PDA

View Full Version : Did the Battle of Britain actually take place?



coolinoz
09-24-2008, 12:17 AM
..and what i mean is did an aerial campagin on which depended the future of Britain ( and hence the free world) ever occur.

Ive got no references, but apparently a lot of German historians beleive the "Battle" was just a series of skirmishes and the Germans where not seriously thinking that the UK would capitulate if the RAf was destroyed.
Sureley the Germans knew they would be slaughterd by the Royal Navy, and if they where serioulsy thinking of invasion they would have had a go at crippling the Britsh fleet with u boats and aircraft first. Is the BOB just a Churcilan created myth to convince the US to join the fight?..and the colonies to keep send men and material to britains aid?

WTE_Galway
09-24-2008, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by coolinoz:
..and what i mean is did an aerial campagin on which depended the future of Britain ( and hence the free world) ever occur.

Ive got no references, but apparently a lot of German historians beleive the "Battle" was just a series of skirmishes and the Germans where not seriously thinking that the UK would capitulate if the RAf was destroyed.
Sureley the Germans knew they would be slaughterd by the Royal Navy, and if they where serioulsy thinking of invasion they would have had a go at crippling the Britsh fleet with u boats and aircraft first. Is the BOB just a Churcilan created myth to convince the US to join the fight?..and the colonies to keep send men and material to britains aid?

It certainly could have been fought in a more convenient place. But then it wouldn't have been the Battle of "Britain" would it.

Ba5tard5word
09-24-2008, 01:10 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion


It kinda depended on achieving air superiority which Germany never did.

Sounds like you've been reading too many revisionsist historians.

Whirlin_merlin
09-24-2008, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by coolinoz:


Ive got no references,

Thank goodness for that it would be awful to let any facts get in the way of such an excellent well thought out theory.

Stirling work, I award 2 Kurfursts and a 4.2 on the Odie scale.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
09-24-2008, 01:24 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

struth
09-24-2008, 01:28 AM
It was given that name by Winston Churchill:

'...the Battle of France is over...the Battle of Britain is just beginning...' (or words to that effect).

Many British historians rate it alongside other attempted conquests of the British Isles such as the Spanish Amada, the Romans, the Normans and the cricket teams of various nations.

Some say it was, to all intents and purposes the biggest threat since the Norman invasions

No41Sqn_Banks
09-24-2008, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by coolinoz:
Ive got no references, but apparently a lot of German historians beleive the "Battle" was just a series of skirmishes ...


Just look at the Luftwaffen losses and you will realise that BoB was not "just a series of skirmishes".
If the Wehrmacht didn't seriously intend to invade Britain the Luftwaffe wouldn't have tried to gain air superiority over Britain at the cost of so many aeroplanes and pilots.

K_Freddie
09-24-2008, 03:29 AM
The world is round....

iRuffy
09-24-2008, 03:36 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
Good effort.

DKoor
09-24-2008, 03:47 AM
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/funny-pictures-kitten-monitor-evil-plan.jpg

KRISTORF
09-24-2008, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by coolinoz:
..and what i mean is did an aerial campagin on which depended the future of Britain ( and hence the free world) ever occur.

Ive got no references, but apparently a lot of German historians beleive the "Battle" was just a series of skirmishes and the Germans where not seriously thinking that the UK would capitulate if the RAf was destroyed.
Sureley the Germans knew they would be slaughterd by the Royal Navy, and if they where serioulsy thinking of invasion they would have had a go at crippling the Britsh fleet with u boats and aircraft first. Is the BOB just a Churcilan created myth to convince the US to join the fight?..and the colonies to keep send men and material to britains aid?

This part of the new EU education and history policy so as not to upset other good Europeans in Britains (and other allied nations) favour

thefruitbat
09-24-2008, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by coolinoz:
..and what i mean is did an aerial campagin on which depended the future of Britain ( and hence the free world) ever occur.

Ive got no references, but apparently a lot of German historians beleive the "Battle" was just a series of skirmishes and the Germans where not seriously thinking that the UK would capitulate if the RAf was destroyed.
Sureley the Germans knew they would be slaughterd by the Royal Navy, and if they where serioulsy thinking of invasion they would have had a go at crippling the Britsh fleet with u boats and aircraft first. Is the BOB just a Churcilan created myth to convince the US to join the fight?..and the colonies to keep send men and material to britains aid?

idiot.

luftluuver
09-24-2008, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by coolinoz:


Ive got no references,

Thank goodness for that it would be awful to let any facts get in the way of such an excellent well thought out theory.

Stirling work, I award 2 Kurfursts and a 4.2 on the Odie scale. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

stalkervision
09-24-2008, 04:44 AM
Hitler was of crossed minds about invading Britain. He actually had loads of respect for the english people. There is pretty strong evidence that hitler was attempting to get Churchill to sign a peace treaty with Germany by attacking england and making them sue for peace then actually trying invading the country. Churchill would have none of this though.

gdfo
09-24-2008, 05:30 AM
There was no Battle of Britain!!! That is the end of that!! And, Marshmellows grow on trees. Cold Spaghetti is good for breadfast.

leitmotiv
09-24-2008, 05:31 AM
The so-called "Battle of Britain" was a superb propaganda ploy on the part of the nefarious British to elicit sympathy from the parts of the world they, at the time, didn't occupy (which wasn't much). What actually occurred was an insignificant skirmish between the massed air power of the Greater Reich which was intended to show the whimpering poodle British how incredibly über their gear was. The Germans were so über they had no need to do more than demonstrate their superiority. Twenty or thirty non-America Firsters in the United States were profoundly moved by the British propaganda (because all of them were on the Foreign Office's payroll, churlish traitors). Since 1940, the so called "Battle of Britain" has been used by the now non-existent British Empire to sell movie tickets, model airplanes, books, air shows, and entrance tickets to museums in the UK.

Now that I just saved Kurfurst time in penning his response I present a bill for $20.00 US.

GregGal
09-24-2008, 05:39 AM
No BoB? Is it a bad joke or what? What's your definition of "battle", then?!

I know there are some who deny the existence of concentration camps, but they're neo-nazis, that's why. Why would one deny the Battle of Britain?

trumper
09-24-2008, 05:46 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
If there was no BoB then Oleg and his crew have just wasted years on developing SOW[when it turns up BTW] http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
I suggest you visit places like Duxford,Hawkinge,North Weald,Biggin Hill and then say there was no Battle of Britain.

Chris0382
09-24-2008, 05:48 AM
It didn't matter what the common German citizen thought, it was what hitler thought. He wanted to invade Britain (Operation Sealion) because it would not make peace at that time; and the common German citizen was hitler's pawns.

hitler lost his gamble and thus only about had half an airforce then for the Batlle of Russia in which hitler lost again.

I recommend watching the documentary "How Hitler Lost the War"

BSS_Goat
09-24-2008, 05:49 AM
Lucky for you limeys Ben Afleck and Tom Cruise were around..........

gizmo60
09-24-2008, 05:53 AM
I keep re-reading the original post in case I'm taking it out of context.
But i can't get past the feeling that it is immensely disrespectful to all the people that were horrifically burned, maimed and killed during that time.

Am I wrong?

jdigris001
09-24-2008, 05:55 AM
dont feed the troll people

klemlao
09-24-2008, 06:04 AM
Of course there was a Battle of Britain but the Germans never accepted it as a Battle because it had no definite conclusion.

It was that fact that enabled them to continue the battle beyond 1945 through to the 1960's using the by then fully developed Messerschmidt and Heinkel autobahn raiders. The British Tommy managed once again to retrieve the situation by moving the battle onto the terraces and won a famous victory – never to be repeated on the same scale – in 1966 (Battle of the Pickles Cup). But the Germans had fought back by the 1970's and many poolside recliners were lost to the lightening night-time towel-dropping raids (blitzknap) at hotels all across the holiday resorts of Southern Britain and Europe. This was to some extent staved off by late night interdictions in bars throughout the resorts but eventually the German tactics changed and they gained the upper hand by moving into a new Italian axis with victories at such places as Spa, Monaco, Nurburgring and even Silverstone. The British are now fighting back but are being undermined by new axis propaganda, suspect motives and dark anti-McLarenism but they are perhaps on top again by a narrow margin.

The Battle goes on ..........

and I feel obliged to add.... no disrespect for anyone involved in the real thing, I have met some of them. It's sad that the the question needed to be asked.

leitmotiv
09-24-2008, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
Lucky for you limeys Ben Afleck and Tom Cruise were around..........

Scoff, but all right thinking people know that MGM and Tyrone Power won the Battle of Britain.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034405/

Bremspropeller
09-24-2008, 06:35 AM
anti-McLarenism


Last time I checked, the Team was called McLaren-Mercedes, therefore being a British/German team http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


and many poolside recliners were lost to the lightening night-time towel-dropping raids (blitzknap) at hotels

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Epic win! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Feathered_IV
09-24-2008, 06:51 AM
I remember this guys other threads. I think this one is a continuation of his inaugural, Are the English Historically Cowards and Bad Soldiers? theme.
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2601013236/m/5...471082756#5471082756 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2601013236/m/5471082756?r=5471082756#5471082756)

It's mostly grownups in here coolinoz. Go back to picking your acne. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Uufflakke
09-24-2008, 07:06 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It is a thin line between naivety and stupidity.</span>

klemlao
09-24-2008, 08:01 AM
Quote:
>>Last time I checked, the Team was called McLaren-Mercedes, therefore being a British/German team <<

Yes, but "they" never criticise the engine do they? I know a conspiracy when I see one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

By the way, is this your towel I just wiped my... ermmm... 'nose' on? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Bremspropeller
09-24-2008, 08:07 AM
Sore loser http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Bewolf
09-24-2008, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by klemlao:
Quote:
>>Last time I checked, the Team was called McLaren-Mercedes, therefore being a British/German team <<

Yes, but "they" never criticise the engine do they? I know a conspiracy when I see one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

By the way, is this your towel I just wiped my... ermmm... 'nose' on? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Darn Tom, I told you not to leave your towel around ppl who live in the past to a degree they do not even know toilet paper! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

But what to expect from ppl that see it nessecary to produce this:

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/DMotor-vs-Top-Gear_175244.htm

As much fun I had to watch it (and I was indeed amused, I love that show! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), it tells a lot about a nations psychology...and why some folks will never leave behind their legends for facts if it's the only thing they still have.

DuxCorvan
09-24-2008, 08:15 AM
Definitively, it always looked like heretic trickery to me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

http://luciferknight.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/spanish_inquisition.jpg

HayateAce
09-24-2008, 08:22 AM
This new learning amazes me Sir coolinoz.

Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

Yes, it was a battle...or least the Germans took it thatta way. Read up on Sealion M8.

http://ww2armor.jexiste.fr/Mythicpanzers/Images/1-Vehicles/02-MediumTanks/Panzer3/Conversions/Tauchpanzer3_2.ppvr.jpg

snafu73
09-24-2008, 12:01 PM
It's true that there was no such thing as the Battle of Britain or the Battle for Britain. It's just that the German High command had 2000 spare planes to squander prior to invading Russia so they decided to let the RAF shoot them down...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Ba5tard5word
09-24-2008, 12:36 PM
Also just take a walk through central London and take note of how much of the architecture is ugly post-war cement buildings rather than elegant prewar edifices.

The Blitz and V-1 bombing of London did quite a lot of damage to the city, and I'm not so sure that most people (especially outside of the UK) are even aware of how much damage was done. Maybe it's something about that British stiff upper lip and not complaining about the duresses of the war.

Chris0382
09-24-2008, 12:39 PM
Not only was there one BOB but there was also a second BOB.

Bruisercruiser
09-24-2008, 01:49 PM
It's clear the OP is a flamer trying to get responses. I highly doubt he really believes his premise. He must have a huge chip on his shoulder because of the British based on his most recent threads.

JSG72
09-24-2008, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Bruisercruiser:
It's clear the OP is a flamer trying to get responses. I highly doubt he really believes his premise. He must have a huge chip on his shoulder because of the British based on his most recent threads.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

klemlao
09-24-2008, 03:53 PM
Quotes:"The Blitz and V-1 bombing of London did quite a lot of damage to the city..."

Well that's a definite, I grew up playing on bombsites and living on hand me downs - like everyone else. I suppose it is a bit unlikely I'd leave all that behind.

There are a few theories that were never tested. If the LW had gained air superiority their bombers would have had to hold off the Royal Navy which was pretty powerful even then. I'm not convinced he had the air power for that and a landing.

And you musn't give coolinoz too hard a time, perhaps European modern history isn't taught down under.

b2spirita
09-24-2008, 04:06 PM
Has 'the one' returned you think?

stugumby
09-24-2008, 04:14 PM
Hmm lets see this from a different perspective and analyze the following:

1. A nice english couple is killed when their home in London is flattened by bombs dumped over the city at random, 2 weeks later the german pilots family is killed in a night raid over lets say, Hamburg.

2. A nice chap named Colin gets his lower jaw shot away by a rear gunner while he is hacking a heinkle to shreds, he watches with grim satisfaction as the heinkles dorsal gunner explodes into a pink mist from the near simultaneous impact of 200 rounds of .303,

So my point is my point, the relative merits of peoples ability to take it and continue is all that mattered then as well as now. Truth is the first casualty of war.

WTE_Galway
09-24-2008, 05:55 PM
The Battle of Britain was a misnomer.

It was more of a brawl and actually took place outside a small pub in the town of Llandrindod Wells in Powys, East Wales and involved an altercation over Harold Larwood and the bodyline bowling controversy that had rocked the cricketing world in the 1930s.

Zeus-cat
09-24-2008, 08:15 PM
The Germans planned on driving across France in a matter of weeks. If you had asked the French, British or Americans if the Germans could do it before it actually happened I am sure most of the experts would have laughed at you.

The Germans planned on subduing England from the air and did a pretty good job of attempting it. They did so well that the Americans and British used that same tactic against Germany a few years later. Ultimately, it became obvious to both sides that a ground invasion was required to actually subdue the enemy. The Germans couldn't do it, but the Allies could.

heywooood
09-24-2008, 08:31 PM
original poster demonstrates exaclty why wars are repeated - there is no truth...only perception

WTE_Galway
09-24-2008, 08:50 PM
Always remember that in the last documented successful invasion of Britain, King Harold was killed by an attack from the air.

klemlao
09-25-2008, 04:50 AM
Quotes:
"original poster demonstrates exaclty why wars are repeated - there is no truth...only perception"
"Always remember that in the last documented successful invasion of Britain, King Harold was killed by an attack from the air."

It's the mixture of poignant truths and absurd humour that keep me coming back......

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

K_Freddie
09-25-2008, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by heywooood:
original poster demonstrates exaclty why wars are repeated - there is no truth...only perception
Hear Hear .. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

K_Freddie
09-25-2008, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Chris0382:
I recommend watching the documentary "How Hitler Lost the War"
Commonly known as 'War on 2 (or more) fronts'

Haven't seen the doccy, but as you know, men cannot multitask, so he should have left this part to Eva - she might have done a better job of it.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Boosher
09-25-2008, 05:12 PM
Um... nearly every major country in WW2 was fighting a two front war.

Bremspropeller
09-25-2008, 05:15 PM
Just two?

thefruitbat
09-25-2008, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Boosher:
Um... nearly every major country in WW2 was fighting a two front war.

while true, in retrospect i think that hitler got that the most wrong though...

USSR on one side of you, and basically everyone else on the other side, thats gonna hurt.

Now a more interesting question would be,

Could the USSR of defeated Germany on its own eventually?

fruitbat

WTE_Galway
09-25-2008, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Boosher:
Um... nearly every major country in WW2 was fighting a two front war.

while true, in retrospect i think that hitler got that the most wrong though...

USSR on one side of you, and basically everyone else on the other side, thats gonna hurt.

Now a more interesting question would be,

Could the USSR of defeated Germany on its own eventually?

fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Without lend-lease equipment and without the allied bombing of Germany ? That is an interesting question.

heywooood
09-25-2008, 06:05 PM
everything happens for a reason...

Hitler as megalomaniac couldn't help but attack in all directions, surrounded as he was by inferior races and cultures - in his own mind.

Germany was wronged post WWI - the spoils of war and the greed of politicians and Monarchs saw to it - anger and resentment was the result in Germany.

Hitler had the two traits that can lead a people to bloody conflict - ego and charisma - add the anger of damaged pride (rightly perceived and shared by the populace) and the hostility of youth and you get a terrible head of state and warfare in short order.

All of what has passed and what is happening today is based on the historical events that preceded them...

the wars of man have ravaged every continent and every island that man has inhabited time and time again - nothing is new except the dates and the names of the people involved and they are always for the same reason...a perceived threat.

GatorSub1942
09-29-2008, 04:35 PM
What a bloody stupid thing to say, OP! There was a battle. It took part over Britain. If we'd have lost, the Nazis could've just walked into Britain at any time. It was essential not just for the survival of Britain as an independent nation, but also vital to winning the war! No base for attack on Europe, what would've the USA done? Flown all the way from the States to attack Germany? The 109's would've loved that! They would hassle them from Britain, France and Germany, so that it would've been a miracle if even one bomber got through. That's assuming the USA could develop a bomber to fly far enough. What else? Send a relief force by sea to help Britain that would've been carved up by U-Boats and surface raiders before it got anywhere near Britain! God, some of the crap people come up with. It's as bad as those idiots that say the Holocaust never happened! If you must talk about history, talk sense for God's sake.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
09-29-2008, 06:18 PM
Whilst I agree with the sentiment of Gatorsub's post, can I ask for a lot less of the "We" "Us" and "You" attitude that seems so prevalent in much thinking on WWII?

Whilst I am eternally thankful for what my grandparents did all those years ago (which should never, ever be forgotten, trivialised or belittled), it would be more than disengenuous of me to claim credit for their achievements by daring to count myself as one of the participants in the events that they went through in search of a better world for all of us. Please bear this in mind when responding to the ignorant in future. Thank you.

leitmotiv
09-29-2008, 07:24 PM
This disreputable sow hasn't been sent to the Realm of Follies but arises like Lazarus?

R_Target
09-29-2008, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by GatorSub1942:
No base for attack on Europe, what would've the USA done? Flown all the way from the States to attack Germany?

If the British Isles were occupied, it doesn't necessarily follow that U.S., Commonwealth, and surviving British are trapped on the east coast of North America. There were still ways to get at the continent.

jbrunner
09-29-2008, 09:23 PM
Was there actually a World War II? I mean, there were some countries that didn't fight.

Should it have been called A-Sizeable-Chunk-of-the-World War 2?

Is there a moon?

