On this day in history:

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

On this day in history:

Post by Caldric » 13 Aug 2002 21:52

August 13, 1940 The Battle of Britain begins
On this day in 1940, German aircraft begin the bombing of southern England, and the Battle of Britain, which will last until October 31, begins.
The Germans called it "the Day of the Eagle," the first day of the Luftwaffe's campaign to destroy the RAF, the British Royal Air Force, and knock out British radar stations, in preparation for Operation Sea Lion, the amphibious invasion of Britain. Almost 1,500 German aircraft took off the first day of the air raid, and 45 were shot down. Britain lost 13 fighters in the air and another 47 on the ground. But most important for the future, the Luftwaffe managed to take out only one radar station, on the Isle of Wight, and damage five others. This was considered more trouble than it was worth by Herman Goering, commander of the Luftwaffe, who decided to forgo further targeting of British radar stations because "not one of those attacked so far has been put out of operation."
Historians agree that this was a monumental mistake on the part of the Germans. Had Goering and the Luftwaffe persisted in attacking British radar, the RAF would not have been able to get the information necessary to successfully intercept incoming German bombers. "Here, early in the battle, we get a glimpse of fuddled thinking at the highest level in the German camp," comments historian Peter Fleming. Even the Blitz, the intensive and successive bombing of London that would begin in the last days of the Battle of Britain, could not compensate for such thinking. There would be no Operation Sea Lion. There would be no invasion of Britain. The RAF would not be defeated.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: On this day in history:

Post by Scott Smith » 13 Aug 2002 23:02

Caldric wrote:
August 13, 1940 The Battle of Britain begins
On this day in 1940, German aircraft begin the bombing of southern England, and the Battle of Britain, which will last until October 31, begins.
The Germans called it "the Day of the Eagle," the first day of the Luftwaffe's campaign to destroy the RAF, the British Royal Air Force, and knock out British radar stations, in preparation for Operation Sea Lion, the amphibious invasion of Britain. Almost 1,500 German aircraft took off the first day of the air raid, and 45 were shot down. Britain lost 13 fighters in the air and another 47 on the ground. But most important for the future, the Luftwaffe managed to take out only one radar station, on the Isle of Wight, and damage five others. This was considered more trouble than it was worth by Herman Goering, commander of the Luftwaffe, who decided to forgo further targeting of British radar stations because "not one of those attacked so far has been put out of operation."
Historians agree that this was a monumental mistake on the part of the Germans. Had Goering and the Luftwaffe persisted in attacking British radar, the RAF would not have been able to get the information necessary to successfully intercept incoming German bombers. "Here, early in the battle, we get a glimpse of fuddled thinking at the highest level in the German camp," comments historian Peter Fleming. Even the Blitz, the intensive and successive bombing of London that would begin in the last days of the Battle of Britain, could not compensate for such thinking. There would be no Operation Sea Lion. There would be no invasion of Britain. The RAF would not be defeated.

The faulty premise is that there was any attempt to invade England at all instead of a feint for diplomacy to get England to give up her silly war. The "fuddled thinking," however, is that the British would soon quit without an invasion--and they did not fear one because they knew that American sympathies were in the Allied camp.

As far as the radar stations, any network will be difficult to put out of business because you have to knockout all the links in the web and keep them out. The problem for the Luftwaffe was that the RAF wouldn't give them fight and retreated inland where the Luftwaffe fighter escorts could not cover adequately. It would have been wiser to go to punishing night attacks right away. However, that sours the diplomatic angle. :?

In my opinion, the Germans should have concentrated on eliminating English shipping with attacks on ships, harbors and shipyards, and tried to seek engagements with heavy German aircover that the RAF needed to defend. Let RAF Fighter Command keep their airfields close and vulnerable to attack or away and less able to provide defensive cover.

If the exhange-rate was favorable, Germany would have won an attrition war against shipping, the British Empire's weakness. Rather than making German air attacks increasingly brutal, Hitler should have taken German industry to a war-economy at this time; and so long as his terms remained decent and he held to his principles of not strategically bombing cities, this would have eventually thrown Churchill's war party out on their ears and allowed a diplomatic settlement with Germany. Even a vain island is still an island.
:)

Image
Last edited by Scott Smith on 13 Aug 2002 23:59, edited 1 time in total.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 13 Aug 2002 23:33

That is a great picture.

The German's lost their first major battle over the English channel and southern UK.

User avatar
Benoit Douville
Financial supporter
Posts: 3184
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 01:13
Location: Montréal

Post by Benoit Douville » 13 Aug 2002 23:41

The Spitfire:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Post by Andy H » 14 Aug 2002 00:51

Hi Scott

Why the use of the word VAIN in the context of "Even a vain island is still an island"? for arn't all nations vain or appear to be so from certain angles.

:D Andy from the Shire

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 14 Aug 2002 01:04

Hard to have any other good attributes without being somewhat Vain :)


Such as pride, courage, even skill.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Post by Andy H » 14 Aug 2002 01:22

Hi Caldric

But also it can be read as; Unsubstantial, empty, trivial or conceited etc

It just reads as like a little petty dig. Why not use the words you have listed?

