcefull in attack than in defense? You should go back to the books if you think Germany was a expended force by 1943.

I said it was successfully landed and evacuated. I said nothing about the success of the campaign.

Well i guess one should talk about the few things that did go right for Britain during the Norway debacle....

Do you really think the RAF ground crews would have allowed Luftwaffe pilots carrying pistols to capture Fighter Command airfields in the UK?

I have no idea but i know they would have put up more of a fight than the Norwegians.

Hmm, the near future...Do you know what happened at Arras? And I thought Churchill was a drunk worthy only of scorn...

Churchill went looking for war and found plenty of it and i do not doubt his personal courage under fire and NEVER have. I guess Hitler got his medals and proved his courage because his just a crazy madman, right? You see where your logic takes us? Bravery is not some unique thing that only the "good" guys display.

I have no interest in making Churchill look less the man he was but also no reason to hide his flaws and how many lives his mistakes cost the allies.

Stellar

[edit on 6-2-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX

All it did was cost the lives of pilots ( wich were in short supply) while it saved some lives of civilians ( wich there were no shortage off) and thus bad strategy as bombing Lodon could never win Germany the war but losing pilots and machines very well could. It's called strategy and if your not familiar with it you should not insult others who are.

Yes what a fantastic strategy to let civillians die ,think of the hundreds of thousands of british service men around the world and the crushing effect on their moral if they knew that their loved ones were being left at the mercy of the Luftwaffe , but hey never mind mate, theres no shortage of civillians.What a ludicrous and insulting statement to make

Originally posted by buckaroo
Yes what a fantastic strategy to let civillians die ,think of the hundreds of thousands of british service men around the world and the crushing effect

Wondering wether people at home are dying is certainly horrible by getting shot at and seeing people you live with 24/7/365 blown to bits is horrible anyways. You send soldiers to win the war and losing their homes ( due to invasion) kinda makes their efforts moot anyways.

on their moral if they knew that their loved ones were being left at the mercy of the Luftwaffe , but hey never mind mate, theres no shortage of civillians.What a ludicrous and insulting statement to make

London could to a great extent be evacuated if the idea was to save lives but they in fact chose to keep factories going even during air raids as it was found that too much productivity was lost otherwise. Fact is this seems to be the decision Churchill made when he pointlessly sent bomber raids against Berlin to piss of Hitler and try draw fire towards a civilian target like London thus saving fighter commands infrastructure wich were barely dealing with the punishment it was taking.

If you are not willing to make these decisions in the interest of saving your nation you hardly qualify to judge those who had to make them on a regular basis. I suggest you read more about Churchill and mabye realise that your he made decisions EXACTLY like this one far more than you apparently realise.

Stellar

[edit on 6-2-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Hmm, the near future...Do you know what happened at Arras? And I thought Churchill was a drunk worthy only of scorn...

Churchill went looking for war and found plenty of it and i do not doubt his personal courage under fire and NEVER have. I guess Hitler got his medals and proved his courage because his just a crazy madman, right? You see where your logic takes us? Bravery is not some unique thing that only the "good" guys display.

I have no interest in making Churchill look less the man he was but also no reason to hide his flaws and how many lives his mistakes cost the allies.

You also have no idea what I'm talking about. Again.

Arras, 1940.

Nothing to do With Winston's active service at Omduman, his reporting from the Boer War or his service with the Scots.

Stellar read on...

Originally posted by ch1466
HR,

CONCLUSION:
Stop looking at your 'greatest moment' through the rosey eyed glasses of a victor. Vae Victis syndrome is the surest way I know to assure 'historical diversity' by making the other guy the (hungrier, humbler) victor /next time/.



KPl.

So, you got it right and I was ranting unrelated nationalistic ramblings...try again, mate.

Hmmm, I've seen this assertion several times, I paraphrase of course, 'those silly arsed Brits were so dumb in the Battle of Britain that they only won because of mistakes made by the wonderful efficient Germans".