Do I exist?

josephs1959
09-29-2008, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
Lucky for you limeys Ben Afleck and Tom Cruise were around.......... I understand and appreciate your humour but let me add my 2 cents of sarcasm in by writing,,,,

LOL! Yea right, The Americans did win the war all by themselves DOH! The rest of the participating countries (The allies) did nothing but watch,,, Hah!

Didn't any of you Brits see the movie U-571? I was so desgusted by the blatant BS and PC of that fallacy so called "based on true events" hollywood Cr** !

josephs1959
09-29-2008, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by gizmo60:
I keep re-reading the original post in case I'm taking it out of context.
But i can't get past the feeling that it is immensely disrespectful to all the people that were horrifically burned, maimed and killed during that time.

Am I wrong?

YES! C'est la Mort!

josephs1959
09-30-2008, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
Also just take a walk through central London and take note of how much of the architecture is ugly post-war cement buildings rather than elegant prewar edifices.

The Blitz and V-1 bombing of London did quite a lot of damage to the city, and I'm not so sure that most people (especially outside of the UK) are even aware of how much damage was done. Maybe it's something about that British stiff upper lip and not complaining about the duresses of the war.

Oh stop your crying! I am sick to death of hearing or reading of how the Germans did so much damage to London! Who cares! Compared to the Damage the Allies caused to Berlin and the rest of Germany it doesn't begin to even compare!

BOO! HOO! HOO!

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean any disrespect to the British population by any means. I am grateful to their contributions. Like The Beatles and Monty Python's Flying Circus,Tracy Ullmen to name a few.
But everytime I hear that tiny and insignificant violin playing or for that fact of how the Americans lost so many soldiers at this battle and that battle I get disgusted.

It doesn't compare to the German Civil Population losses.

And before anyone else jumps in and starts to cry about the Russian losses during WWII.

For the most part it was a direct result of Stalin's psychopathic indifferent atitude towards human life by throwing waves of soldiers into the fray. And to mass executions or purges of Russians generals due to his insane paronia.

josephs1959
09-30-2008, 12:29 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by heywooood:
everything happens for a reason...



Germany was wronged post WWI - the spoils of war and the greed of politicians and Monarchs saw to it - anger and resentment was the result in Germany.



All of what has passed and what is happening today is based on the historical events that preceded them...

Excellent point!!!!
Whether right or wrong, the resentment left over from the Treaty of Versailles, which left Germany in finacial ruins, was a direct result of WWII. If Germany's economy wasn't forced into shambles Germany's population would have never given Hitler any attention.

Infact, Some think that WWI which lead to WWII and then the Cold war were connected.
There wasn't any effective resolutions to the previous conflicts.

skarden
09-30-2008, 01:11 AM
Mmmm i figured that the title would be some sort of play on words,after reading the post it's clear the the OP hasn't the brain capacity for something like that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

josephs1959
09-30-2008, 01:23 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GatorSub1942:
"What a bloody stupid thing to say, OP! There was a battle. It took part over Britain. If we'd have lost, the Nazis could've just walked into Britain at any time."

I disagree, it would have been a very costly and bloody battle, even after the loss of BOB in the air.
Germany just wasn't equipped for an amphibious invasion. Men could have been parachuted into England but not tanks or heavy equipment.
Germany,if they had won the war in the air still had a huge disadvantage in the sea.Germany could only at that time at MOST, put to sea 30 U-boats and against all of the destroyers that England hadeven with escort duties included, well I just can't see any favorable results for Germany.

"It was essential not just for the survival of Britain as an independent nation,
what would've the USA done? Flown all the way from the States to attack Germany?"

In fact the USA WAS developing a bomber that would have had the range from the USA all the way to Germany itself, it was called the B-36 peacemaker.
Of course by that time the Germans would have fully developed the jet interceptors, AA missles and by the time the US HAD built a sufficient bomber fleet to make such an attack on Germany feasible (One bomber with the A-bomb and the rest of the bomber fleet with conventional bombs as sacrificial lambs)
The bombers with AND without an A-Bomb, would have been decimated.

"What else? Send a relief force by sea to help Britain that would've been carved up by U-Boats and surface raiders before it got anywhere near Britain!"

I'm not sure about that. Remember USA had bases in Iceland and Greenland which would have based the ever growing US airforce.
Even if England was occupied, USA was commited to fighting back, even with bombers alone.
Of course the follwing is just conjecture on my part, but I believe that after Japan was eventually defeated.
USA would have resumed the fight against Germany.

"It's as bad as those idiots that say the Holocaust never happened!"

You mean to tell me that the holocaust actually DID happen? hmmmm? Those damn ratzies, No wonder the Three Stooges were against them. and look at what they accomplished on their own.

Aaron_GT
09-30-2008, 01:24 AM
Also just take a walk through central London and take note of how much of the architecture is ugly post-war cement buildings rather than elegant prewar edifices.

That's mostly little to do with the bombing which destroyed only a tiny fraction of buildings. When it turned out people didn't like the architecture it was convenient to blame the Luftwaffe rather than town planners.

Aaron_GT
09-30-2008, 01:30 AM
Remember USA had bases in Iceland and Greenland which would have based the ever growing US airforce.

Only from 1941, though.

josephs1959
09-30-2008, 01:38 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jbrunner:
Was there actually a World War II? I mean, there were some countries that didn't fight.

YES, the poor and smart one's.

Should it have been called A-Sizeable-Chunk-of-the-World War 2?

No, thats too long a name for the conflict to become a simple phrase for future generations.

Is there a moon?

NO! that's just an alien illusion set up by them with holograms projected many light years away into fooling the entire earth population into believing that there is something other than ourselves that there is something other than ourselves out there.

Do I exist?

I very much doubt so. I suggests that you prove your existance by facing the mirror and shooting yourself in the head.
If you no longer see anyhting or are aware of your surroundings then you do not exist, If however, you still do, then reload more bullets and try, try again.

josephs1959
09-30-2008, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Remember USA had bases in Iceland and Greenland which would have based the ever growing US airforce.

Only from 1941, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ooops!

OMK_Hand
09-30-2008, 04:04 AM
josephs1959:

"Don't get me wrong. I don't mean any disrespect to the British population by any means. I am grateful to their contributions. Like The Beatles and Monty Python's Flying Circus,Tracy Ullmen to name a few."

Tracy Ullmen was the contribution.
The rest are belong to us! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

What a liberty...

Blutarski2004
09-30-2008, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by josephs1959:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
Lucky for you limeys Ben Afleck and Tom Cruise were around.......... I understand and appreciate your humour but let me add my 2 cents of sarcasm in by writing,,,,

LOL! Yea right, The Americans did win the war all by themselves DOH! The rest of the participating countries (The allies) did nothing but watch,,, Hah!

Didn't any of you Brits see the movie U-571? I was so desgusted by the blatant BS and PC of that fallacy so called "based on true events" hollywood Cr** ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... No one in his right mind would watch Tom Cruise! Ditto for 95 pct of the cinema effluent that Hollywood vomits forth on such a distressingly regular basis.

M_Gunz
09-30-2008, 04:53 AM
I don't think that most people begin to appreciate how bad things got in Germany post-WWI.
The reason is that you write about feelings and resentments.

You don't write about an economy broken and then further destroyed 5 years later.
You don't talk about back to back years with inflation at THREE MILLION and FIVE MILLION PERCENT.
You don't talk about needing a suitcase full of money to buy groceries or how only SOME people
had the cash because only SOME people had the jobs. Jobs paid a lot of cash but no job, you
lived on scraps and what you could pull from the ground or you died of which there was a LOT.

Compare to these days when inflation has rising prices. It's really bad now, the price of
food is going up and everything with it... we haven't hit 100 percent and what are we ready
to do and who are we ready to support for just a promise of relief. 4 years from now when
things are even worse and getting worse yet (sorry but the borrow and spending spree of the
last 6 years means interest as well as paying back to make this new bailout look like chicken
feed) will we be ready to follow the next Hitler-named-savior?

Learn more than 5 minutes of brushing around the edges tells. School teachers don't tell the
story if the description is limited to words like 'bad', 'awful' or 'terrible'. From candy
coated classroom seats that means not having what? It's more than no poptarts for breakfast!

Don't blow off the suffering those people went through. The US Great Depression was a taste
only and a shorter one at that compared to Germany in the 20's and 30's. Find people who
lived through that era and listen when they tell you about hard, it was far harder in the
country where Hitler came to power and it should be obvious that when things are allowed to
get so bad anywhere then the same result may come about.

Evil times bring evil deeds. There's all kinds of terrorists who set evil upon people just
to throw control open -- and they don't all sit in caves to plot and send agents. In 1919
the terrorists sat in fine furniture and decided to destroy a whole nation and it hasn't
ended there.

Wake-T-F-Up.

Blutarski2004
09-30-2008, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I don't think that most people begin to appreciate how bad things got in Germany post-WWI.
The reason is that you write about feelings and resentments.

You don't write about an economy broken and then further destroyed 5 years later.
You don't talk about back to back years with inflation at THREE MILLION and FIVE MILLION PERCENT.
You don't talk about needing a suitcase full of money to buy groceries or how only SOME people
had the cash because only SOME people had the jobs. Jobs paid a lot of cash but no job, you
lived on scraps and what you could pull from the ground or you died of which there was a LOT.

Compare to these days when inflation has rising prices. It's really bad now, the price of
food is going up and everything with it... we haven't hit 100 percent and what are we ready
to do and who are we ready to support for just a promise of relief. 4 years from now when
things are even worse and getting worse yet (sorry but the borrow and spending spree of the
last 6 years means interest as well as paying back to make this new bailout look like chicken
feed) will we be ready to follow the next Hitler-named-savior?

Learn more than 5 minutes of brushing around the edges tells. School teachers don't tell the
story if the description is limited to words like 'bad', 'awful' or 'terrible'. From candy
coated classroom seats that means not having what? It's more than no poptarts for breakfast!

Don't blow off the suffering those people went through. The US Great Depression was a taste
only and a shorter one at that compared to Germany in the 20's and 30's. Find people who
lived through that era and listen when they tell you about hard, it was far harder in the
country where Hitler came to power and it should be obvious that when things are allowed to
get so bad anywhere then the same result may come about.

Evil times bring evil deeds. There's all kinds of terrorists who set evil upon people just
to throw control open -- and they don't all sit in caves to plot and send agents. In 1919
the terrorists sat in fine furniture and decided to destroy a whole nation and it hasn't
ended there.

Wake-T-F-Up.


..... Absolutely. It's also worth noting that post-WW1 Germany also endured several years of bloody civil war versus the Bolshevik attempt to seize political control of post-war Germany. It is impossible to understand the Germany of the 30's without understanding the German experience of the 20's.

R_Target
09-30-2008, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by jbrunner:
Was there actually a World War II? I mean, there were some countries that didn't fight.

Yes, but the other name choices weren't catchy enough.


Should it have been called A-Sizeable-Chunk-of-the-World War 2?

See above.


Is there a moon?

There used to be, but's it's been a holographic projection by NASA Moon Fakes Department since 1946 when captured V-2s were used to destroy secret Lerche moon bases.


Do I exist?

Not sure.

M_Gunz
09-30-2008, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
It is impossible to understand the Germany of the 30's without understanding the German experience of the 20's.

I don't claim to know the whole, not by a shot. I do see weaker parallels in action for more
than the last decade though.

They say that people who don't understand history are bound to repeat it? We have people who
teach but to the majority the understanding just isn't there, esp where PC doesn't allow.
Going by quotes we also have some in power who learned just enough to think they can use what
was to their own ends. An uneducated electorate is the first step along that path.
I don't need a degree in history to see these trends, but it would help in details.

Blutarski2004
09-30-2008, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
It is impossible to understand the Germany of the 30's without understanding the German experience of the 20's.

I don't claim to know the whole, not by a shot. I do see weaker parallels in action for more
than the last decade though.

They say that people who don't understand history are bound to repeat it? We have people who
teach but to the majority the understanding just isn't there, esp where PC doesn't allow.
Going by quotes we also have some in power who learned just enough to think they can use what
was to their own ends. An uneducated electorate is the first step along that path.
I don't need a degree in history to see these trends, but it would help in details. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... You said a mouthful there "podner".

S!

Whirlin_merlin
09-30-2008, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by josephs1959:


Oh stop your crying! I am sick to death of hearing or reading of how the Germans did so much damage to London! Who cares! Compared to the Damage the Allies caused to Berlin and the rest of Germany it doesn't begin to even compare!

BOO! HOO! HOO!



Yes it does not compare in scale, but that wasn't from a lack of trying.

Still a damm stupid thing to say though.

I care because I have family members who went through it. An aunt recently told me that she still can't sleep through a thunderstorm even now because of the memories it brings up. I'd like to see you face up to her and say 'stop crying'.

hop2002
09-30-2008, 10:29 AM
Oh stop your crying! I am sick to death of hearing or reading of how the Germans did so much damage to London! Who cares! Compared to the Damage the Allies caused to Berlin and the rest of Germany it doesn't begin to even compare!

The Luftwaffe killed more civilians by bombing than the allied air forces killed German civilians. In fact, the Luftwaffe killed approximately the same number of Soviets alone as died in Germany, without adding the British, Polish, French, Dutch, Norwegian etc casualties they inflicted.

And let's not forget that if it wasn't for the German bombing, there wouldn't have been anything like as many Germans killed. It was the Germans who led the way in the bombing of civilian populations.

Leaving out Poland because it's hard to get accurate figures, the Luftwaffe killed 900 Dutch civilians on the 15th May in Rotterdam. They killed 1,075 British civilians in August 1940, 6,954 in September, 6,334 in October, 4,588 in November and 3,793 in December. It was halfway through December that the first RAF area bombing raid of the war was carried out. By the time of the raid the Luftwaffe had killed over 20,000 British civilians.

In 1940 the RAF killed 349 German civilians. In 1941 it was 2,785, in 1942 4,327.

It was 1943 before the RAF exceeded the total the Luftwaffe had managed in August and September 1940.

If the Germans hadn't pioneered city bombing then they wouldn't have suffered such casualties when their enemies took up the tactic.

Kettenhunde
09-30-2008, 10:53 AM
The Luftwaffe killed more civilians by bombing than the allied air forces killed German civilians.

I don't think any hard facts can back this claim up.

hop2002
09-30-2008, 11:10 AM
Certainly not hard facts, because most of the figures are estimates.

Estimates of German civilian casualties range up to about 590,000.

Overy and Taylor say approx 500,000 Soviet civilians died in bombing attacks.

The Luftwaffe killed about 60,000 civilians in Britain, thousands more in eastern and western Europe.

No one can come up with hard facts to prove it one way or another because the original records are not accurate enough, but certainly the figures are similar.

joeap
09-30-2008, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Luftwaffe killed more civilians by bombing than the allied air forces killed German civilians.

I don't think any hard facts can back this claim up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hopp provided some numbers, but from what I have read it would be more accurate to say the Germans (and the Axis in general) killed more civilians by different means than the Western Allies did by bombing. On other words they killed more civilians than they lost themselves. Of course that is true, taken in isolation, of some of the Allied members, Canada, and the US for example killed mroe civilians than they lost. Before anyone jumps on me, Canada did have crew and I believe squadrons in RAF Bomber Command...and YES the total is still much smaller than the Nazi one.

Moral judgements are your own.

Bremspropeller
09-30-2008, 12:16 PM
Ze Germans were more evil than anybody else.

But then again, they also had cooler uniforms than anybody else.

Kewl uniform - bad dude.

Take it or leave it.

GatorSub1942
09-30-2008, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by josephs1959:


Oh stop your crying! I am sick to death of hearing or reading of how the Germans did so much damage to London! Who cares! Compared to the Damage the Allies caused to Berlin and the rest of Germany it doesn't begin to even compare!

BOO! HOO! HOO!

Right. So, you expect Churchill to say 'I know they bombed us to hell, but our bombers are so much bigger and better than theirs, so we'd better not bomb them because we'll obliterate them and that wouldn't be very nice'? That'd be great for the morale of the British public who had to put up with night upon night of German bombing, that would! Also, remember it was Hitler who started the bombing of cities. 'We'll wipe their cities out!' he ranted at one of his idiotic rallies. Wrong, Adolf. You hit out at Britain, just so happened that they were able to hit you back harder. I'm not saying the bombing of civilians is in any way right, just that the Luftwaffe did their best to bomb London out of existence, so how could anyone not expect the British to turn round and do the same to Germany? The only reason the Allies did more damage to Germany is that Germany had no proper four engine heavy bombers. Otherwise, there probably would've been no British cities left at all. Not to mention what they would've done if they'd got their hooks on the atom bomb first.

GatorSub1942
09-30-2008, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by josephs1959:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GatorSub1942:
"What a bloody stupid thing to say, OP! There was a battle. It took part over Britain. If we'd have lost, the Nazis could've just walked into Britain at any time."

I disagree, it would have been a very costly and bloody battle, even after the loss of BOB in the air.
Germany just wasn't equipped for an amphibious invasion. Men could have been parachuted into England but not tanks or heavy equipment.
Germany,if they had won the war in the air still had a huge disadvantage in the sea.Germany could only at that time at MOST, put to sea 30 U-boats and against all of the destroyers that England hadeven with escort duties included, well I just can't see any favorable results for Germany.




I am not saying that Britain wouldn't have put up one hell of a fight, they had all sorts of tricks, traps and ways to fight a guerilla war that would've been hell for the Germans, but the fact is, the German army was better armed, had many more tanks (most of the British ones were left in France), better tanks, more experience and much higher morale than the British army did. It would've been a long, bloody battle, but there's no doubt that once the Germans had landed, victory would've only been a matter of time.

GatorSub1942
09-30-2008, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
Whilst I agree with the sentiment of Gatorsub's post, can I ask for a lot less of the "We" "Us" and "You" attitude that seems so prevalent in much thinking on WWII?

Whilst I am eternally thankful for what my grandparents did all those years ago (which should never, ever be forgotten, trivialised or belittled), it would be more than disengenuous of me to claim credit for their achievements by daring to count myself as one of the participants in the events that they went through in search of a better world for all of us. Please bear this in mind when responding to the ignorant in future. Thank you.

Yes, sorry about that. It's just when I hear garbage like that, it brings out a very fierce patriotic streak in me, I've always been very proud to be British! I have tried to edit my subsequent posts accordingly.

Mr_Zooly
09-30-2008, 03:28 PM
I'm British too (but i'm not sure about the 'proud' part) all countries have parts of their history that they arent exactly proud of and Britain is no exception.
I am interested though about the nationality of the originator of this post.

mmitch10
09-30-2008, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Mr_Zooly:
I am interested though about the nationality of the originator of this post.

Australian. He's not anti Brit but....