:D Andy from the Shire

Lobscouse
Member
Posts: 1627
Joined: 01 May 2002 07:01
Location: Victoria, Canada

Vanity

Post by Lobscouse » 14 Aug 2002 05:58

Yeah, Scot, cut out the horseshit or I shall wack you with my vanity case.
I was in that tight little, at the time, and even at the age of ten I just knew we were something special. Too bad we let it all go.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 14 Aug 2002 06:16

Hi Caldric

But also it can be read as; Unsubstantial, empty, trivial or conceited etc

It just reads as like a little petty dig. Why not use the words you have listed?

Andy from the Shire


Heh oh it was a petty dig by Scott. What I was saying is everyone has to be vain to a point, or their is no pride etc. I just ignored it :)

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

VAIN again...

Post by Scott Smith » 14 Aug 2002 06:38

Hi, Soccer Hooligans! He He He. :mrgreen: Anyway, as an Anglo-Saxon-Celt myself, I know all about our vanity. My point is that there was no good reason for the English to be fighting the Germans besides vanity. I wish that we had left you guys alone on that side of the pond and not gotten involved.

But anyway, as Caldric notes, vanity and pride are related but not quite the same. Maybe there is a fine line between the two.
:wink:

ImageImage
ImageImage
Last edited by Scott Smith on 14 Aug 2002 23:17, edited 3 times in total.

verbe
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 05 Jul 2002 09:56
Location: France

Post by verbe » 14 Aug 2002 11:19

Scott Smith wrote:I wish that we had left you guys alone on that side of the pond and not gotten involved.


"we"?
Getting a bit personal isn't it, Scott? (like that "you guys" could carry on with the Jewish genocide, right!?)

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

No War/No Holocaust!

Post by Scott Smith » 14 Aug 2002 13:57

verbe wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:I wish that we had left you guys alone on that side of the pond and not gotten involved.

"we"?
Getting a bit personal isn't it, Scott? (like that "you guys" could carry on with the Jewish genocide, right!?)

No War/No Holocaust, IMHO. Of course, I know that American Jewry wanted war with Germany, but the best way to save Europe's Jews would have been to campaign to allow them into the USA as political refugees instead of sacrificing them as hostages in Zionist martyrdom by antagonizing Hitler and trying to widen the war. Most of the Jews have bypassed Israel and immigrated to the USA anyway. :wink: Besides, some Überjuden think that the assimilation and secularization of Jews in America is tantamount to Genocide anyway. That's why there must always be a Jewish apartheid state called Israel supported unequivocally by the USA. 8O

No, as an atheist, I'm no more anti-Semitic than I am anti-Christian. But I am especially against Holy Wars and Crusades, and that's what WWII was.
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 14 Aug 2002 15:31, edited 1 time in total.

verbe
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 05 Jul 2002 09:56
Location: France

Re: No War/No Holocaust!

Post by verbe » 14 Aug 2002 14:34

Scott Smith wrote:the best way to save Europe's Jews would have been to campaign to allow them into the USA as political refugees


That's more or less assuming that forcing jewish people out of Europe was 1. morally justified and 2. the only solution other than...
Sounds uncannily familiar...

Scott Smith wrote:No, as an atheist, I'm no more anti-Semitic than I am anti-Christian.


I hadn't got that far yet!

Scott Smith wrote:But I am especially against Holy Wars and Crusades, and that's what WWII was.
:)


How do you work that one out? A Jewish crusade against the Aryan race, I guess :oops:

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

re

Post by tonyh » 14 Aug 2002 14:56

>>like that "you guys" could carry on with the Jewish genocide, right!<<

Oh, for fuck sake................... :roll:

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: No War/No Holocaust!

Post by Scott Smith » 14 Aug 2002 15:24

verbe wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:the best way to save Europe's Jews would have been to campaign to allow them into the USA as political refugees

That's more or less assuming that forcing jewish people out of Europe was 1. morally justified and 2. the only solution other than...
Sounds uncannily familiar...

No, it is not any of our business as Americans because we cannot save the world from itself. I did not say it was justified, but it was a reality, and we just said: no, we don't want you greasers coming here, keep out! And the American Jews said: anti-Semitism, good, oy vey, next year in Jerusalem, unless Hitler wins! My point: Nobody is a hero here, except in Hollywood propaganda.

verbe wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:No, as an atheist, I'm no more anti-Semitic than I am anti-Christian.

I hadn't got that far yet!

But you admit the anti-Semite slur was coming, then? :wink:

verbe wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:But I am especially against Holy Wars and Crusades, and that's what WWII was.
:)

How do you work that one out? A Jewish crusade against the Aryan race, I guess :oops:

Well, even Ike called it a Crusade in Europe. :P

I think the "Jewish factor" was less important to American interventionism than the Anglophilic nature of the proverbial "Eastern Liberal Establishment" itself. But admittedly, Hollywood propaganda helped.

Anyway, Lindbergh was right to take American Jews to task for antagonizing Hitler prior to Pearl Harbor because that was not in the interests of the European Jews under his tender mercies. And when the USA was finally at war, their leaders were extremely reluctant to help the Jews directly because they didn't want to hear any Goebbelsean propaganda about the U.S. Government being the "tool of World Jewry." I'm not sure what could have been done at that point, however. The USA could have actually helped the Jews had she stayed neutral.
:)

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”