Am I the only one that can see the flaw in this sentiment?

ll it did was cost the lives of pilots ( wich were in short supply) while it saved some lives of civilians ( wich there were no shortage off) and thus bad strategy as bombing Lodon could never win Germany the war

No, it could not. But the complete paralysing of Fighter Command could, and was very close. The British raid on Berlin was specifically designed to get Hitler to turn his attention away from Fighter Command in order that the fighter strength could recover. This worked. This then must have been good strategy on the British part and complete Muppetry on the German part to fall for it, surely?

Having done this the powers that be AT LEAST owned it to London to put up some defence. This was done. If this hadn't happened the battle was lost for certain. Whats to criticise?

When you say Chrchill went looking for war, do you mean to imply that he started it? Only he wasn't in power when it began so maybe I misunderstand your point there?

[edit on 6-2-2006 by waynos]

I would agree that the raids on Berlin in 1940 escalated the Nazi regimes willingness to escalate the sustained air attacks on London and the long list of other British cities , but the three night raids on Berlin in late August 1940 by the RAF were not to "piss off" Hitler there was a public outcry in london and around the country as a whole to the accidental Luftwaffe bombings of August 24th.

Yes the raids caused minimal damage to the German war machine but you can call it a moral boosting victory for the British people, and dont forget that however little physical impact the RAFS raids to"piss off Hitler" had, it was the first time Berlin had been bombed, something that the Luftwaffe assured Hitler and the German people could never happen.

If you can prove to me that Churchills intention in authorising the raids on Berlin were to divert attention on to London rather than this just being a co- incedental by product of the Nazi determination to exact revenge for the Berlin bombings then please do so , but I think that this is a little far fetched, there have been so many attacks on Churchills poliecies during the war with regard tothe air war, example,did he let Coventry burn in November 1940 to help protect vital security secrets?(some thing to do with Enigma if I recall) , no he was led to believe (incorectly) the raids were to be aimed at london and the south of England.

Stellerx i dont want to fight with you im new to this site, and was enjoying an interesting thread on piston aircraft which has gone wildly off topic I was simply upset by your choice of phrasing ,I have already conceeded to you that many of your points are valid, although we arrive at them via differant thought trains , maybe this is the basis of an interesting thread else where on the site regarding war time decision making , I dont know.

Originally posted by StellarX
Well Churchill could speak the language but i thought it was rather pointless to bring it up. Why you try make Churchill more than he was i have no idea and i am sure CH would admit his strenghts if asked.

ch chooses to use infantile insults against (Sir) Winston Churchill and then butchers the Enlish language into almost unintelligible incomprehension (much like this!), all the while claiming to be the impartial voice of reason and the fount of wisdom.

As Waynos pointed out, ch's choice of language shows real contempt for his subject, at least I choose to make my contempt plain, I don't try to pretend I am impartial on a subject.

"periodicity"? What the hell is that?

"idiot civilians", "Winning Winnies' Pooh Bah view"? "morons in fighter command"...

These are the words of an impartial expert? I think not. I merely pointed it out, you're the one who took offence for him.

If you want to debate Winston start a separate thread and I'll gladly contribute to your points total.

Buckaroo, I have read that this was the case in several histories of the battle and that it was brought about by the desperate need to relioeve the pressure on Fighter Command. However I am in no position to prove it conclusively as I was born 25 years too late

As Waynos pointed out, ch's choice of language shows real contempt for his subject, at least I choose to make my contempt plain, I don't try to pretend I am impartial on a subject.

"periodicity"? What the hell is that?

"idiot civilians", "Winning Winnies' Pooh Bah view"? "morons in fighter command"...

These are the words of an impartial expert? I think not. I merely pointed it out, you're the one who took offence for him.

I think it only right and proper at this stage to point out that howlrunner has illustrated my view on that particular point to perfection.

Those are not words of impartiality. No more than as if my own posts had been full of references to 'our glorious heroic pilots' or 'the dirty Bosch' etc.

I try to keep my posts as impartial as possible and would never describe any subject in such derogatory terms. This is why I felt ch's criticism of my 'rosey eyed worship of all things British' both out of order and ironic, given his own choice of terminology.