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2601013236/m/5...471082756#5471082756 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2601013236/m/5471082756?r=5471082756#5471082756)

Urufu_Shinjiro
09-30-2008, 03:41 PM
He's a troll, comes straight from Trollville, lol.

klemlao
09-30-2008, 03:43 PM
Well,

I think that clears up the original post........

unless we are going to continue the 'they were nastier than we were' theme.

Mr_Zooly
09-30-2008, 03:44 PM
WOW http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
to say the guy isnt a fan of the British is like saying that the Pope is a little bit Catholic!

M_Gunz
09-30-2008, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
He's a troll, comes straight from Trollville, lol.

That is obvious from the ridiculous thread title alone.

Definitely Congressional material.

sw25th
09-30-2008, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by coolinoz:
..and what i mean is did an aerial campagin on which depended the future of Britain ( and hence the free world) ever occur.

Are you talking of the communist invasion of Europe/Poland after ww2?

Kettenhunde
09-30-2008, 06:25 PM
Certainly not hard facts, because most of the figures are estimates.


Exactly, figures are all guesses and nothing more.

The guesses range from a few hundred thousand to several million.

There is absolutely no way you can make any blanket statement about the culpability of the Luftwaffe or the magnitude of its proportions of those casualties without pure invention to fuel sensationalism.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
09-30-2008, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by coolinoz:
..and what i mean is did an aerial campagin on which depended the future of Britain ( and hence the free world) ever occur.

No, the Germans just felt like attacking Britain for the he11 of it because they had too many
planes and pilots standing around.

foxyboy1964
10-01-2008, 01:02 AM
Hey coolinoz, how do you like your koalas? Well done or *****? Just curious.

WTE_Galway
10-01-2008, 01:16 AM
If you want an informed and reasonably unbiased review of why the RAF did what it did I suggest reading what John Terraine has to say on the topic. Of particular interest is the actual motivations behind area bombing. (Royal Airforce Historical Society, Issue 2, August 1987)

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/london/research/documents/J...aine%20on%20WWII.pdf (http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/london/research/documents/Journal%202%20-%20John%20Terraine%20on%20WWII.pdf)

panther3485
10-01-2008, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
If you want an informed and reasonably unbiased review of why the RAF did what it did I suggest reading what John Terraine has to say on the topic. Of particular interest is the actual motivations behind area bombing. (Royal Airforce Historical Society, Issue 2, August 1987)

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/london/research/documents/J...aine%20on%20WWII.pdf (http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/london/research/documents/Journal%202%20-%20John%20Terraine%20on%20WWII.pdf)

Please allow me to also recommend this book:

'Bomber Command 1939-45 - Reaping the Whirlwind', Richard Overy, HarperCollins
ISBN 0 00 472014 8

Jex_TE
10-01-2008, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by GatorSub1942:
What a bloody stupid thing to say, OP! There was a battle. It took part over Britain. If we'd have lost, the Nazis could've just walked into Britain at any time. It was essential not just for the survival of Britain as an independent nation, but also vital to winning the war! No base for attack on Europe, what would've the USA done? Flown all the way from the States to attack Germany? The 109's would've loved that! They would hassle them from Britain, France and Germany, so that it would've been a miracle if even one bomber got through. That's assuming the USA could develop a bomber to fly far enough. What else? Send a relief force by sea to help Britain that would've been carved up by U-Boats and surface raiders before it got anywhere near Britain! God, some of the crap people come up with. It's as bad as those idiots that say the Holocaust never happened! If you must talk about history, talk sense for God's sake.

I wonder what would have happened if Britain had joined Germany as an ally. Didn't the Brits have the largest navy at the time? Add that the invention of radar and the germans knowledge in jet propulsion and rockets, I wonder what would have happened?

Thankfully that didn't happen and we decided to support Poland when they were invaded. How many countries were in WW2 right from the start?

Jex_TE
10-01-2008, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by josephs1959:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
Lucky for you limeys Ben Afleck and Tom Cruise were around.......... I understand and appreciate your humour but let me add my 2 cents of sarcasm in by writing,,,,

LOL! Yea right, The Americans did win the war all by themselves DOH! The rest of the participating countries (The allies) did nothing but watch,,, Hah!

Didn't any of you Brits see the movie U-571? I was so desgusted by the blatant BS and PC of that fallacy so called "based on true events" hollywood Cr** ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I refuse to watch that movie out of respect for the people who actually did the mission and died for it.

Jex_TE
10-01-2008, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by Mr_Zooly:
WOW http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
to say the guy isnt a fan of the British is like saying that the Pope is a little bit Catholic!

Perhaps it stems from how badly they did in the olymipcs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ImpStarDuece
10-01-2008, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by Jex_TE:
Perhaps it stems from how badly they did in the olymipcs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

What, three less gold and one less medal overall? From a population less than one third the size.

Does that mean each Aussie is worth three Brits? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Jex_TE
10-01-2008, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jex_TE:
Perhaps it stems from how badly they did in the olymipcs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

What, three less gold and one less medal overall? From a population less than one third the size.

Does that mean each Aussie is worth three Brits? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL a little fire with fire m8 - I couldn't really care less who got what in golds but for the record, we only spend a quid on athletics over here - you should know that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
10-01-2008, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by GatorSub1942:

Also, remember it was Hitler who started the bombing of cities.

No, he didn't.

HuninMunin
10-01-2008, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by Jex_TE:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GatorSub1942:
What a bloody stupid thing to say, OP! There was a battle. It took part over Britain. If we'd have lost, the Nazis could've just walked into Britain at any time. It was essential not just for the survival of Britain as an independent nation, but also vital to winning the war! No base for attack on Europe, what would've the USA done? Flown all the way from the States to attack Germany? The 109's would've loved that! They would hassle them from Britain, France and Germany, so that it would've been a miracle if even one bomber got through. That's assuming the USA could develop a bomber to fly far enough. What else? Send a relief force by sea to help Britain that would've been carved up by U-Boats and surface raiders before it got anywhere near Britain! God, some of the crap people come up with. It's as bad as those idiots that say the Holocaust never happened! If you must talk about history, talk sense for God's sake.

I wonder what would have happened if Britain had joined Germany as an ally. Didn't the Brits have the largest navy at the time? Add that the invention of radar and the germans knowledge in jet propulsion and rockets, I wonder what would have happened?

Thankfully that didn't happen and we decided to support Poland when they were invaded. How many countries were in WW2 right from the start? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first radar guided intercept in Germany occured on the 18th of December 1939.
Of 24 bombers 10 were shot down after interception.

Urufu_Shinjiro
10-01-2008, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GatorSub1942:

Also, remember it was Hitler who started the bombing of cities.

No, he didn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A statement like this needs just a little, oh I don't know, FACTS, to back it up, lol.

Xiolablu3
10-01-2008, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GatorSub1942:

Also, remember it was Hitler who started the bombing of cities.

No, he didn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he did if you are talking in the grand scheme of things, but not in the Battle of Britain, that was a mistake.

However Hitler's luftwaffe launched the first major 'terror bombing' raid of WW2...

The bombing of Guernica...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica


However Germany has recently apologised over and over for this raid, even tho the Germans alive today had nothing to do with it...

'....then German President Roman Herzog wrote to survivors apologizing on behalf of the German people and state. Herzog said he wished to extend "a hand of friendship and reconciliation" on behalf of all German citizens.[20] This sentiment was later ratified by members of the German Parliament who went on to legislate in 1998 for the removal of all former Legion members' names from associated German military bases.'

Jex_TE
10-01-2008, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GatorSub1942:

Also, remember it was Hitler who started the bombing of cities.

No, he didn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he did if you are talking in the grand scheme of things, but not in the Battle of Britain, that was a mistake.

However Hitler's luftwaffe launched the first major 'terror bombing' raid of WW2...

The bombing of Guernica...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica


However Germany has recently apologised over and over for this raid, even tho the Germans alive today had nothing to do with it...

'....then German President Roman Herzog wrote to survivors apologizing on behalf of the German people and state. Herzog said he wished to extend "a hand of friendship and reconciliation" on behalf of all German citizens.[20] This sentiment was later ratified by members of the German Parliament who went on to legislate in 1998 for the removal of all former Legion members' names from associated German military bases.' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought the Brits bombed a german city to get them to change tactics. Weren't they bombing our airfields and had almost wiped them out, then we bombed a city and hitler decided to change tack and do the same back?

hop2002
10-01-2008, 06:44 AM
but not in the Battle of Britain, that was a mistake.

Whilst the bombs that hit central London were a mistake, the ever increasing scale of bombing of British cities at night was not.

On 19th August Goering ordered a large (100+ bombers) night attack on Liverpool. Night attacks with the purpose of "denying the population rest" were stepped up during the month.

There was nothing accidental about Germany's campaign against British cities. How much of it was Hitler's doing and how much the other German commanders is a matter of debate, though. Jodl called for "terror attacks, announced as reprisals" as early as June. Kesselring argued in July that the BoB should begin with massed daylight attacks on London, and pushed throughout the battle for permission to switch to attacks on the capital.

panther3485
10-01-2008, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
However Hitler's luftwaffe launched the first major 'terror bombing' raid of WW2...

The bombing of Guernica...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica


Unless I'm much mistaken, the bombing of Guernica was in the Spanish Civil War, not WW2.

Xiolablu3
10-01-2008, 07:05 AM
I guess panther, but its debateable when WW2 started anyway.

In CHina its 1937?

In UK/France 1939?

In Russia 1941?

In USA 1941?


I always think of 'WW2' as the group of wars which began in the late 1930's and raged to mid 1945. Others have different opinions.


Attacks on cities were just part of 'Total war' and all sides did it.

Britian and Germany obviously.

The Yanks tried to be more precise but also did Area city bombing whenever cloud covered the targets, which is very often in Autumn and Winter over Europe.


In Japan the US used different rules and bombed every city.

With the Japnese 'rules of engagement' its perhgaps very lucky that the Japanese bombers never came within range of the Allied homelands. (maybe Aus?)

JtD
10-01-2008, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GatorSub1942:

Also, remember it was Hitler who started the bombing of cities.

No, he didn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A statement like this needs just a little, oh I don't know, FACTS, to back it up, lol. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's funny, someone says "he did", I say "he didn't" and only I need to provide facts? Combined with laughing in my virtual face, that's a sad attitude. In particular if it comes from a moderator. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

But for what it's worth, the Germans used Zeppelins in WW1 to bomb London. The RAF bombed several cities in WW1. Hitler was hiding in the mud at that time, so I don't see how he can be blamed for that. It's not that terror bombing was a new concept in WW2.
And if you check WW2 itself, you'll find that both sides did their best to escalate things. But of course it easier to blame the bad guy only. Passionate German hater Winston Churchill would never dream of harming Germans.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
10-01-2008, 07:31 AM
Read more stuff, gentlemen. There are libraries full of books out there. You will find that Churchill was very magnanamous in victory - constantly blocking American overtures to turn a defeated Germany into a non-industrial, agricultural nation. You will find that whilst both Britain and Germany waited to pounce upon the moral high ground, it was a German error that bombed London first, enabling Churchill to order an immediate reprisal against Berlin, thus enraging Hitler - who went into his famous "They can bomb our cities - we shall obliterate theirs!" speech. You will find that Churchill backed Harris to the hilt until victory was certain, then dropped him like a hot potato (tricky chaps, politicians). You will find an unapologetic Harris, proud of his efforts and deeply touched by the losses his command incurred. You will find Harris just as proud of the glowing tributes and accolades given him by senior American figures for his work. And you will find those only too eager to bend statistics and apportion blame as if they themselves had a hand in the events of over sixty years ago.

klemlao
10-01-2008, 07:36 AM
Well, its still rumbling on so..

yes WTE Galway, that is a very good article, embedded in which are some of the basic factors that led to Britain conducting the air war against Germany. It was all they had to fight with at the time and yes you could argue to some degree against the extent to which it was waged.

But, one thing that emerges from the many posts and opinions we see all the time is that all perceptions are made with the benefit of hindsight. It is very hard for people to wash their minds clean of all they know and put themselves in the position of people 'back then'. People who had no knowledge of how things would progress, were dying daily and nightly on some very personal scale (most people in London lost someone they knew), apparently losing or not able to fight back and fearing defeat and conquest with everything imaginable that would bring. My own parents were able to describe quite simply the fear and anger they felt and the very real worry of how it would all end.

Hindsight and its perceptions are invaluable for planning the future but are a very real barrier to understanding the past. We may draw conclusions and learn for the future but it is very presumptuous of us to judge. And who was nastier than who is an irrelevant argument. All war is regrettable but it is fought at the time with everything justifiable even if the justification is sometimes a bit dubious. That's just reality.

panther3485
10-01-2008, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
"I guess panther, but its debateable when WW2 started anyway.

In CHina its 1937?

In UK/France 1939?

In Russia 1941?

In USA 1941?


I always think of 'WW2' as the group of wars which began in the late 1930's and raged to mid 1945. Others have different opinions."

Yep, and some have even proposed that WW1 and WW2 were simply the same war in continuation but with a bit of a break in between....

However, you and I both know that the accepted dates for WW2 in mainstream history are September 1939 to the Japanese surrender in 1945. Also that by the same mainstream historical position, the Spanish Civil War and WW2 were two separate conflicts, so forget the fancy footwork! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



Originally posted by Xiolablu3: "With the Japnese 'rules of engagement' its perhgaps very lucky that the Japanese bombers never came within range of the Allied homelands. (maybe Aus?)"

The Japanese bombed both Darwin a number of times (Northern Territory) and Broome (northern Western Australia) with overall casualties not much less than are now more usually attributed to Guernica. So yeah, we got a taste of it alright.

Kurfurst__
10-01-2008, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
On 19th August Goering ordered a large (100+ bombers) night attack on Liverpool. Night attacks with the purpose of "denying the population rest" were stepped up during the month.

There was nothing accidental about Germany's campaign against British cities. How much of it was Hitler's doing and how much the other German commanders is a matter of debate, though. Jodl called for "terror attacks, announced as reprisals" as early as June. Kesselring argued in July that the BoB should begin with massed daylight attacks on London, and pushed throughout the battle for permission to switch to attacks on the capital.


When you see Hop claiming something, especially if its one his apoligist, pushing the blame ones, you better do some research to double check it, as he hopes you will not.

The following is the contemporary British report for the day's activity, hosted on the Britain's Ministry of Defence website. There is, of course, no mention of "100+ raids" on Liverpool.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/august19.html

Battle of Britain Campaign Diary
Date: 19th August 1940

* Weather: Mainly cloudy, occasional showers in the east.
* Day: Isolated raids on Britain. Heavy reconnaissance activity.
* Night: Widespread harassing raids and minelaying.

Enemy action by day

During the morning enemy activity was reduced to a few reconnaissances by single aircraft over the Southern Counties and off the East Coast.

In the afternoon single aircraft carried out widespread bombing attacks on objectives in South Wales, South and South-Eastern England.

North and East Coasts

Reconnaissances were reported off the East Coast of Scotland, near convoys off the Yorkshire Coast and off Great Yarmouth. Later, single aircraft attacked Coltishall, Honington, Stowmarket and Chelmsford.

At 1809 hours, 1 Me110 was intercepted and destroyed off Great Yarmouth.

South East Coasts

During the day approximately 15 reconnaissance flights were plotted in the Thames Estuary and The Straits. Barracks near Dover were attacked by single aircraft at 1500 hours.

South and West Coasts

Frequent reconnaissances were plotted in the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth areas, some of which penetrated inland towards South Wales and Middle Wallop. At 1345 hours, a Ju88 was intercepted and destroyed near Taunton; at 1500 hours, 1 Ju88 was destroyed near Southampton and at 1715 hours, 1 Ju88 was destroyed near the Isle of Wight. Oil tanks at Llanreath (Pembroke); aerodromes at Harwell, Little Rissington and Shrivenham, and targets near Oxford, Swindon, Wroughton and Burley were attacked. One aircraft attacked the balloon barrage at Southampton.

By night

Enemy activity was widespread but for the most part confined to raids by single aircraft. At midnight some 60 raids were plotted. Enemy aircraft were active off the coast and minelaying is suspected from the Thames Estuary to Northumberland. Two raids of 6+ penetrated inland, one to Derby and one to Middle Wallop. Single aircraft raids were mainly active in the Midlands and East Anglia, but raids were also reported in the Portsmouth, Bristol, South Wales, Liverpool, Hull, Newcastle and Edinburgh/Glasgow areas. Humber anti-aircraft guns claim to have destroyed and enemy aircraft at 2315 hours.


Now as for the story of 'Jodl calling for "terror attacks, announced as reprisals" as early as June', this is something Jodl did in fact wrote to his diary early in June 1940, this was presented to him at the Nürnberg trials, and he replied that he indeed did such a statement, because he was very furious as a result of an extensive series of British bomber attacks on German cities in May 1940... see below:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/RAF_BC_attacks_Germancities.jpg

You see, you can not really trust Hop, but you can always trust Hop being Hop. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

panther3485
10-01-2008, 08:57 AM
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the very early 1940 attacks (May and June) were mainly to drop propaganda leaflets. Or was that earlier?

Edit: Just did a quick check in the book I mentioned previously. Bomber Command was authorized to commence attacks on German targets shortly after Churchill came to power as Prime Minister (May 1940). They were going for industrial targets among others but given the woeful accuracy of the bombing, no doubt they must have caused collateral casualties. Of course, since they were at this stage still trying to hit specific strategic targets in isolation, this was not yet intended as 'terror bombing' but both sides would escalate to that in due course.

luftluuver
10-01-2008, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
On 19th August Goering ordered a large (100+ bombers) night attack on Liverpool. Night attacks with the purpose of "denying the population rest" were stepped up during the month.

There was nothing accidental about Germany's campaign against British cities. How much of it was Hitler's doing and how much the other German commanders is a matter of debate, though. Jodl called for "terror attacks, announced as reprisals" as early as June. Kesselring argued in July that the BoB should begin with massed daylight attacks on London, and pushed throughout the battle for permission to switch to attacks on the capital.

When you see Hop claiming something, especially if its one his apoligist, pushing the blame ones, you better do some research to double check it, as he hopes you will not.

You see, you can not really trust Hop, but you can always trust Hop being Hop. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif The pot calling the kettle black, again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Just because an order was issued on a certain date does not mean the order was carried out on that date.

Blutarski2004
10-01-2008, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
When you see Hop claiming something, especially if its one his apoligist, pushing the blame ones, you better do some research to double check it, as he hopes you will not.

The following is the contemporary British report for the day's activity, hosted on the Britain's Ministry of Defence website. There is, of course, no mention of "100+ raids" on Liverpool.

<snip>

You see, you can not really trust Hop, but you can always trust Hop being Hop. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


..... Come on, Kurfurst. Are you really attempting to suggest that the LW did NOT bomb Liverpool??? That's what your post seems to imply.

Any reasonable Google search will turn up a clear evidence indicating that the LW did carry out an extensive series of raids on Liverpool, the heaviest from mid-1940 through Spring of 1941. The May 1941 "Blitz" featured raids up to 298 bombers in size.

- - -

Liverpool 'Blitz' timeline

August 1940
9th: First bombs dropped on Merseyside at Prenton, Birkenhead. Liverpool's first casualty of the 'Blitz'.

10th: First bombs dropped on Wallasey.

17th: First bombs dropped on Liverpool. Liverpool Overhead railway damaged.

19th: Walton Gaol bombed killing 22 prisoners.


September 1940
5th: Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral damaged by bomb blast.

6th: Children's Convalescent Home bombed, Birkenhead.

26th: Heavy raid on docks and warehouses. Argyle Theatre, Birkenhead, seriously damaged.


October 1940
23rd: Merseyside suffers 200th air raid.


November 1940
28th: Heaviest air raids to date; 200 people killed in total as the first land mines dropped on Merseyside. 164 people killed when a shelter underneath the Junior Technical School, Durning Road, collapsed.


December 1940
3rd: 180 people killed in attack on a packed air raid shelter

12th: Merseyside suffers its 300th air raid.

20th: Start of the ˜The ˜Christmas Raids' with 365 people killed over three nights. 42 people killed in a bomb attack on two air raid shelters; another 42 people killed when railway arches being used as unofficial shelters are hit; 1399 children evacuated out of Liverpool.

21st: 74 people killed in a direct hit on a large air raid shelter.

22nd: End of the ˜Christmas Raids'.


January 1941
Bad flying weather results in just three air raids in the whole month.


February 1941
7th: ˜Western Approaches Command Headquarters transferred to Liverpool from Plymouth.

Only two raids are carried out on Merseyside in February.


March 1941
12-13th: Heavy bombing resumes. Wallasey suffers its heaviest raids as 174 people are killed.

16th: Baby girl found alive under debris in Wallasey, after being trapped for three and a half days.


April 1941
25th: Winston Churchill visits Liverpool to see the city and port.

The Luftwaffe (German air force) limited the raids on Merseyside to just three this month, conserving their forces for the upcoming ˜May Blitz'.


May 1941
1st: Beginning of the ˜The ˜May Blitz' 1741 people were killed and 114 people seriously injured by the end of the week.

3rd: Worst night of the ˜May Blitz', including the explosion of the cargo ship Malakand in Huskisson Dock.

7th: Final night of the ˜May Blitz';

13th: 550 ˜Unknown Warriors of the Battle of Britain' are buried in a common grave at Anfield Cemetery.

June 1941
1st: Heavy raids on Liverpool docks; East Gladstone Dock is badly damaged.


July 1941
24th: Light air raid on Merseyside.


November 1941
1st: A light air raid is the final attack on Merseyside in 1941.


January 1942
10th: Merseyside's final bombing raid of the Second World War sees houses in Upper Stanhope Street demolished.

- - -

On the other hand, I do not deny the legitimacy of Liverpool as a bombing target. It was perhaps the principal maritime port of Great Britain at the time and it is clear that the LW paid a lot of attention to the docks and harbor facilities, which suffered major damage. One cannot bomb a city without killing civilians, but that does not, in and of itself, qualify the Liverpool raids as terror attacks.

M_Gunz
10-01-2008, 10:47 AM
And the 100 bomber raid on Liverpool in Aug 19th, 1940 that was called to question?

GatorSub1942
10-01-2008, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GatorSub1942:

Also, remember it was Hitler who started the bombing of cities.

No, he didn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, he didn't. Oh, you mean the token attempt at a raid by the RAF?? That hardly did any damage at all! Hitler started dropping tons of bombs on British cities around two years before the RAF really got into gear against German cities! Also, don't you think Hitler would've started bombing cities sooner or later with or without the German error that led to the 'raid' on Berlin?

It's a good thing Hitler did throw the toys out of the pram, because Fighter Command was at breaking point and another few weeks of attention by the Luftwaffe surely would've finished them.

One question I've got, and you guys might have ideas about it: Didn't the Luftwaffe have more than enough planes to bomb cities but also keep up the pressure on the RAF's airfields?

Mr_Zooly
10-01-2008, 11:12 AM
I have recently read 'the most dangerous enemy' you should give it it try also, you might just learn something.

SeaFireLIV
10-01-2008, 11:13 AM
Boy, I`ve seen some dumb thread starter posts, but that one takes the mickey.

Kurfurst__
10-01-2008, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
When you see Hop claiming something, especially if its one his apoligist, pushing the blame ones, you better do some research to double check it, as he hopes you will not.

The following is the contemporary British report for the day's activity, hosted on the Britain's Ministry of Defence website. There is, of course, no mention of "100+ raids" on Liverpool.

<snip>

You see, you can not really trust Hop, but you can always trust Hop being Hop. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


..... Come on, Kurfurst. Are you really attempting to suggest that the LW did NOT bomb Liverpool??? That's what your post seems to imply. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In that case there may be serious problems with your reading comprehension powers...


Any reasonable Google search will turn up a clear evidence indicating that the LW did carry out an extensive series of raids on Liverpool, the heaviest from mid-1940 through Spring of 1941. The May 1941 "Blitz" featured raids up to 298 bombers in size.

What were the designated target? Liverpool itself, or targets within Liverpool - a major port in Britain with extensive docking capacity I believe, which you observed as well. And it would also appear to me that civillian casulties were very low in August, before the RAF attack on Berlin and before the Luftwaffe begun its retaliation.

Of course one can phrase it as '100+ raids' 'on Liverpool', to make people think Liverpool and Liverpoolians were The Target. I think the actual target and mission goals would be very easy to find out from the daily Luftwaffe mission orders.

hop2002
10-01-2008, 11:24 AM
The following is the contemporary British report for the day's activity, hosted on the Britain's Ministry of Defence website. There is, of course, no mention of "100+ raids" on Liverpool.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/august19.html


It was ordered on the 19th. It was carried out on the 28/29th August. The entry in the war diary of the Wehrmacht High Command:


On 28th August and on the night 28/29th August, the Luftwaffe committed a total strength of 400 bomber and 576 fighter aircraft against England. Among other raids, 722 demolition and 6,480 incendiary bombs were dropped on Liverpool and Birkenhead during the night.

Compare that to the scale of the RAF operation against Berlin the same night:


During the night of 28/29 August, British bombers raided Greater Berlin for the first time. 8 demolition and a great number of incendiary bombs were dropped. The major part of these bombs was dropped on residential areas near Goerlitz railroad station. 8 civilians were killed, 21 heavily and 7 were slightly wounded

The RAF BoB page details for the night bombing:


Three main areas were attacked:

* i. South West and up to South Wales.
* ii. Industrial Midlands up to Liverpool and Manchester - a few raids going as far as Carlisle.
* iii. Tees and Tyne area.

29th/30th August

* Manchester and Liverpool were severely bombed - property, gas and water mains being severely affected. IB and HE bombs are reported to have been dropped in many places including the factory of Messrs Rootes Ltd and others in the Speke district.


Now as for the story of 'Jodl calling for "terror attacks, announced as reprisals" as early as June', this is something Jodl did in fact wrote to his diary early in June 1940, this was presented to him at the Nürnberg trials, and he replied that he indeed did such a statement, because he was very furious as a result of an extensive series of British bomber attacks on German cities in May 1940.

And of course the justifications given by a Nazi war criminal must be true, right?

It's rather an odd claim in light of the fact the RAF, in the whole of 1940, killed less civilians than the Luftwaffe managed on the 15th May in Rotterdam.

Kurfurst__
10-01-2008, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by GatorSub1942:
It's a good thing Hitler did throw the toys out of the pram, because Fighter Command was at breaking point and another few weeks of attention by the Luftwaffe surely would've finished them.

IMHO it was a tactically sound idea to start bombing targets in London. It would ensure the RAF would have to come up and fight against the Luftwaffe, and give the Germans a chance to 'verdunize' Fighter Command and bleed it dry. Bombing airfield put a lot of pressure on the RAF, but they could always evacuate the damage ones, and use others while they are repaired, and even in the worst case they could move up North to take a breath, where the German fighters could not reach them.

London, on the other hand, had to be protected, and only mass formations of fighters would do against the bomber stream of Heinkels and Dorniers. Which would also mean more RAF fighters could be destroyed at a time - and time was essential.

GatorSub1942
10-01-2008, 11:30 AM
Boy, I`ve seen some dumb thread starter posts, but that one takes the mickey.



True, but it's led to a fun (if somewhat heated) debate. But it's really, really made me want to have SoW in my hands!!

Blutarski2004
10-01-2008, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
In that case there may be serious problems with your reading comprehension powers...


..... First re-examine your expository skills. Your entire argument about this single August 19th, 1940 date is either extraneous or ridiculous, depending upon what sort of rationale you will now seek to mount in its defense




What were the designated target? Liverpool itself, or targets within Liverpool - a major port in Britain with extensive docking capacity I believe, which you observed as well.

..... Indeed I did, because that is what the honest record suggests to me.

JG52Uther
10-01-2008, 12:30 PM
Has the OP been back to this thread,or is he/she/it just sitting back watching the fun?

SeaFireLIV
10-01-2008, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Has the OP been back to this thread,or is he/she/it just sitting back watching the fun?

Probably watching.

It`s quite an interesting sport. Post something completely ridiculous to do with the forum subject and see who can get the longest most angry, ranting thread. Winner gets a beer.

I wait the next ridiculous thread subject like, "Did Hitler really attack Poland?"

Doug_Thompson
10-01-2008, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by coolinoz:
Ive got no references, but apparently a lot of German historians beleive the "Battle" was just a series of skirmishes ...


Just look at the Luftwaffen losses and you will realise that BoB was not "just a series of skirmishes".
If the Wehrmacht didn't seriously intend to invade Britain the Luftwaffe wouldn't have tried to gain air superiority over Britain at the cost of so many aeroplanes and pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Doug_Thompson
10-01-2008, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
The world is round....

Even better. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

GatorSub1942
10-01-2008, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by coolinoz:
Ive got no references, but apparently a lot of German historians beleive the "Battle" was just a series of skirmishes ...


Just look at the Luftwaffen losses and you will realise that BoB was not "just a series of skirmishes".
If the Wehrmacht didn't seriously intend to invade Britain the Luftwaffe wouldn't have tried to gain air superiority over Britain at the cost of so many aeroplanes and pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Luftwaffe regularly sent over 100+ planes. If you think that's a skirmish, then you're an idiot.

Also, I have a message for the OP of this thread. Since your other thread about the quality of British soldiers was rightly locked, I'll post it here:

Try saying that to the SAS!

M_Gunz
10-01-2008, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GatorSub1942:
It's a good thing Hitler did throw the toys out of the pram, because Fighter Command was at breaking point and another few weeks of attention by the Luftwaffe surely would've finished them.

IMHO it was a tactically sound idea to start bombing targets in London. It would ensure the RAF would have to come up and fight against the Luftwaffe, and give the Germans a chance to 'verdunize' Fighter Command and bleed it dry. Bombing airfield put a lot of pressure on the RAF, but they could always evacuate the damage ones, and use others while they are repaired, and even in the worst case they could move up North to take a breath, where the German fighters could not reach them.

London, on the other hand, had to be protected, and only mass formations of fighters would do against the bomber stream of Heinkels and Dorniers. Which would also mean more RAF fighters could be destroyed at a time - and time was essential. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From all accounts the shift to bombing London was a huge relief to the RAF as in The Break
They Badly Needed from getting bombed to pieces themselves.

How many RAF pilots you think were lost trying to get planes off the ground as bases were hit?
Apparently the answer is MANY as well as other base personnel.

Yeah, the shift ensured the RAF had to fight back but then that's what they were doing anyway.
However the shift also put the 109's at range limits and the bombers no longer got the escort
coverage all the way out and back that they had. Compare losses of bombers as percents from
before and after the shift of targets and see if they were not greater after.

GatorSub1942
10-01-2008, 05:01 PM
True, the Me 109s had to go home long before the bombers had finished over London, hadn't they? Damn it, all this BoB talk is making me SoW hungry!

Edit: I'd actually like to thank the OP for his ******ed views, they've really sparked off a fun debate!

Woke_Up_Dead
10-01-2008, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GatorSub1942:

Also, remember it was Hitler who started the bombing of cities.

No, he didn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure he did. It's hard to say that he wasn't the first one to do it when the very first act of war on September 1st (actually five minutes before the artillery bombardment of Westerplatte which is commonly referred to as the beginning of the war), was the terror bombing of Wielun, starting with the hospital, which resulted in 1200 deaths in a town with no military targets and a small sugar factory on the outskirts as the only industrial target: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Wielu%C5%84


I have been reading this forum for a few weeks now and it's disappointing to see that among a group of people who are so obviously interested and knowledgeable about certain details of the war, particularly the air war, a view that equates Allied bombing crimes in Germany to those of the Luftwaffe is allowed to persist. Perhaps this results from looking at just the German-British/American conflict and not being curious enough about the Eastern front, which is a little bit baffling, given the setting of the original title of this series.

If you look at the European conflict in its entirety then there is no comparison; by the time the British got their act together and regularly started dropping something more deadly than propaganda leaflets from their bombers the LW had already killed tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians through terror bombings of Wielun, Frampol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Frampol), Warsaw of course, as well as through strafing of civilian refugee columns. And later on, by the time the Soviets were close enough and well-equipped enough to do significant damage to German towns and cities, the Germans had already been spreading terror from the air in the Soviet Union for months.

GatorSub1942
10-01-2008, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Woke_Up_Dead:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GatorSub1942:

Also, remember it was Hitler who started the bombing of cities.

No, he didn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure he did. It's hard to say that he wasn't the first one to do it when the very first act of war on September 1st (actually five minutes before the artillery bombardment of Westerplatte which is commonly referred to as the beginning of the war), was the terror bombing of Wielun, starting with the hospital, which resulted in 1200 deaths in a town with no military targets and a small sugar factory on the outskirts as the only industrial target: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Wielu%C5%84


I have been reading this forum for a few weeks now and it's disappointing to see that among a group of people who are so obviously interested and knowledgeable about certain details of the war, particularly the air war, a view that equates Allied bombing crimes in Germany to those of the Luftwaffe is allowed to persist. Perhaps this results from looking at just the German-British/American conflict and not being curious enough about the Eastern front, which is a little bit baffling, given the setting of the original title of this series.

If you look at the European conflict in its entirety then there is no comparison; by the time the British got their act together and regularly started dropping something more deadly than propaganda leaflets from their bombers the LW had already killed tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians through terror bombings of Wielun, Frampol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Frampol), Warsaw of course, as well as through strafing of civilian refugee columns. And later on, by the time the Soviets were close enough and well-equipped enough to do significant damage to German towns and cities, the Germans had already been spreading terror from the air in the Soviet Union for months. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said! The Nazis trashed cities like Warsaw for no reason other than to terrorise the civilian population. When the RAF bombed Germany, it was a 'carpet bombing' policy, designed to hit a city, in the hope of destroying industry within. Not to terrorise civilians. And the RAF didn't go around machine-gunning innocent refugees!

hop2002
10-01-2008, 05:58 PM
From all accounts the shift to bombing London was a huge relief to the RAF as in The Break
They Badly Needed from getting bombed to pieces themselves.

It was a relief to both sides. The Luftwaffe lost 111 fighters 26th August - 1st September. They lost another 129 2nd - 8th September.


How many RAF pilots you think were lost trying to get planes off the ground as bases were hit?
Apparently the answer is MANY as well as other base personnel.

I don't think it was that many. Certainly losses of fighters on the ground were low, approx 20 for the whole battle (can't check the exact numbers now)


Yeah, the shift ensured the RAF had to fight back but then that's what they were doing anyway.
However the shift also put the 109's at range limits and the bombers no longer got the escort
coverage all the way out and back that they had. Compare losses of bombers as percents from
before and after the shift of targets and see if they were not greater after.

They were actually lower afterwards.

12 August - 1st September the Luftwaffe flew 3,275 day bomber sorties and lost 267, a rate of 8.2%. Fighter sorties were 10,500 and losses 314, 3%

9th - 29th September they flew 2900 day bomber sorties, lost 147, 5.1%. Fighters flew 4,400 sorties, 151 losses, 3.4% loss rate.

(all figures from Hooton, Eagle in flames)

Despite a much lower ratio of fighters to bombers, Luftwaffe bomber losses went down heavily, fighter losses rose slightly, and overall losses were down slightly. With the lower proportion of escorts, you'd expect overall losses to increase, not decline.

WTE_Galway
10-01-2008, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by GatorSub1942:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Woke_Up_Dead:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GatorSub1942:

Also, remember it was Hitler who started the bombing of cities.

No, he didn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure he did. It's hard to say that he wasn't the first one to do it when the very first act of war on September 1st (actually five minutes before the artillery bombardment of Westerplatte which is commonly referred to as the beginning of the war), was the terror bombing of Wielun, starting with the hospital, which resulted in 1200 deaths in a town with no military targets and a small sugar factory on the outskirts as the only industrial target: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Wielu%C5%84


I have been reading this forum for a few weeks now and it's disappointing to see that among a group of people who are so obviously interested and knowledgeable about certain details of the war, particularly the air war, a view that equates Allied bombing crimes in Germany to those of the Luftwaffe is allowed to persist. Perhaps this results from looking at just the German-British/American conflict and not being curious enough about the Eastern front, which is a little bit baffling, given the setting of the original title of this series.

If you look at the European conflict in its entirety then there is no comparison; by the time the British got their act together and regularly started dropping something more deadly than propaganda leaflets from their bombers the LW had already killed tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians through terror bombings of Wielun, Frampol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Frampol), Warsaw of course, as well as through strafing of civilian refugee columns. And later on, by the time the Soviets were close enough and well-equipped enough to do significant damage to German towns and cities, the Germans had already been spreading terror from the air in the Soviet Union for months. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said! The Nazis trashed cities like Warsaw for no reason other than to terrorise the civilian population. When the RAF bombed Germany, it was a 'carpet bombing' policy, designed to hit a city, in the hope of destroying industry within. Not to terrorise civilians. And the RAF didn't go around machine-gunning innocent refugees! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Overall this thread is mainly revisionist propaganda and jingoism from both sides and I have been ignoring it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



However lets be serious about this.

It goes without saying that the Luftwaffe was far far FAR worse than the allies with terror bombing and specific terror weapons and even terror tactics against its own workers.