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
The full might of the Luftwaffe? You're joking, right? What was defending the thousand year Reich, then?

Deadly serious. You go ask the nearly 70- 80 000 US aircrew who died over Germany how it felt taking part in the destruction of the "thousand year Reich".

I meant the Malta convoys were facing the full might of the Luftwaffe, which is what you said. Try reading, carefully, before you post.

MANY more years? How long do you think the war lasted? I'm sorry, but from 1943 the Germans were in retreat everywhere.

I am rather familiar with the war in question and since we are talking about 1940 there were many more years left. You think the Germany was any less resourcefull in attack than in defense? You should go back to the books if you think Germany was a expended force by 1943.

Second El Alamein October 1942
Operation Torch (US landing in NAfrica) November 1942
Kursk July 1943
Operation Husky (Sicilian Landings) July 1943
Invasion of Italy (Salerno/Taranto) September 1943
Invasion of Italy (Anzio) January 1944
Invasio of France (Normandy) June 1944...

Hmm. 1940 - 1945. Five years. When I was 13 and had to wait 5 years until I could legally vote, drink and drive (although not all at the same time) 5 years was damn near half a lifetime. Since I turned 30 5 years doesn't seem like such a long time any more. In fact, 5 years is a remarkably short time these days. I could have sworn my son was only 8 months old when we celebrated his 1st birthday. I can also see my next celebration of another decade on earth rapidly approaching. 5 years is a very short time compared to the length of time the Vietnamese fought for their "independence". 5 years is nothing compared to the length of time the French fought the English...

I said it was successfully landed and evacuated. I said nothing about the success of the campaign.

Well i guess one should talk about the few things that did go right for Britain during the Norway debacle....

You were talking about Norway, not me. Again, look at what is written, not what you want it to say.

I agree Waynos and the only reason That i got in to this again was stellerx's crude terminology when in regards to the civillians in london and there being plenty of them so why bother to protect them or words to that effect , in my opinion these guys are far too foccussed on tactics and cant see either the benefit of keeping the home front morale up or the importance of trying to offer some semblance of protection to the people of a nation facing a battle for its very survival , they are cold in there dissmisal of stupid civillians and why bother to protect them etc I believe Howlrunner has already said something similar earlier on in the thread.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

ch chooses to use infantile insults against (Sir) Winston Churchill and then butchers the Enlish language into almost unintelligible incomprehension (much like this!), all the while claiming to be the impartial voice of reason and the fount of wisdom.
>

"periodicity"? What the hell is that?
<

These are the words of an impartial expert? I think not. I merely pointed it out, you're the one who took offence for him.

"Periodicity", as a quick look at dictionary.com might point out, refers to the amount that something or some system might be called periodic... or rather, how regular the time intervals are between a specified event in a given system. It is a term often used in science or engineering disciplines where such concepts occur.

Please note, that i am not trying to step in and settle some argument, but rather, to help explain some of the terminology used in said discussion.

Yes, its a scientific term used in reference to the periodic table. It is not a measure of time.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
So, you got it right and I was ranting unrelated nationalistic ramblings...try again, mate.

I saw that and that is exactly what i was talking about. The battle of Britain was not WON by Britain but LOST by Germany. If you do not understand that fact you should go back to the books and try read something objective this time.

Stellar

Which is not strictly true is it? That statement implies that no matter what Britain did Germany would have lost anyway because of all their mistakes. Britain still needed to take advantage of those mistakes to turn what looked like certain defeat into victory. It still required a huge effort on Britains part at a time when NO OTHER NATION was standing in opposition to Gernmany. If Germany had made no mistakes at all they would most likely have won, however when has anybody ever fought a campaign without making mistakes? It never happens, therefore the idea the 'Britain didn't win' is a false premise to begin with. It also makes a mockery of the huge effort that went into this victory as it promotes a myth that they needn't have bothered.

I have never heard anyone say that America didn't win the war, Germany lost it. Yet Germany had the opportunity to make the D-Day landings a disaster, but failed to do so. Is this not the same thing?