HOWEVER ... the specific stated purpose of the RAF bombing command was "undermining the German morale". Destruction of industry was secondary until very late in the war.



By the way Warsaw took a bit of a pounding in the Polish campaign but the virtual annihilation of the city occurred during the Warsaw Uprising where (just like the Slovaks later) the insurgents begged the allies for aid but it was vetoed by Stalin who wanted no independent local power groups when he took over. A good part of the indescriminate destruction of Warsaw was not from the air, it was actually from a massive railgun parked just outside the city.

M_Gunz
10-01-2008, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Despite a much lower ratio of fighters to bombers, Luftwaffe bomber losses went down heavily, fighter losses rose slightly, and overall losses were down slightly. With the lower proportion of escorts, you'd expect overall losses to increase, not decline.

Well I'm surprised. What then changed the minds of the Germans if not increased losses?
Was it the advent of the Big Wing attacks showing that the RAF was far from beaten?
They didn't have to be by numbers more effective to make a certain impression. Decisions
are based on what things look like in future as well as at the moment.

WTE_Galway
10-01-2008, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
Despite a much lower ratio of fighters to bombers, Luftwaffe bomber losses went down heavily, fighter losses rose slightly, and overall losses were down slightly. With the lower proportion of escorts, you'd expect overall losses to increase, not decline.

Well I'm surprised. What then changed the minds of the Germans if not increased losses?
Was it the advent of the Big Wing attacks showing that the RAF was far from beaten?
They didn't have to be by numbers more effective to make a certain impression. Decisions
are based on what things look like in future as well as at the moment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tight Schedule.

By October 1940 Winter was coming on and with it any credible threat of invasion disappeared (crossing the channel in river barges was ludicrous enough in summer, crossing the North Sea in a barge in Winter would be horrific). Continuing into winter was pointless.

The Germans needed to either invade or convince the English they were about to invade before winter.

Kurfurst__
10-02-2008, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The following is the contemporary British report for the day's activity, hosted on the Britain's Ministry of Defence website. There is, of course, no mention of "100+ raids" on Liverpool.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/august19.html


It was ordered on the 19th. It was carried out on the 28/29th August. The entry in the war diary of the Wehrmacht High Command:


On 28th August and on the night 28/29th August, the Luftwaffe committed a total strength of 400 bomber and 576 fighter aircraft against England. Among other raids, 722 demolition and 6,480 incendiary bombs were dropped on Liverpool and Birkenhead during the night. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wood and Dempster also clarifies the nature of this particular attack:

'...In Göing`s order for the 19th August Liverpool had been singled out for heavy raids (ie. over 100 tons) and the preparations entrusted to Luftflotte 3. The Germans had long considered Liverpool a major target and it ranked second only to London on their port priority list.'

They also quote Schmidt's study as of November 1939 on the conduct of warfare against England. It says:

'The most important ports must be attacked without exception and as far as possible simultaniously. The intermixture of of residental areas with dockyards in some British ports is no reason for failing to attack such ports. The most important ports are those of London, Liverpool, Hull, Bristol and Glasgow. As secondary targets, dockyards and warehouse installations, in particular food and oil stores and silos, may be attacked. Raids must be constantly repeated, by day and night. To achieve maximum effect, even small formations may be usefully employed.'

Göing's general order on the air war against England, issued on 30th June 1940, noted that: '... The war against England is to be restricted to destructive attacks against the industry and air force targets which have weak defensive forces... It is also stressed that every effort should be made to avoid unneccessary loss of life amongst the civil population.'

Hitler's directive No 17, Conduct of Air and Naval warfare against England, issued on 1st August 1940, notes the following targets:

1, Achieving air superiority and the destruction of the enemy air force
2, After that attacks on harbours, especially those vital for food supplies.
3, Enemy warships and merchants
4, Conservation of strenght for support of naval operations
5, Direct Quote: 'Terror raids as means of retaliation I reserve the right to order to myself'.
6, Intensification of the air war may start from 5th August. The Air Force is to decide the exact date in view of wheater etc conditions.

The Germans aims are pretty clear is it not? They were trying to hit the docks and ports - a perfectly legitimate target, and indeed the Liverpool history site shows that the docks were hit hard repeatadly - while you are trying to imply that they were after the city itself.




Originally posted by hop2002:
Compare that to the scale of the RAF operation against Berlin the same night:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">During the night of 28/29 August, British bombers raided Greater Berlin for the first time. 8 demolition and a great number of incendiary bombs were dropped. The major part of these bombs was dropped on residential areas near Goerlitz railroad station. 8 civilians were killed, 21 heavily and 7 were slightly wounded </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right, there is no comparison, neither quantitatively nor qualitatively: the Luftwaffe on the 28/29th was performing a massed attack on British port targets. RAF's Bomber Command was performing a terror attack on Berlin's civillian population, but luckily enough they caused little harm in terms of human life.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now as for the story of 'Jodl calling for "terror attacks, announced as reprisals" as early as June', this is something Jodl did in fact wrote to his diary early in June 1940, this was presented to him at the Nürnberg trials, and he replied that he indeed did such a statement, because he was very furious as a result of an extensive series of British bomber attacks on German cities in May 1940.

And of course the justifications given by a Nazi war criminal must be true, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Jodl's justification is supported by circumstancial evidence. There were no LW attacks on British cities in May, June, or July, neither they were 'announced as reprisals'. When Hitler issued his directive on the conduct of warfare against England, he specifically prohibited any terror attacks, unless the British reach for that tool first, then the Luftwaffe would retaliate in kind. This was in contrast to that there were several British attacks on German cities, Köln was bombed the 15/16 May, Duisburg on the 16/17. Hamburg and Bremen was bombed on the 17/18, killing 47 and injuring 127. Hannover was bombed on the 18/19, Essen on the 24/25, Frankfurt on the 2/3, followed by Mannheim on the 4/5 June 1940 and so on they continued, well before the Battle of Britain. In other words, when Jodl was toying with the idea of retalition raids, it was to be viewed in the context that he did that in the wake of two weeks of continous British bomber raids on German cities.

Your claim OTOH, that Jodl was secretly pushing for terror raids, is unsupported; even at Nürnberg, where this quote of his diary was held up against him, he was not found guilty on that charge.


It's rather an odd claim in light of the fact the RAF, in the whole of 1940, killed less civilians than the Luftwaffe managed on the 15th May in Rotterdam.

Well its quite unlikely. Rotterdam - which was bombed to support the advance of the German Army that besieged the city - claimed around 800-900 lives. That was a secondary result of some 60 German bomber sorties flown, more so attributed to the fact that the bombing started a fire in the Rotterdam docks when some vegetable oil tanks were ignited and the firefighters could not control the flames. In contrast, Bomber Command flew some 17 000+ night sorties in 1940. I am fairly sure there were a lot more civillian casulties than 'just' 800 or so.

M_Gunz
10-02-2008, 03:34 AM
I think that the attack on Berlin had more to do with political promises made in Germany.

Blutarski2004
10-02-2008, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Wood and Dempster also clarifies the nature of this particular attack:

'...In Göing`s order for the 19th August Liverpool had been singled out for heavy raids (ie. over 100 tons) and the preparations entrusted to Luftflotte 3. The Germans had long considered Liverpool a major target and it ranked second only to London on their port priority list.'

They also quote Schmidt's study as of November 1939 on the conduct of warfare against England. It says:

'The most important ports must be attacked without exception and as far as possible simultaniously. The intermixture of of residental areas with dockyards in some British ports is no reason for failing to attack such ports. The most important ports are those of London, Liverpool, Hull, Bristol and Glasgow. As secondary targets, dockyards and warehouse installations, in particular food and oil stores and silos, may be attacked. Raids must be constantly repeated, by day and night. To achieve maximum effect, even small formations may be usefully employed.'

Göing's general order on the air war against England, issued on 30th June 1940, noted that: '... The war against England is to be restricted to destructive attacks against the industry and air force targets which have weak defensive forces... It is also stressed that every effort should be made to avoid unneccessary loss of life amongst the civil population.'

Hitler's directive No 17, Conduct of Air and Naval warfare against England, issued on 1st August 1940, notes the following targets:

1, Achieving air superiority and the destruction of the enemy air force
2, After that attacks on harbours, especially those vital for food supplies.
3, Enemy warships and merchants
4, Conservation of strenght for support of naval operations
5, Direct Quote: 'Terror raids as means of retaliation I reserve the right to order to myself'.
6, Intensification of the air war may start from 5th August. The Air Force is to decide the exact date in view of wheater etc conditions.

The Germans aims are pretty clear is it not? They were trying to hit the docks and ports - a perfectly legitimate target, and indeed the Liverpool history site shows that the docks were hit hard repeatadly - while you are trying to imply that they were after the city itself.



..... A much more powerful and convincing argument, Kurfurst.

John_Wayne_
10-02-2008, 04:49 AM
Belgrade (http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/081.shtml)

ImpStarDuece
10-02-2008, 05:46 AM
The first German act of the war, the bombing of Wielun, also comes to mind...

(Its not exactly as if the Polish were conducting area bombing of German cities, particularly not before Germany had even formally declared war, or fired a shell from the ground)

The bombing of Frampol also bears some consideration.

Kurfurst__
10-02-2008, 06:15 AM
One wonders what relation the Polish campaign has to the Battle of Britain, where clearly different attitude was present (at least, initially). I guess it has as much to do with the Battle as the RAF conduct of warfare against 'insurgents' in Iraq in the 1920, where bombers were used with poison gas against Arab villages, to the strongly expressed delight of your RAF officer named Harris.

Polish and German relations in the interwar years, were of course, very warm hearted and friendly. This mutual liking was expressed in strange ways, such as the Frampol and Wielun bombings (the latter which was BTW partially attributed to attacks on Polish cavarly units in the area), or the mass bayonetting of German ethnics in Bromberg, Poland, on the 3rd September 1939 and various death marches arranged.

One still wonders, what does all this stuff has to with the subject..?

No41Sqn_Banks
10-02-2008, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
One wonders what relation the Polish campaign has to the Battle of Britain, ...

The connection might be the declaration of war between UK and Germany as a result of the attack on Poland. Without the attack on Poland, no declaration of war and no Battle of Britain.

Xiolablu3
10-02-2008, 06:57 AM
I think that Britian had just had it with the lies, deceit and invasions of other coutries.

Even tho the slave labour, experiments and concentration camps info was yet to come out, I think they had finally realised that this was a totally untrustworthy goverment who were not going to be removed by leaflets to the people.

CHaimberlain had tried the 'trust' route and had been totally humiliated by Hitler. CHurchill was NOT going to go the same way.

They had finally heard first hand from Poles and Czechs what was happening over there and were expecting the same treatment. They finally realised that this was surely a 'total war' where any and all measures should be taken to beat this untrustworthy, evil adversery, Hitler.

hop2002
10-02-2008, 07:32 AM
Wood and Dempster also clarifies the nature of this particular attack:

'...In Göing`s order for the 19th August Liverpool had been singled out for heavy raids (ie. over 100 tons) and the preparations entrusted to Luftflotte 3. The Germans had long considered Liverpool a major target and it ranked second only to London on their port priority list.'


Yes, and?

Oh, I see, your contention is that the Germans were bombing industrial and infrastructure targets, the RAF bombing civilians?

The problem is the RAF's targets were clear, too. They were exactly the same as the Luftwaffe's at this stage.

In May the RAF dropped the following tonnage, according to Richard G Davis:

Power stations - 3.1 tons
Chemical industry - 5.3 tons
Metals industry - 6 tons
Targets of opportunity - 14.5 tons
Tactical targets (day) - 27.1 tons
Airfields - 38.6 tons
Transportation - 207.8 tons
Fuel - 218.7 tons
Tactical targets (night) - 548.6 tons
(Tactical targets are usually frontline enemy troops)

See any civilian targets there? No. Bomber Command didn't launch a city area raid until 15th December 1940, in response to the attack on Coventry.

In fact bombing policy until then specifically ruled out attacks on civilians. Instructions from the Air Ministry to Charles Portal, June 1940, from Webster and Frankland:


in no circumstances should night-bombing be allowed to degenerate into mere indiscriminate action, which is contrary to the military policy of His Majesty's government.



You are right, there is no comparison, neither quantitatively nor qualitatively: the Luftwaffe on the 28/29th was performing a massed attack on British port targets. RAF's Bomber Command was performing a terror attack on Berlin's civillian population, but luckily enough they caused little harm in terms of human life.

No Kurfurst, that's your fantasy. The first Berlin raid, details from The Other Few by Larry Donnelly:


A total of 102 aircraft were detailed for night operations including the first bombing raid on Berlin in retaliation for the bombing of the City of London and other cities by the Luftwaffe on the previous night.

1. Twelve Blenheims were detailed to attack enemy occupied airfields at (snip list of French airfields)

2. Twenty one Wellingtons were despatched to attack the Siemens factory in Berlin and the marshalling yards at Hamm, Scherte and Koln. Because of the heavy cloud cover only one crew attacked the Berlin target but claimed to have caused fires. Five crews claimed successful attacks on the marshalling yards and other targets attacked included a gas works at Texel and a concentration of Flak and searchlights.

3. Despite the weather conditions, ten Hampdens out of the forty-six despatched to Berlin claimed to have attacked their target, the Klingenberg power station. Another target in the vicinity of the power station was also attacked. One crew bombed the Henschel airframe factory claiming direct hits on buildings. Tempelhof airfield was bombed, but the results were not observed. A direct hit was claimed on a viaduct ten miles south east of Berlin and other attacks were made on Pangsdorf aerodrome (fifteen miles south of Berlin) and marshalling yards in the the outskirts of the city.

4. The adverse weather over Berlin which made target identification very difficult also affected the twenty-two Whitleys detailed to attack the Siemens works and only two claimed success. A single aircraft bombed a concentration of part of the defences of western Berlin. As an alternative another crew carried out a low-level attack on the dock years at Bremen.

See any attacks on civilians there?

The truth is that both sides were at this stage bombing military targets with small numbers of bombers. That changed as the Luftwaffe began massed raids against city areas, and you can see the results in the casualties inflicted, 349 by the RAF in the whole of 1940, 1,078 by the Luftwaffe in August, nearly 7,000 in September.

Reprisals isn't a justification for the Luftwaffe because they were already doing what the RAF were doing, bombing industrial and military targets, and doing it on a larger scale. It was the Luftwaffe that changed the terms of the battle by moving to using 500+ bombers against a single target, using un-aimable parachute bombs and large amounts of incendiaries to burn out city centres.


Well Jodl's justification is supported by circumstancial evidence. There were no LW attacks on British cities in May, June, or July,

There were plenty of bombs dropped on British cities in those months.

The Germans initially concentrated on French, Dutch and Belgian cities, of course, although they did manage to bomb Canterbury on the 9/10 May, they were probably trying for Calais or some other French target. But as soon as they had finished with continental targets, they started on Britain.

Here's a list for Swansea, a small town in South Wales:


Thursday 27 June 1940 6 High Explosive bombs dropped on Danygraig Road and a further 4 bombs on Kilvey Hill at 3.30am. Slight damage to property on Danygraig Road. The four bombs that landed on Kilvey Hill all failed to explode. No casualties.

Saturday 29 June 1940 A lone plane dropped 2 High Explosive bombs over Morriston. No reported casualties.

Wednesday 10 July 1940 Solitary plane dropped 4 High Explosive bombs on King's Dock during daylight hours at 10.20am, causing extensive damage. 12 killed with a further 26 casualties.

Thursday 18 July 1940 9 High Explosive bombs dropped with damage to railway at Jersey Marine at 1.00am - no casualties.

Saturday July 20 1940 2 High Explosive bombs fell at Swansea Docks and Elba Crescent in the early morning. An unexploded bomb was reported in Danygraig. No casualties.

Monday July 22 1940 2 High Explosive bombs dropped over Talefrewe Farm, Cockett just before midnight. Slight damage to farm buildings but no casualties.

Saturday July 27 1940 2 High Explosive bombs dropped over Swansea Docks. Slight damage but no casualties.

Tuesday July 30 1940 2 High Explosive bombs fell at Banc Mawr near Reddiffusion Station, Cockett. No casualties.

These small attacks mirror what the RAF was doing to Germany, and were on a smaller scale than Luftwaffe attacks on France, Belgium and the Netherlands. It was the Luftwaffe that escalated from this sort of operation.


Well its quite unlikely. Rotterdam - which was bombed to support the advance of the German Army that besieged the city - claimed around 800-900 lives. That was a secondary result of some 60 German bomber sorties flown, more so attributed to the fact that the bombing started a fire in the Rotterdam docks when some vegetable oil tanks were ignited and the firefighters could not control the flames. In contrast, Bomber Command flew some 17 000+ night sorties in 1940. I am fairly sure there were a lot more civillian casulties than 'just' 800 or so.

Oh you missed my earlier post where I gave the German casualty figures? The USSBS, taken from German records, deaths from air attacks in Germany:

1940 - 349
1941 - 2,785
1942 - 4,327
1943 - 103,271

The truth of the matter is that Britain didn't drop any bombs on Germany until Germany began dropping them on western Europe. Britain stuck to military targets, as the Germans did over Britain, until September 1940. Then the Germans switched to massed city bombing, with a consequent rise in casualties amongst the civilian population.

TinyTim
10-02-2008, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
They had finally heard first hand from Poles and Czechs what was happening over there and were expecting the same treatment. They finally realised that this was surely a 'total war' where any and all measures should be taken to beat this untrustworthy, evil adversery, Hitler.

I don't think Hitler hated westerners as much as he did Slavs, Jews and other untermensch races from the East. People in occupied France never got nearly as cruel treatment from their occupators as people in the East. But, I agree, in '39 this was maybe not really predictable.

Xiolablu3
10-02-2008, 07:38 AM
I think COmmunists and Jews from France got the same rough treatment didnt they TT?

John_Wayne_
10-02-2008, 08:36 AM
Not only communists and jews.

Oradour-sur-Glane (http://www.oradour.info/ruined/ruined.htm)

GatorSub1942
10-02-2008, 08:41 AM
Here's a question for everyone here. If the Nazis had invaded Britain, how do you think they would've been removed? Do you think they'd still be here now and it would be like a new Roman Empire? Personally, I think they would be still here.

Let the debate begin!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GatorSub1942
10-02-2008, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I think COmmunists and Jews from France got the same rough treatment didnt they TT?

Yes. Jews and Communists got the same treatment everywhere. Even the Jews from the Channel Islands were rounded up, weren't they? What you have to remember is Hitler saw Jews as 'untermenschen' (spelling?) subhumans, in other words. No matter where they came from, even if they came from Germany itself.

Bremspropeller
10-02-2008, 10:23 AM
Not only communists and jews.