For one side to lose another has to win, to pretend otherwise is simply churlish.

[edit on 7-2-2006 by waynos]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You also have no idea what I'm talking about. Again.
Arras, 1940.
Nothing to do With Winston's active service at Omduman, his reporting from the Boer War or his service with the Scots.

Well i thought we were busy with Churchill but i guess not so sorry. This was a local counter-attack and considering the allied communication ( or lack of it) it is more a surprise that they got it going than a surprise that it almost achieved something worth talking about. At best it held up the German offensive for 24 hours( on the 24th) and made the more paranoid Generals feel abit more so. If the Brits waited for the French attack and combined their efforts with it it might have very well cost the Germans a few days. If you want to call this some kind of victory your clearly grasping at straws and the historic record will shut you down faster than you can grasp at new one's.

PS. I think everyone can follow a page or two worth of responses so there is no reason to break up the posts in such short sections. If you want a higher post count why not go spam in bts/pts?

Stellar

Originally posted by waynos
Which is not strictly true is it? That statement implies that no matter what Britain did Germany would have lost anyway because of all their mistakes.

Well i dont think i said anything close to that. With the options the Germans made the British just did not change tact fast enough and when they did it happened in the form of Civillians dying in London. So it's NOT true that there is NOTHING the Brits could have done to win a/the battle for Britain.

Britain still needed to take advantage of those mistakes to turn what looked like certain defeat into victory.

Well they did not take advantage it seems and the only solution Churchill could come up with ( when he saw fighter command dying) was helping to take the pressure off them by inviting general attacks upon London.

It still required a huge effort on Britains part at a time when NO OTHER NATION was standing in opposition to Gernmany.

And Russia did not expend huge effort to prepare for the German invasion or their own? Germany did not expend great effort to try win the war? Your best efforts ( just like the best efforts of everyone else) might simply not be ENOUGH. What i am saying is that they way Fighter command fought the battle was going to lead to eventual German air superiority over the Channel and Southern Britain. Did Figther command have options; for sure! Could the Germans have won anyways if they did not make so many strategic mistakes; probably.

If Germany had made no mistakes at all they would most likely have won, however when has anybody ever fought a campaign without making mistakes? It never happens, therefore the idea the 'Britain didn't win' is a false premise to begin with.

Well with forces being the same whoever makes less mistakes should win but in this case Germany could imo afford more mistakes and still win. They got very close to winning despite all their messups. You are however right when you say that there is no such thing as a perfect campaign. I do however believe that the Germans had the strategic edge and that they blew it leaving Britain to survive. Calling the battle of Britain a British victory is very much the same as calling operation Dynamo a victory. You dont win wars by surviving a few battles even if that is what victory may eventually be built on.

It also makes a mockery of the huge effort that went into this victory as it promotes a myth that they needn't have bothered.

People should always bother when their survival is at stake but "bothering" is no assurance of victory or survival. All i am saying is that fighting as hard as they did may very were almost not enough anyways. I dont think your being fair here.

I have never heard anyone say that America didn't win the war, Germany lost it.

Well that can be argued and if your interested i will argue the point. I can for instance argue that Japan could have taken America out of the European war for years or that Germany could have taken Moscow in 1941 thus putting them in a great position. There are dozens prominent scenarios of how the war could have been entirely different but for small, or not so small, incidents.

Yet Germany had the opportunity to make the D-Day landings a disaster, but failed to do so. Is this not the same thing?

It is very much the same type of scenario and the entire war ( and world history for that matter) is much like that. What would have happened if the leader of the Pearl harbour strike force did not have to fire two flares ( instead of one) to get the attention of his fighter element? That STUPID planning mistake resulted in all planes assuming that they attack would not be a surprise and they then went for the shipping first instead of more general strategic targets such as the oil tanks. If those oil tanks suffered much damage America would have had to withdraw it's fleet ( however much was left of it) to the American west coast and fight the first 6 months of the war from there. This is but a small example and i am sure you are familiar with many other.

For one side to lose another has to win, to pretend otherwise is simply churlish.

Well i hope you now understand my views abit better. The average person does not know enough history ( and i might certainly be wrong anyways) to think of history in such terms but i believe that on closer inspection everyone will realise that history is just what happened and not what very nearly did.

Stellar

Well they did not take advantage it seems and the only solution Churchill could come up with ( when he saw fighter command dying) was helping to take the pressure off them by inviting general attacks upon London.

And, in taking the pressure off, the fighter forces regrouped and were in a fit state to repel (by a very narrow margin) the massed attacks at the height of the Battle when the Germans went into the 'everything or bust' stage. had the battle continued as it had (the failure to do which was Germanys gravest error but which was drawn by British action) then fighter command would have been crushed. This then represents a genuine victory on the part of the RAF, had the RAF crumbled then Invasion, or at the very least an attempt at one, would have followed. This was the first time the German onslaught had been resisted and it paved the way for eventual victory by prolonging the war. This is why the Battle of Britain is a genuine victory, the Germans failed in their objective to subdue Britain, so as a successful defence, it WAS a victory. I don't see how that can be argued any other way?

Of course it can be said that this victory was due in fairly large part to the failures of the opposing side, but that applies to any conflict so why is the BoB always the one where it is trotted out?

nd Russia did not expend huge effort to prepare for the German invasion or their own? Germany did not expend great effort to try win the war? Your best efforts ( just like the best efforts of everyone else) might simply not be ENOUGH.

Of course this is true, but nobody has said (I don't think) that the British Victory was always nailed on because we were so much better or tried harder, have they? It is solely the assertion theat it was 'not a British victory but a German defeat' that is contradictory and the bone of contention. You cannot have one without the other.

I also disagree that fighter Commands prosecution of the battle would have led to German air superiority, how does that work? The fact that fighter command DID prosecute the battle in the way it did and German air superiority was not achieved sort of makes a mockery of that statement doesn't it?

You say the Germans blew it by leaving Britain to survive. By which do you mean that if they had continued to attack they would have won? This is probably right but the fact of the matter is they didn't, their heaviest raids were fought off and without victory in sight they gave up, repeat their heaviest attacks were fought off, hence a Britsh victory.

People should always bother when their survival is at stake but "bothering" is no assurance of victory or survival. All i am saying is that fighting as hard as they did may very were almost not enough anyways. I dont think your being fair here.

Well, maybe so but I don't think that saying after all the hardship of the battle that the victorious side did not in fact truly win at all is being fair either.

They earned and deserved their victory, it also fired the nation to continue the fight against Germany until help arrived from America two years later which led to ultimate victory, who are we, 60+ years later to turn round and deny them?

Maybe this argument is all a question of spin? I certainly fully accept the crucial part that Germany's mistakes played in the Battle, but I think it is going too far to say that it was not a British victory.

For the record I think the single most crucial element in the battle was not the Luftwaffe's error's, or the tactics of fighter command, but rather the English Channel. Without this accident of geography the German victory over Britain would have been as swift as the ones over Poland, France et al as gaining air superiority would not have been the pressing issue that taking the fight overseas made it. However I still cannot see any other way to cLL IT than a win for our side. In this respect it is rather similar to Spanish Armada.





[edit on 7-2-2006 by waynos]

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
So, you got it right and I was ranting unrelated nationalistic ramblings...try again, mate.

I saw that and that is exactly what i was talking about. The battle of Britain was not WON by Britain but LOST by Germany. If you do not understand that fact you should go back to the books and try read something objective this time.

Stellar

Read again, you tw@t. Note, carefully, that ch calls the Battle of Britain MY greatest moment...

As I pointed out, I am not British. I am Australian. Waynos, however, is British, therefore it is his "finest hour", not mine and it was ch's mistake to address his statement to me and not Waynos.

If you cannot understand this you should go back to English classes and learn to read.

You, clearly, cannot see Amazonian jungles for all the trees in the way.

Read again. Carefully. If you cannot understand put your hand up and ask a question and maybe the teacher will be kind enough to answer it for you.