Oradour-sur-Glane

Anti-partisan warfare.
I'd do the same, you'd do the same.

Today it's called "war against terror".



BTW: this thread is getting evermore boring http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

R_Target
10-02-2008, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by GatorSub1942:
Here's a question for everyone here. If the Nazis had invaded Britain, how do you think they would've been removed?

Horizontally.

Bremspropeller
10-02-2008, 10:36 AM
By warm..."ale"...

Aaron_GT
10-02-2008, 10:46 AM
CHaimberlain had tried the 'trust' route and had been totally humiliated by Hitler. CHurchill was NOT going to go the same way.

It was Chamberlain that took Britain into the war, not Churchill, though.

Ob.Emann
10-02-2008, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">CHaimberlain had tried the 'trust' route and had been totally humiliated by Hitler. CHurchill was NOT going to go the same way.

It was Chamberlain that took Britain into the war, not Churchill, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One might even argue that he was the one who declared war on Germany in the first place...

M_Gunz
10-02-2008, 11:25 AM
Something about a treaty or two perhaps?

Blutarski2004
10-02-2008, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">CHaimberlain had tried the 'trust' route and had been totally humiliated by Hitler. CHurchill was NOT going to go the same way.

It was Chamberlain that took Britain into the war, not Churchill, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Chamberlain did not have a great deal of choice in the matter. Both Great Britain and France were obligated under formal treaty as guarantors of the independence/sovereignity of the Polish state established in the wake of WW1.

Woke_Up_Dead
10-02-2008, 12:23 PM
Polish and German relations in the interwar years, were of course, very warm hearted and friendly. This mutual liking was expressed in strange ways, such as the Frampol and Wielun bombings (the latter which was BTW partially attributed to attacks on Polish cavarly units in the area), or the mass bayonetting of German ethnics in Bromberg, Poland, on the 3rd September 1939 and various death marches arranged.


You are trying to give the impression that it was tit-for-tat, both sides did ugly things, par of war, etc. The difference in the scale of crimes upon civilians in that campaign is so huge that such a comparison is EXTREMELY dishonest. German historians estimate German ethnic deaths at Bydgoszcz (Bromberg) at between 360 and 420 on September 3rd. These numbers were matched through reprisal executions of Poles in the area within a week. By the end of the war 20,000 citizens of Bydgoszcz had died. Altogether, German civilian losses during the Polish campaign are estimated at 5,000; the Poles lost 150,000 civilians during that month, another approx. 5.5 MILLION during the rest of the war, mostly to the Germans.


(the latter which was BTW partially attributed to attacks on Polish cavarly units in the area) Again, very intellectualy dishonest; 90% of the city center where there were absolutely no military targets gets destroyed, a hospital with a big red cross on its roof gets targeted, but you bring up the fact that Polish cavalry units were "in the area" (they arrived after noon, the bombing started before five in the morning)

This is a good example of what I meant in my first post on this thread when I wrote that a view that equates Allied (even just the non-Soviet Allies) crimes against German civilians with crimes of Germans against civilians often appears on this forum. Don't get bogged down in the details, who dropped which particular bomb where and when; look at the whole picture and you will see that the difference in scale makes such comparisons ridiculous.

Aaron_GT
10-02-2008, 03:11 PM
Chamberlain did not have a great deal of choice in the matter.

Of course he did. It wouldn't have been the first treaty violated with inaction. Going to war was not a universally popular policy at the time. There is the idea that Chamberlain was an appeaser and I am sure he wanted to avoid war, but quite obviously not at all costs but he was pushing in through despite some cabinet opposition. Britain had been preparing for a war anticipated to be in 1940. It was not ready in 1938, and wasn't really ready in 1939, hence the Phoney War period - i.e. war declared and no other real effort made to aid the Polish pending the additional war material. Given what happened in France you could argue that even 1940 was too early.

Xiolablu3
10-02-2008, 03:13 PM
Just going a little OT for a moment....

I have often been amazed recently of how our generation takes peace and 'correctness' for granted.

Just two generations ago there were very real wars and atrocities being commited in Europe and peoples fututres were extrmemely uncertain.

Dont you guys agree that its quite amazing just what a massive effect the Allies winning WW2 has had on the Western world?!?

Our generations take it for granted that we have peaceful, fruitful lives with no chance of war. Its quite crazy to compare 'our world' with that of our grandfathers who were living in a totally different world which was full of death and uncertainty. We wake up KNOWING that the same countries and borders will be there that day and there will be no invasions of our neighbours or wars dragging off our children etc.

An Ex German POW who lives near me told me recently how he was captured and chatting to a British soldier was told how democracy works and how that man was free to say anything he wanted about the then British Government. The German POW said it was like 'His eyes were opened' on how a fair world SHOULD be, by that soldier that day and he never wanted to go back to Germany after the brainwashing he suffered in Nazi Schools. He is very bitter towards the Nazis to this day.

Thank God for the change in the world that WW2 1939-45 brought with it. We tak epeace for granted nowadays when its not THAT long ago that the world was a very, very different place.

joeap
10-02-2008, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not only communists and jews.

Oradour-sur-Glane

Anti-partisan warfare.
I'd do the same, you'd do the same.

Today it's called "war against terror".



BTW: this thread is getting evermore boring http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I wouldn't.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Those nasty partisans attacking guests to their country. Anyway that sort of strategy really worked well didn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

M_Gunz
10-02-2008, 03:33 PM
I guess that Xio didn't have nuclear attack drills in grade school like I did.
Peace was not for granted and then there was the Vietnam draft.

luftluuver
10-02-2008, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Polish and German relations in the interwar years, were of course, very warm hearted and friendly. This mutual liking was expressed in strange ways, such as the Frampol and Wielun bombings (the latter which was BTW partially attributed to attacks on Polish cavarly units in the area), or the mass bayonetting of German ethnics in Bromberg, Poland, on the 3rd September 1939 and various death marches arranged.

Bloody Sunday "Bromberger Blutsonntag"

Before and after armed conflict erupted on September 1, 1939, both sides reported a number of atrocities.[4] The Nazis claimed that the worst persecutions of ethnic Germans was that which occurred on September 3, in Bydgoszcz.[4] The modern German version is that Polish troops and civilians massacred German civilians due to confusion.[1]

The Polish version is that the Germany's fifth column forces were constantly engaging Polish troops behind the frontlines.[5][6] As a contingent of the Polish Army from Pomerania (Army Pomorze's 9th, 15th, and 27th Infantry Division)[6]) was withdrawing through Bydgoszcz it was attacked by Germans from within the city and reported to be engaging enemy elements who were sniping at Polish troops. In the ensuing fight both sides suffered some casualties; captured German nonuniformed armed insurgents were executed on spot, and in the confusion, some mob lynching was also reported.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromberg_Bloody_Sunday

We all know where your allegiance lies Kurfurst.

Hitler told his generals on 22 August 1939

Vernichtung Polens im Vordergrund. Ziel ist die Beseitigung der lebendigen Kräfte, nicht die Erreichung einer bestimmten Linie. Auch wenn im Westen Krieg ausbricht, bleibt Vernichtung Polens im Vordergrund. Mit Rücksicht auf Jahreszeit schnelle Entscheidung.
Ich werde propagandistischen Anlass zur Auslösung des Krieges geben, gleichgültig, ob glaubhaft. Der Sieger wird später nicht danach gefragt, ob er die Wahrheit gesagt hat oder nicht. Bei Beginn und Führung des Krieges kommt es nicht auf das Recht an, sondern auf den Sieg.
Herz verschliessen gegen Mitleid. Brutales Vorgehen. 80 Millionen Menschen müssen ihr Recht bekommen. Ihre Existenz muss gesichert werden. Grösste Härte. Schnelligkeit der Entscheidung notwendig. Festen Glauben an den deutschen Soldaten. Krisen nur auf Versagen der Nerven der Führer zurückzuführen.
Erste Forderung: Vordringen bis zur Weichsel und bis zum Narew. Unsere technische überlegenheit wird die Nerven der Polen zerbrechen. Jede sich neu bildende lebendige polnische Kraft ist sofort zu vernichten. Fortgesetzte Zermürbung. Neue deutsche Grenzführung nach gesunden Gesicht*****ten, evtl. Protektorat als Vorgelände. Militärische Operationen nehmen auf diese überlegungen keine Rücksicht. Restlose Zertrümmerung Polens ist das militärische Ziel. Schnelligkeit ist die Hauptsache. Verfolgung bis zur völligen Vernichtung.
überzeugung, dass die deutsche Wehrmacht den Anforderungen gewachsen ist. Auslösung wird nocht befohlen ...

Destruction of Poland in the foreground. The goal is the elimination of living forces, not the attainment of a certain line. Even if war erupts in the West, remains the destruction of Poland in the foreground. With regard to season fast decision.
I will propagandist cause for triggering the war give, whether credible. The winner will not be asked later whether he has told the truth or not. At the start of the war and leadership is not on the right, but on the victory.
Heart away against compassion. Brutal action. 80 million people must get it right. Their existence must be secured. Greatest hardship. Speed of decision necessary. Firm belief in the German soldiers. Crises only on failure of nerve of the leaders attributed.
First claim: encroachment to Vistula and until Narew. Our technical superiority is the nerve of Poland break. Each newly forming lively Polish force is immediately destroyed. Continued attrition. New German border management for healthy perspective, possibly as a protectorate Vorgelände. Military operations to take no account of these considerations. Residue destruction of Poland is the military objective. Speed is the main thing. Prosecution to total destruction.
Convinced that the German Wehrmacht, the challenge is. Will trigger yet ordered ...

Ernst Klee / Willi Dressen, "Gott mit uns": Der deutsche Vernichtungskrieg im Osten

Bombing of Wieluń

The bombing of Wieluń refers to the terror bombing of the Polish town of Wieluń by the German Luftwaffe on 1 September 1939. This air raid started about five minutes before the shelling of Westerplatte, which has traditionally been considered the beginning of World War II. The bombing of Wieluń is considered as one of the first terror bombings in history.[1]

The bombing started at 4:40 AM. At 6:00 a.m. the German forces noted that Wielun brennt (Wieluń burns), but the raids continued until 2:00 PM. Three waves of attacks were carried out during the day. Among the German pilots were those from Condor Legion, which was involved in the bombing of Guernica two years prior. On their return home, four of the German Junkers Ju 87 bombers were shot down by the Polish 36 Academic Legion Infantry Regiment stationed nearby.

It is widely acknowledged that there were no military or industrial targets of note in the area, except for a small sugar factory in the outskirts of the town. German bombers destroyed 90% of the town center (including the historical gothic church) and killed approximately 1,200 civilians, about 8% of the town's population of 15,000. Approximately 75% of all the buildings in Wieluń were destroyed. Among the first targets bombed by the Germans was the hospital (despite a huge Red Cross sign painted on the roof). Some eyewitnesses claimed that the German planes strafed civilians who were fleeing through the streets.

The real purpose of the bombing remains unclear. There are claims that Polish military units were inside the town before the first air raid, a fact that would explain the choice of the city to be bombed. However, it's more likely that the only military units near Wielun were a cavalry column that arrived later in the day.

Bombing of Frampol

The Bombing of Frampol happened during the Invasion of Poland in 1939. On 13 September, the town of Frampol (Poland), with a population of 4,000 and without any military or industrial targets, nor any Polish Army defenders, was practically annihilated by German Luftwaffe bombing practice. Over 60%[1] to 90%[2] of town's infrastructure was destroyed; only two streets remained untouched, plus a few houses here and there.[3]

"Frampol was chosen as an experimental object, because test bombers, flying at low speed, weren't endangered by AA fire. Also, the centrally placed town hall was an ideal orientation point for the crews. We watched possibility of orientation after visible signs, and also the size of village, what guaranteed that bombs nevertheless fall down on Frampol. From one side it should make easier the note of probe, from second side it should confirm the efficiency of used bombs." - Wolfgang Schreyer's book "Eyes on the sky" (Augen am Himmel)

SeaFireLIV
10-02-2008, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just going a little OT for a moment....

I have often been amazed recently of how our generation takes peace and 'correctness' for granted.

Just two generations ago there were very real wars and atrocities being commited in Europe and peoples fututres were extrmemely uncertain.

Dont you guys agree that its quite amazing just what a massive effect the Allies winning WW2 has had on the Western world?!?

Our generations take it for granted that we have peaceful, fruitful lives with no chance of war. Its quite crazy to compare 'our world' with that of our grandfathers who were living in a totally different world which was full of death and uncertainty. We wake up KNOWING that the same countries and borders will be there that day and there will be no invasions of our neighbours or wars dragging off our children etc.

An Ex German POW who lives near me told me recently how he was captured and chatting to a British soldier was told how democracy works and how that man was free to say anything he wanted about the then British Government. The German POW said it was like 'His eyes were opened' on how a fair world SHOULD be, by that soldier that day and he never wanted to go back to Germany after the brainwashing he suffered in Nazi Schools. He is very bitter towards the Nazis to this day.

Thank God for the change in the world that WW2 1939-45 brought with it. We tak epeace for granted nowadays when its not THAT long ago that the world was a very, very different place.

I agree indeed. It`s far preferable to the alternative. However, I think the joy is a little premaure. We haven`t seen the end of war yet, just a long stay of a world-wide one.

If in 500 years we still have no major war, then our children`s children should truly celebrate.

Urufu_Shinjiro
10-02-2008, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I guess that Xio didn't have nuclear attack drills in grade school like I did.
Peace was not for granted and then there was the Vietnam draft.

Well, he did miss the mark a little but I see what he was getting at. There is war today no doubt, but not the kind of war that would change the borders of major industrial nations. Not the kind of war that wipes entire countries out of existence. Even when there is an "invasion" these days the country that is left after the invasion is settled is still called the same country, we invade Iraq, it's still Iraq, Russia invades Georgia, it's still Georgia. While there may be regime change there is not out right conquest of nations like was once a constant threat.

Bremspropeller
10-02-2008, 03:40 PM
Ich werde propagandistischen Anlass zur Auslösung des Krieges geben, gleichgültig, ob glaubhaft. Der Sieger wird später nicht danach gefragt, ob er die Wahrheit gesagt hat oder nicht. Bei Beginn und Führung des Krieges kommt es nicht auf das Recht an, sondern auf den Sieg.


LoL, truer words were never spoken http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

panther3485
10-02-2008, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just going a little OT for a moment....

I have often been amazed recently of how our generation takes peace and 'correctness' for granted.

Just two generations ago there were very real wars and atrocities being commited in Europe and peoples fututres were extrmemely uncertain.

Dont you guys agree that its quite amazing just what a massive effect the Allies winning WW2 has had on the Western world?!?

Our generations take it for granted that we have peaceful, fruitful lives with no chance of war. Its quite crazy to compare 'our world' with that of our grandfathers who were living in a totally different world which was full of death and uncertainty. We wake up KNOWING that the same countries and borders will be there that day and there will be no invasions of our neighbours or wars dragging off our children etc.

An Ex German POW who lives near me told me recently how he was captured and chatting to a British soldier was told how democracy works and how that man was free to say anything he wanted about the then British Government. The German POW said it was like 'His eyes were opened' on how a fair world SHOULD be, by that soldier that day and he never wanted to go back to Germany after the brainwashing he suffered in Nazi Schools. He is very bitter towards the Nazis to this day.

Thank God for the change in the world that WW2 1939-45 brought with it. We tak epeace for granted nowadays when its not THAT long ago that the world was a very, very different place.

Yes indeed. And I think there are plenty of people in my generation who are grateful that Nazism was crushed (albeit at a very stiff price). For us, it was only one generation ago.

(There would have to be at least two generations represented on this forum, surely. Maybe even three. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Blutarski2004
10-02-2008, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Chamberlain did not have a great deal of choice in the matter.

Of course he did. It wouldn't have been the first treaty violated with inaction. Going to war was not a universally popular policy at the time. There is the idea that Chamberlain was an appeaser and I am sure he wanted to avoid war, but quite obviously not at all costs but he was pushing in through despite some cabinet opposition. Britain had been preparing for a war anticipated to be in 1940. It was not ready in 1938, and wasn't really ready in 1939, hence the Phoney War period - i.e. war declared and no other real effort made to aid the Polish pending the additional war material. Given what happened in France you could argue that even 1940 was too early. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Re-armed or not, there was no way for Great Britain or France to directly aid Poland, which was completely isolated by The German Reich on the west and south and northeast, and by the USSR to the east. Poland's single port, Gdynia/Graudenz, on the Baltic was effectively impossible for the allies to access after Germany had declared war.

IMO, Chamberlain's decision to declare war was effectively a moral act rather than a political one.

M_Gunz
10-02-2008, 04:52 PM
I grew up under the threat of world destruction rather than just cities or countries.
Even later into the mid 80's at age 30 I have read articles on the feasibility of limited
nuclear war. During the Korean Conflict MacArthur was pushing for nukes. During the Vietnam
Conflict there was always fear of US pushing hard enough for China to jump in and of course
the missiles would launch.
MAD at the control of idiot politicians had perhaps been so big for so long that people just
grew blind to it. It hasn't been that long ago that a USAF jet flew with nukes carried
externally right here. One little "accident" to justify some madmens dreams, we've come so
close so many times that people are just numb to it.

Are people ready to do anything but complete the destruction upon the first trigger event?
Had 9-11 been a nuke, would any of us be here today? We may find out yet.

GatorSub1942
10-02-2008, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just going a little OT for a moment....

I have often been amazed recently of how our generation takes peace and 'correctness' for granted.

Just two generations ago there were very real wars and atrocities being commited in Europe and peoples fututres were extrmemely uncertain.

Dont you guys agree that its quite amazing just what a massive effect the Allies winning WW2 has had on the Western world?!?

Our generations take it for granted that we have peaceful, fruitful lives with no chance of war. Its quite crazy to compare 'our world' with that of our grandfathers who were living in a totally different world which was full of death and uncertainty. We wake up KNOWING that the same countries and borders will be there that day and there will be no invasions of our neighbours or wars dragging off our children etc.

An Ex German POW who lives near me told me recently how he was captured and chatting to a British soldier was told how democracy works and how that man was free to say anything he wanted about the then British Government. The German POW said it was like 'His eyes were opened' on how a fair world SHOULD be, by that soldier that day and he never wanted to go back to Germany after the brainwashing he suffered in Nazi Schools. He is very bitter towards the Nazis to this day.

Thank God for the change in the world that WW2 1939-45 brought with it. We tak epeace for granted nowadays when its not THAT long ago that the world was a very, very different place.

I completely agree with you and I am very grateful for the sacrifices made. Too many people do take it for granted, but it shouldn't be so. As I said before, if the Allies had lost the war, I have no doubt that the Nazis would still be in Britain (and the rest of Europe) now.

Aaron_GT
10-02-2008, 05:22 PM
..... Re-armed or not, there was no way for Great Britain or France to directly aid Poland

An attack on its Western borders was in theory possible (there was some probing in 1939) but by the time the French and British were mobilised it was a bit late and they still hadn't received all manner of new equipment (France fell before it received much of it) so a late autumn 1939 campaign would have been a non starter I think. I am sure the decision to invade Poland in September was informed by the mobilisation timescales to the West. So I agree - not much could be done in reality in September 1939 except maybe a naval blockade.



IMO, Chamberlain's decision to declare war was effectively a moral act rather than a political one.

Yes, I always got the impression that Chamberlain was moral. He was also capable of rather enormous belief in his own abilities so I think he felt somewhat tortured by failing in Munich. Although I am not sure how much he believed his own 'Peace In Our Time' spin.

SeaFireLIV
10-02-2008, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:


Yes, I always got the impression that Chamberlain was moral. He was also capable of rather enormous belief in his own abilities so I think he felt somewhat tortured by failing in Munich. Although I am not sure how much he believed his own 'Peace In Our Time' spin.

Yes, I`d say he `hoped` it was peace in his time. I`m pretty sure he was ready to resign from the moment he decided to make that speech, if things went to war.

blairgowrie
10-02-2008, 05:41 PM
Or maybe he thought that Hitler would just back down.

Bremspropeller
10-02-2008, 05:44 PM
No I wouldn't.

Roll Eyes Those nasty partisans attacking guests to their country. Anyway that sort of strategy really worked well didn't it? Roll Eyes


The SS weren't the first burn down a village and kill all of it's inhabitants and they weren't the last either.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You WOULD, almost anybody WOULD. It's only a matter of stress and attitude.
The line between sanity and insanity isn't that wide...

GatorSub1942
10-02-2008, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by blairgowrie:
Or maybe he thought that Hitler would just back down.

Chances are, if the Allies had stood up to Hitler when he marched into the Rheinland, he would've sat down and shut up. Germany were nowhere near ready for war at that point, but Hitler took a gamble which paid off unfortunately.

Treetop64
10-02-2008, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by GatorSub1942:
...but Hitler took a gamble which paid off unfortunately.

Yeah?

Tell that to the millions of Germans who suffered and died because of that gamble. Not to mention everyone else around the world - especially the Russians.

Woke_Up_Dead
10-02-2008, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... Re-armed or not, there was no way for Great Britain or France to directly aid Poland

An attack on its Western borders was in theory possible (there was some probing in 1939) but by the time the French and British were mobilised it was a bit late and they still hadn't received all manner of new equipment (France fell before it received much of it) so a late autumn 1939 campaign would have been a non starter I think. I am sure the decision to invade Poland in September was informed by the mobilisation timescales to the West. So I agree - not much could be done in reality in September 1939 except maybe a naval blockade.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The French and British may not have been fully prepared for a conflict on the French-German border, but the Germans were even less so. In September of 1939 Germany still wasn't nearly the military power that it would become in another year or two. It took most of its strength, plus some help from the Soviets and four weeks to conquer Poland, which was caught with old or inappropriate equipment looking the wrong way (the Poles always considered the Soviets as the bigger of the two threats). Compare that to the ease with which it rolled over the much bigger and better prepared Franco-British force without the Soviets' help half a year later. The Gustav line (the German defensive line opposite the Maginot line) was severely understaffed in September 1939. Any type of real action there may have caused the Germans to divert some of their divisions back to the west, which may have caused a very cautions Stalin to stay out of the conflict, which may have allowed the Poles to hang on longer and extend the Germans, which may have caused the war to end rather quickly.

But of course Hitler knew this wasn't going to happen, and not mainly because he suspected it would take a long time for the Brits and French to mobilize like Aaron suggested above. Hitler was great at judging the mood in Europe and knowing what he could get away with. He knew that after years of sticking their head in the sand, appeasing him, and smiling politely while he took Austria and Czechoslovakia, the French and the British would not reverse course on a dime and take real action.

GatorSub1942
10-02-2008, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by Treetop64:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GatorSub1942:
...but Hitler took a gamble which paid off unfortunately.

Yeah?

Tell that to the millions of Germans who suffered and died because of that gamble. Not to mention everyone else around the world - especially the Russians. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello? I said it paid off unfortunately. That means unfortunately for the rest of the world, as well as the Germans!! Read the damn post properly before replying.

coolinoz
10-02-2008, 11:09 PM
i see my post has been subvertted by all the armchair fighter jocks and strategists. i never said the battle over the english channel never took place, what i was trying to debate was, was it the battle BRITAIN.??

would the destruction of the RAf in 1940 have lead to the defeat of Britain, or at least, the dumping of churchill and his place taken by the likes of Lord Halifax who may have agreed terms with the germans. i for one am not certain that if the raf was gone the inasion of britain would have been a foregone conclusion.

the Royal Navy would have dealt with a seaborne invaion force, but at such a cost in material that Britain may have been compelled to sue for terms.

and people calm down, less of the idiots name calling get out and get a life.

Xiolablu3
10-03-2008, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I guess that Xio didn't have nuclear attack drills in grade school like I did.
Peace was not for granted and then there was the Vietnam draft.


Wierd, I guess I DID miss that, we never had nuclear drills, and I was born in 1973.

For all of my life I have felt totally safe and stable and never imagined a neighbour would invade Britian.

My friends never even THINK or TALK about being 'invaded' or 'prepare for the worst' in any way, they are just happy go lucky.

POssibly its just us? Possibly people feel differently elsewhere in Europe/US?

M_Gunz
10-03-2008, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by coolinoz:
i see my post has been subvertted by all the armchair fighter jocks and strategists. i never said the battle over the english channel never took place, what i was trying to debate was, was it the battle BRITAIN.??

would the destruction of the RAf in 1940 have lead to the defeat of Britain, or at least, the dumping of churchill and his place taken by the likes of Lord Halifax who may have agreed terms with the germans. i for one am not certain that if the raf was gone the inasion of britain would have been a foregone conclusion.

the Royal Navy would have dealt with a seaborne invaion force, but at such a cost in material that Britain may have been compelled to sue for terms.

and people calm down, less of the idiots name calling get out and get a life.

By your logic then an major attack that fails is not a Battle for that place?

The Germans did try even though they never got to test out what later people THEORIZE about.

Again, do you think that they attacked Britain for the FUN of it?

YES, there was a Battle of Britain that never got past the first phase. Had it gone to the
launching of boats, dropping of airborne troops, landing of gliders and planes and still
not succeeded then perhaps you would be convinced that the Germans made a serious effort?

It was entirely aerial but that makes it no less a true Battle.

M_Gunz
10-03-2008, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I guess that Xio didn't have nuclear attack drills in grade school like I did.
Peace was not for granted and then there was the Vietnam draft.


Wierd, I guess I DID miss that, we never had nuclear drills, and I was born in 1973.

For all of my life I have felt totally safe and stable and never imagined a neighbour would invade Britian.

My friends never even THINK or TALK about being 'invaded' or 'prepare for the worst' in any way, they are just happy go lucky.

POssibly its just us? Possibly people feel differently elsewhere in Europe/US? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's just a thing of the age. The thing I'm pointing out is that the age was not as of
the end of WWII at all. Once you understand that the stakes were raised in the 50's then
the paranoia-driven decades should make a very different sense. There are many videos out
that do show some of the lengths that different major power air forces alone went to in
those years. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Even Britain kept up readiness well into your lifetime though the
whole was played down.

Invasion? Why invade a collection of radioactive craters?

FliegerAas
10-03-2008, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I guess that Xio didn't have nuclear attack drills in grade school like I did.
Peace was not for granted and then there was the Vietnam draft.


Wierd, I guess I DID miss that, we never had nuclear drills, and I was born in 1973.

For all of my life I have felt totally safe and stable and never imagined a neighbour would invade Britian.

My friends never even THINK or TALK about being 'invaded' or 'prepare for the worst' in any way, they are just happy go lucky.

POssibly its just us? Possibly people feel differently elsewhere in Europe/US? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was born in 1980. We had several nuclear drills. Main concern of these drills, however, was not a nuclear attack. We were and are more worried about the crappy nuclear plants surrounding our country in the czech republic, slovakia etc. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Our school had it's own atomic bunker http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

WOLFMondo
10-03-2008, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

POssibly its just us? Possibly people feel differently elsewhere in Europe/US?

I guess my school thought that there was no point having these drills since we were all gonna die anyway and hiding under a desk pretending it might help was fruitless. Best not to scare the kids or give them false hope out of something as bad as nuclear war.

There was never the anti communist propaganda in the UK like there was in the US, which might have had a lot to do with doing drills.

M_Gunz
10-03-2008, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by FliegerAas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I guess that Xio didn't have nuclear attack drills in grade school like I did.
Peace was not for granted and then there was the Vietnam draft.


Wierd, I guess I DID miss that, we never had nuclear drills, and I was born in 1973.

For all of my life I have felt totally safe and stable and never imagined a neighbour would invade Britian.

My friends never even THINK or TALK about being 'invaded' or 'prepare for the worst' in any way, they are just happy go lucky.

POssibly its just us? Possibly people feel differently elsewhere in Europe/US? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was born in 1980. We had several nuclear drills. Main concern of these drills, however, was not a nuclear attack. We were and are more worried about the crappy nuclear plants surrounding our country in the czech republic, slovakia etc. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Our school had it's own atomic bunker http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So did the ones I went to that were built in the 50's and early 60's.
There were people back then who built fallout shelters under their homes or in the back yards.
The paranoia and hate were driven to levels still felt today.

Lewis Black went to an older school where they were taught to hide under their desks, he has
a comedy routine about that.

I forget the name of the Russian reactor that had the problem... it was long after Three Mile
Island nuclear plant had it's own cause for shutdown including release of radioactives.

panther3485
10-03-2008, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
"I forget the name of the Russian reactor that had the problem... it was long after Three Mile
Island nuclear plant had it's own cause for shutdown including release of radioactives."
Are you thinking of Chernobyl, in Ukraine, 26 April 1986? (The biggest nuclear disaster in history; estimated 400 times the fallout of Hiroshima.) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

b2spirita
10-03-2008, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

POssibly its just us? Possibly people feel differently elsewhere in Europe/US?

I guess my school thought that there was no point having these drills since we were all gonna die anyway and hiding under a desk pretending it might help was fruitless. Best not to scare the kids or give them false hope out of something as bad as nuclear war.

There was never the anti communist propaganda in the UK like there was in the US, which might have had a lot to do with doing drills. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Te beeb was ready apparently http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7648042.stm

WOLFMondo
10-03-2008, 10:06 AM
I saw that today. I live within 50 miles of London and 20 away from a Nuclear plant so my days would have been numbered before I could have made it to a TV http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

PB0_shadow
10-03-2008, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not only communists and jews.

Oradour-sur-Glane

Anti-partisan warfare.
I'd do the same, you'd do the same.

Today it's called "war against terror".



BTW: this thread is getting evermore boring http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was no partisans in Oradour sur Glane (I lived 20 years some 30km from there and my grandpa was there the next day and helped recover corpses).

The Das Reich division was indeed attacked by partisans, but nothing was found in Oradour, there was not even a hint that there were partisans there etc...

And even if there had been, as some claim (like Otto Weidinger), their orders would have been to kill only men, and not women and children, and people too old to walk to the gathering place..... To the point that Adolf Diekmann, highest commanding officer of the battalion, was court martialed by the Germans (charged dropped after he was KIA on june 29)....

As about the question wether each of us would have done this or that, I'd asked first, would you have ordered it? That's where the primary responsability lies.

And it's really a shame that the guy who ordered this died in his bed in Germany instead of being hung. That said, the first ones refusing the extradition were not Germans, but the British (Lammerding was in the British occupation zone)

M_Gunz
10-03-2008, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
"I forget the name of the Russian reactor that had the problem... it was long after Three Mile
Island nuclear plant had it's own cause for shutdown including release of radioactives."
Are you thinking of Chernobyl, in Ukraine, 26 April 1986? (The biggest nuclear disaster in history; estimated 400 times the fallout of Hiroshima.) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the one. They were tracing the cloud and saying the new breed of Swede would have
blonde eyes and blue hair.

joeap
10-03-2008, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by PB0_shadow:
their orders would have been to kill only men,
Yea even just killing all the men only has been tried many many times in many many places. Can anyone name a time it was effective? Thought not.

BTW I had relatives in Greece who witnessed the same sort of thing and it was just as effective there...NOT.

Bremspropeller
10-03-2008, 11:29 AM
As about the question wether each of us would have done this or that, I'd asked first, would you have ordered it? That's where the primary responsability lies.

Would I order it?
Propably not.

Would I follow such an order?
Maybe - depending on my state of mind, state of information, beleif, grief, anger, fear, hatred, love, humanity, sanity, etc.

Truth is, nobody could really tell if he'd follow such an order, because most people have never been in such a situation.

MB_Avro_UK
10-03-2008, 02:52 PM
Hi all,

The Battle of Britain in 1940 involved a number of British and international pilots fighting against aircrews from Nazi Germany.

RAF pilots from Britain, Ireland, France, Poland, America, Australia, Canada, Czechoslavakia, New Zealand, South Africa, Belgium and many more.

The Nazis lost. And thank God.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

jengizbengiz
10-03-2008, 03:52 PM
A couple of Scotsmen were probably also involved!?
Did the British Devolution happen in 1940 over the coast of Kent instead during the 1990's!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
This Topic is in my opinion pathetic! Listen to the Hollywood movies! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Ben A. did the whole job on his own!

MB_Avro_UK
10-03-2008, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by jengizbengiz:
A couple of Scotsmen were probably also involved!?
Did the British Devolution happen in 1940 over the coast of Kent instead during the 1990's!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
This Topic is in my opinion pathetic! Listen to the Hollywood movies! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Ben A. did the whole job on his own!

Only a couple of Scotsmen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

GatorSub1942
10-03-2008, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by FliegerAas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I guess that Xio didn't have nuclear attack drills in grade school like I did.
Peace was not for granted and then there was the Vietnam draft.


Wierd, I guess I DID miss that, we never had nuclear drills, and I was born in 1973.

For all of my life I have felt totally safe and stable and never imagined a neighbour would invade Britian.

My friends never even THINK or TALK about being 'invaded' or 'prepare for the worst' in any way, they are just happy go lucky.

POssibly its just us? Possibly people feel differently elsewhere in Europe/US? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was born in 1980. We had several nuclear drills. Main concern of these drills, however, was not a nuclear attack. We were and are more worried about the crappy nuclear plants surrounding our country in the czech republic, slovakia etc. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Our school had it's own atomic bunker http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Holy !@@! I was born in 1976 and don't ever remember a nuclear drill, just ordinary fire drills!

GatorSub1942
10-03-2008, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

The Battle of Britain in 1940 involved a number of British and international pilots fighting against aircrews from Nazi Germany.

RAF pilots from Britain, Ireland, France, Poland, America, Australia, Canada, Czechoslavakia, New Zealand, South Africa, Belgium and many more.

The Nazis lost. And thank God.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Do you reckon they would still be here if they had successfully invaded Britain?

R_Target
10-03-2008, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by jengizbengiz:
Listen to the Hollywood movies! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Ben A. did the whole job on his own!

You made a funny. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

R_Target
10-03-2008, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
The Nazis lost. And thank God.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Don't thank God, thank the RAF. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

panther3485
10-03-2008, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
"The Battle of Britain in 1940 involved a number of British and international pilots fighting against aircrews from Nazi Germany.

RAF pilots from Britain, Ireland, France, Poland, America, Australia, Canada, Czechoslavakia, New Zealand, South Africa, Belgium and many more."

Originally posted by jengizbengiz:
"A couple of Scotsmen were probably also involved!?
Did the British Devolution happen in 1940 over the coast of Kent instead during the 1990's!?" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Erm, ... MB_Avro_UK said, "British" and "Britain". That includes Scotland (and Wales too), in case you didn't know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Mr_Zooly
10-04-2008, 04:04 PM
It also includes the Commonwealth and the displaced Europeans but Avro never mentioned any particular nation only RAF, just look at the various nationals that took part as there were many!

Aaron_GT
10-04-2008, 04:29 PM
Erm, ... MB_Avro_UK said, "British" and "Britain". That includes Scotland (and Wales too), in case you didn't know. Wink

Plus I am sure there must have been Northern Irish pilots too in BoB (although as part of the UK rather than Britain, technically, before someone gets pedantic).

The RAF voice pack tried to give a flavour of the British and Commonwealth nations involved (there were not enough slots to add in all the other nations to it - maybe SoW will be more flexible).

jengizbengiz
10-04-2008, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by jengizbengiz:
"A couple of Scotsmen were probably also involved!?
Did the British Devolution happen in 1940 over the coast of Kent instead during the 1990's!?"

Come on guys!
I believe you are taking the entire issue way too much serious. It was more or less a nonsense remark made by me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif
Though I didn't want to disgrace the memory of the RAF pilots!

By the way: if you don't know the term "devolution" use a dictionary or wikipedia! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Perhaps then you would understand what I was actually referring to! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

MB_Avro_UK
10-04-2008, 05:55 PM
Hi all,

Maybe I didn't explain my comments fully.

RAF Fighter Command in 1940 was an International mix of pilots.

Perhaps only 80% of RAF Fighter Command was British at this time? And as the war progressed, the RAF became even more diverse.

Hitler in 1940 was not only fighting the British but also pilots from the rest of the world who were in the RAF.

That to me is significant.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

panther3485
10-04-2008, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by Mr_Zooly:
It also includes the Commonwealth and the displaced Europeans but Avro never mentioned any particular nation only RAF, just look at the various nationals that took part as there were many!
What?????? Of course he mentioned particular nations:

"The Battle of Britain in 1940 involved a number of British and international pilots fighting against aircrews from Nazi Germany.
RAF pilots from Britain, Ireland, France, Poland, America, Australia, Canada, Czechoslavakia, New Zealand, South Africa, Belgium and many more."

Meaning (at least, so I thought), pilots from a variety of nations, flying for the RAF (however they may have been officially designated).

Ok, he didn't get them all but he did end with, "and many more". Should've been good enough for the purpose of his point? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

panther3485
10-04-2008, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by jengizbengiz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jengizbengiz:
"A couple of Scotsmen were probably also involved!?
Did the British Devolution happen in 1940 over the coast of Kent instead during the 1990's!?"

Come on guys!
I believe you are taking the entire issue way too much serious. It was more or less a nonsense remark made by me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif
Though I didn't want to disgrace the memory of the RAF pilots!

By the way: if you don't know the term "devolution" use a dictionary or wikipedia! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Perhaps then you would understand what I was actually referring to! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am entirely aware of the meaning of 'devolution'. Of course, while it carries a certain amount of weight today it was hardly relevant to 1940. (Though for the time being at least, Scotland still remains both part of the UK and part of Britain - so MBs original post covered it perfectly whichever way you look at it.) But, as you say, "more or less a nonsense remark". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

panther3485
10-04-2008, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Maybe I didn't explain my comments fully.

RAF Fighter Command in 1940 was an International mix of pilots.

Perhaps only 80% of RAF Fighter Command was British at this time? And as the war progressed, the RAF became even more diverse.

Hitler in 1940 was not only fighting the British but also pilots from the rest of the world who were in the RAF.

That to me is significant.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

No need for further explanation, mate. Your original statement was fine, so far as I was concerned at least. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Treetop64
10-04-2008, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by GatorSub1942:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GatorSub1942:
...but Hitler took a gamble which paid off unfortunately.

Yeah?

Tell that to the millions of Germans who suffered and died because of that gamble. Not to mention everyone else around the world - especially the Russians. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello? I said it paid off unfortunately. That means unfortunately for the rest of the world, as well as the Germans!! Read the damn post properly before replying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, after looking back at this exchange it has become apparent that I definitely misinterpreted your post and repsonded out of step. My apologies.

Mr_Zooly
10-05-2008, 01:59 AM
alcohol + posting = http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif
PS
I mean myself.

panther3485
10-05-2008, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr_Zooly:
It also includes the Commonwealth and the displaced Europeans but Avro never mentioned any particular nation only RAF, just look at the various nationals that took part as there were many!
What?????? Of course he mentioned particular nations:

"The Battle of Britain in 1940 involved a number of British and international pilots fighting against aircrews from Nazi Germany.
RAF pilots from Britain, Ireland, France, Poland, America, Australia, Canada, Czechoslavakia, New Zealand, South Africa, Belgium and many more."

Meaning (at least, so I thought), pilots from a variety of nations, flying for the RAF (however they may have been officially designated).

Ok, he didn't get them all (he missed Poland, for instance) but he did end with, "and many more". Should've been good enough for the purpose of his point? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might want to reread his list, Poland is 4th on it right after France. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oooooppppsss!!!!! Yep, so he did. My bad! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif (red face of embarrassment)
...and I don't even have alcohol as an excuse!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

(offending post edited)

Rock_Kettler
10-05-2008, 08:42 AM
Agree, at least 3 generations. I was born in Portsmouth in July 1938 and from 1940 until end '44 spent most of my nights in one kind of air-raid shelter or another (Morrison, [in the house], Anderson, [in the garden], or communal, [in the street]). As a result of which I was diagnosed with TB in early '43. Fortunately I was cured but only after many months in hospital, not a lot of fun when you're 4 or 5. I do remember watching dog-fights over the city, whether in 1940 (BoB) or not I could not honestly say. I do remember walking to school after air-raids and seeing the results, including bodies on roofs. And I remember the death of school friends, one a lad who picked up a "Butterfly" bomb despite all we had been told. We had a small playground in our school, because a large part was taken up by an air-raid shelter. Yes we had air-raid drills, but they weren't drills really they were for real; in'43 and '44 daytime tip-and-run raids were still common and from June '44 doodlebugs were always on the cards. Nearest was less than a mile from our school, a few seconds flight time, a fraction of a degree who knows? I still freeze in fear for a second or two when I hear an air-raid siren, the memories are too graphic
Yes Coolinoz it was a battle I don't need a book to tell me, I was there! I don't need to get a life I've had one, thanks to the courage of many brave men and women who gave theirs.

On a lighter note this post will be the kiss of death for this thread. Every time I post the thread just seems to die, so please just someone post, even if only to say readit, to break the trend.

b2spirita
10-05-2008, 09:00 AM
Readit, but seriously i cant imagine living in such a time...

MB-BOB
10-05-2008, 09:01 AM
If there were no Battle of Britain, then Hitler and his minions would never have assigned it a formal operational codename (Operation Sealion). I'm sure Churchill did not name it so. His people called it the Blitz instead.

Revisionist History is as useless as kissing one's sister.

M_Gunz
10-05-2008, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by gdfo:
There was no Battle of Britain!!! That is the end of that!! And, Marshmellows grow on trees. Cold Spaghetti is good for breadfast.

Cold spaghetti with marshmellow sandwiches, yuuumm-yum!

Aaron_GT
10-05-2008, 01:05 PM
Type 'panorama spaghetti' into a well known video hosting service and you will realise it is the spaghetti that grows on trees of course.

MB_Avro_UK
10-05-2008, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Rock_Kettler:
Agree, at least 3 generations. I was born in Portsmouth in July 1938 and from 1940 until end '44 spent most of my nights in one kind of air-raid shelter or another (Morrison, [in the house], Anderson, [in the garden], or communal, [in the street]). As a result of which I was diagnosed with TB in early '43. Fortunately I was cured but only after many months in hospital, not a lot of fun when you're 4 or 5. I do remember watching dog-fights over the city, whether in 1940 (BoB) or not I could not honestly say. I do remember walking to school after air-raids and seeing the results, including bodies on roofs. And I remember the death of school friends, one a lad who picked up a "Butterfly" bomb despite all we had been told. We had a small playground in our school, because a large part was taken up by an air-raid shelter. Yes we had air-raid drills, but they weren't drills really they were for real; in'43 and '44 daytime tip-and-run raids were still common and from June '44 doodlebugs were always on the cards. Nearest was less than a mile from our school, a few seconds flight time, a fraction of a degree who knows? I still freeze in fear for a second or two when I hear an air-raid siren, the memories are too graphic
Yes Coolinoz it was a battle I don't need a book to tell me, I was there! I don't need to get a life I've had one, thanks to the courage of many brave men and women who gave theirs.

On a lighter note this post will be the kiss of death for this thread. Every time I post the thread just seems to die, so please just someone post, even if only to say readit, to break the trend.

Many thanks for your post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Good to read of a first hand account.Shocking images for a child.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

x6BL_Brando
10-05-2008, 04:07 PM
Dear Rock

I always thought I was the kiss of death to this type of thread! Although I'm ten years your junior I remember the cloud that hung over my parents' generation in the post-war years, caused by the personal losses they had endured in the war years. My mother's first husband was a Hurricane pilot shot down in flames over the Channel in mid-'41, while my father's entire family was buried by an exploding V1 whilst he was involved in the effort to take Caen in 1944.

It isn't true to say that grief diminishes just because a war ends and, although I didn't experience the horrors at first hand I lived with the sad aftermath. I don't usually reply to these kind of trolling threads myself, but it makes me angry to hear people spouting revisionist ideas that rubbish the grief of the people who were dearest to me.

So thank you for your valuable contribution to an otherwise pointless discussion.

All the best

B

GatorSub1942
10-06-2008, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Treetop64:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GatorSub1942:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GatorSub1942:
...but Hitler took a gamble which paid off unfortunately.

Yeah?

Tell that to the millions of Germans who suffered and died because of that gamble. Not to mention everyone else around the world - especially the Russians. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello? I said it paid off unfortunately. That means unfortunately for the rest of the world, as well as the Germans!! Read the damn post properly before replying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, after looking back at this exchange it has become apparent that I definitely misinterpreted your post and repsonded out of step. My apologies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem, friend. It's a heated debate, there are bound to be a few misunderstandings. My view on the RAF thing is that it was like a world-wide effort against the Nazis, all concentrated in one tiny Island. RAF Pilots came from all over the shop, look at the end of the Battle of Britain film, it shows how many pilots perished of all nations and the RAF was made up of all kinds of places! I think there was even one Israeli mentioned, that's how diverse it was.

Whirlin_merlin
10-06-2008, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by GatorSub1942:

No problem, friend. It's a heated debate, there are bound to be a few misunderstandings. My view on the RAF thing is that it was like a world-wide effort against the Nazis, all concentrated in one tiny Island. RAF Pilots came from all over the shop, look at the end of the Battle of Britain film, it shows how many pilots perished of all nations and the RAF was made up of all kinds of places! I think there was even one Israeli mentioned, that's how diverse it was.

Er Yes and No, putting aside the fact that Israel didn't exist yet.

I always get mixed feelings when threads turn this way, and bare remember my Irish grandfather was groundcrew during BOB.

Yes the RAF contained many nationalities and these men should never be forgotton.

However it was overwhelmingly the British and even worse a majority of English (actually even, even worse middle class public school boy types) who flew those planes.

I sometimes feel that such an effort is made to 'reflect' the multi-national nature of the RAF that those poor British pilots who made up the bulk of the 'few' are somehow relegated into second place.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/roll.html

MB_Avro_UK
10-06-2008, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GatorSub1942:

No problem, friend. It's a heated debate, there are bound to be a few misunderstandings. My view on the RAF thing is that it was like a world-wide effort against the Nazis, all concentrated in one tiny Island. RAF Pilots came from all over the shop, look at the end of the Battle of Britain film, it shows how many pilots perished of all nations and the RAF was made up of all kinds of places! I think there was even one Israeli mentioned, that's how diverse it was.

Er Yes and No, putting aside the fact that Israel didn't exist yet.

I always get mixed feelings when threads turn this way, and bare remember my Irish grandfather was groundcrew during BOB.

Yes the RAF contained many nationalities and these men should never be forgotton.

However it was overwhelmingly the British and even worse a majority of English (actually even, even worse middle class public school boy types) who flew those planes.

I sometimes feel that such an effort is made to 'reflect' the multi-national nature of the RAF that those poor British pilots who made up the bulk of the 'few' are somehow relegated into second place.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/roll.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair point. But other sources state that RAF Fighter Command was a mix from all social classes in Britain.

Bungay's acclaimed work 'The Most Dangerous Enemy' makes this clear.

(Don't you hate the phrase 'social classes'? What does it mean?).


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

GatorSub1942
10-06-2008, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GatorSub1942:

No problem, friend. It's a heated debate, there are bound to be a few misunderstandings. My view on the RAF thing is that it was like a world-wide effort against the Nazis, all concentrated in one tiny Island. RAF Pilots came from all over the shop, look at the end of the Battle of Britain film, it shows how many pilots perished of all nations and the RAF was made up of all kinds of places! I think there was even one Israeli mentioned, that's how diverse it was.

Er Yes and No, putting aside the fact that Israel didn't exist yet.

I always get mixed feelings when threads turn this way, and bare remember my Irish grandfather was groundcrew during BOB.

Yes the RAF contained many nationalities and these men should never be forgotton.

However it was overwhelmingly the British and even worse a majority of English (actually even, even worse middle class public school boy types) who flew those planes.

I sometimes feel that such an effort is made to 'reflect' the multi-national nature of the RAF that those poor British pilots who made up the bulk of the 'few' are somehow relegated into second place.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/roll.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair point. But other sources state that RAF Fighter Command was a mix from all social classes in Britain.

Bungay's acclaimed work 'The Most Dangerous Enemy' makes this clear.

(Don't you hate the phrase 'social classes'? What does it mean?).


Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Weird that, as you said Israel didn't yet exist, yet I'm sure I saw one Israeli pilot in the stats listed at the end of the film.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, the vast majority of the pilots were indeed British (or even, English). But there were many nationalities that chipped in, that's why I called it a world wide effort.

So, your Granddad was groundcrew during BoB? He must have some fascinating tales to tell. And I intend no sarcasm at all, I love hearing stories from those who fought in the war.

Whirlin_merlin
10-06-2008, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by GatorSub1942:

Weird that, as you said Israel didn't yet exist, yet I'm sure I saw one Israeli pilot in the stats listed at the end of the film.

Do you mean the 1969 film? If so it prob' refered to him being an Israeli at that time.
BTW Gat' as far as I can tell he spent most of the war drunk, best plan really.

I agree about phrase 'scoial classes' Avro.
I was refering to the pilots more than RAF as a whole (my grandad came from tennant farmer stock) and was exagerating to make a point, hence use of the word 'types'.

P.S If poeple havn't checked that link (my last post) out yet you should it really brings home the tragic waste of life to see all those names.

ploughman
10-06-2008, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GatorSub1942:

No problem, friend. It's a heated debate, there are bound to be a few misunderstandings. My view on the RAF thing is that it was like a world-wide effort against the Nazis, all concentrated in one tiny Island. RAF Pilots came from all over the shop, look at the end of the Battle of Britain film, it shows how many pilots perished of all nations and the RAF was made up of all kinds of places! I think there was even one Israeli mentioned, that's how diverse it was.

Er Yes and No, putting aside the fact that Israel didn't exist yet.

I always get mixed feelings when threads turn this way, and bare remember my Irish grandfather was groundcrew during BOB.

Yes the RAF contained many nationalities and these men should never be forgotton.

However it was overwhelmingly the British and even worse a majority of English (actually even, even worse middle class public school boy types) who flew those planes.

I sometimes feel that such an effort is made to 'reflect' the multi-national nature of the RAF that those poor British pilots who made up the bulk of the 'few' are somehow relegated into second place.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/roll.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pilot Officer Webb's grave is in Bradford on Avon, I know because I used to walk past it every day when I went to work. His new born son was buried with him, the little lad died just a few months after his father, Lord knows the grief that wife and mother suffered, that small little headstone with its tale of woe will always be my mindstone of the terrible futility of war.

backseatgunner
10-07-2008, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by GatorSub1942:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by josephs1959:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GatorSub1942:
"What a bloody stupid thing to say, OP! There was a battle. It took part over Britain. If we'd have lost, the Nazis could've just walked into Britain at any time."

I disagree, it would have been a very costly and bloody battle, even after the loss of BOB in the air.
Germany just wasn't equipped for an amphibious invasion. Men could have been parachuted into England but not tanks or heavy equipment.
Germany,if they had won the war in the air still had a huge disadvantage in the sea.Germany could only at that time at MOST, put to sea 30 U-boats and against all of the destroyers that England hadeven with escort duties included, well I just can't see any favorable results for Germany.




I am not saying that Britain wouldn't have put up one hell of a fight, they had all sorts of tricks, traps and ways to fight a guerilla war that would've been hell for the Germans, but the fact is, the German army was better armed, had many more tanks (most of the British ones were left in France), better tanks, more experience and much higher morale than the British army did. It would've been a long, bloody battle, but there's no doubt that once the Germans had landed, victory would've only been a matter of time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Supply... The biggest single factor is the respective forces abilities to supply their forces in the field. I suspect the Wehrmacht would acheive an initial impact, but find the Royal Navy plus various other dominions' contributions would shut off further resupply of German forces, leaving the Luftwaffe as the primary source of supply.

The supply reuirements would simply not be able to be lifted in in sufficient quantities, even assuming no RAF interference. Stalingrad showed the lack of supply lift capacity.

The only way the Wehrmacht would be able to win would be by the reduction of the Royal Navy by the Luftwaffe prior to crossing the channel.

Could the Luftwaffe pull off a Scapa Flow equivalent of Pearl Harbor? an interesting "what if?"

cheers.

mortoma
10-07-2008, 01:28 PM
Omigosh!! Now I am wondering if WWII even took place at all!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif What a stupid thread.....

GatorSub1942
10-08-2008, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GatorSub1942:

Weird that, as you said Israel didn't yet exist, yet I'm sure I saw one Israeli pilot in the stats listed at the end of the film.

Do you mean the 1969 film? If so it prob' refered to him being an Israeli at that time.
BTW Gat' as far as I can tell he spent most of the war drunk, best plan really.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, that film was made in the sixties, when Israel existed, I forgot that.

M_Gunz
10-08-2008, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:
Omigosh!! Now I am wondering if WWII even took place at all!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif What a stupid thread.....

It's easy to get confused now that the "was there a WWII" thread is up, which is more stupid.
My vote is that this thread has been surpassed slightly.

If SOW or BoP or even the put its picture on milk cartons 4.09 patch showed up, these wastes
of time would die in no time!

josephs1959
10-08-2008, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Jex_TE:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by josephs1959:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
Lucky for you limeys Ben Afleck and Tom Cruise were around.......... I understand and appreciate your humour but let me add my 2 cents of sarcasm in by writing,,,,

LOL! Yea right, The Americans did win the war all by themselves DOH! The rest of the participating countries (The allies) did nothing but watch,,, Hah!

Didn't any of you Brits see the movie U-571? I was so desgusted by the blatant BS and PC of that fallacy so called "based on true events" hollywood Cr** ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I refuse to watch that movie out of respect for the people who actually did the mission and died for it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A HUGE Ditto! What a slap in the face to all of those who took part in that and the other missions. The code was broken on I believe two oher times. It was not only a major operation to plan and put into action but one that took time, lives and a little bit of luck.
There were so many things wrong with the that movie and the details that it protrayed. And now you have walking door knobs who actually think that that movie is real history! AARRGGHH!
I'm surprised that the British population didn't object to it's release or insisted on putting a disclaimer on that blatant LIE!

M_Gunz
10-08-2008, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by josephs1959:
I'm surprised that the British population didn't object to it's release or insisted on putting a disclaimer on that blatant LIE!

Probably more than used to it long ago and consider maintaining decorum more important.
They've been putting up with walking door knobs telling how the US won BOTH wars for how long?

Wait, no, that's EVERY war.

Hoatee
10-08-2008, 02:12 PM
Of course the BoB did take (hick) place. Behind the wheel I believe it was. Else we wouldn't have gotten home in one piece.

WTE_Galway
10-08-2008, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by panther3485:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr_Zooly:
It also includes the Commonwealth and the displaced Europeans but Avro never mentioned any particular nation only RAF, just look at the various nationals that took part as there were many!
What?????? Of course he mentioned particular nations:

"The Battle of Britain in 1940 involved a number of British and international pilots fighting against aircrews from Nazi Germany.
RAF pilots from Britain, Ireland, France, Poland, America, Australia, Canada, Czechoslavakia, New Zealand, South Africa, Belgium and many more."

Meaning (at least, so I thought), pilots from a variety of nations, flying for the RAF (however they may have been officially designated).

Ok, he didn't get them all but he did end with, "and many more". Should've been good enough for the purpose of his point? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was an empire flying training scheme in the thirties were if you came from a Commonwealth country you could sign up for a years training with the RAF at good pay and then be effectively de-mobilized and "on call". A lot of the Aussies and New Zealanders involved were part of that scheme. Other Commonwealth countries like Canada actually sent entire Squadrons.

As far as the social classes of the English pilots went, several squadrons were actually university squadrons composed entirely of students from larger universities like Cambridge and Oxford. I would also assume that some reasonable educational level was generally required to be a pilot at all which would have acted as a barrier to many working class aspirants.