News3 mins ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by claymore. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Thanks for the info, although I prefer to do my research in books with isbn numbers, glancing through the last source you provided I found the line that "the revolutionary aircraft was only what they could capture off the government or hijack what was on the way and that none of them would be much use in combat". The Spanish Civil War is not a strong point of mine, I'm trying to find out were you feel we were deficient in the war? Were our aircraft inferior? Etcetera?
I still don't feel guilty of propagandising and nothing you've added would inspire me to the contrary.
Or chauvanism, we had to destroy not just the German and Italian navy but the French navy also!
I've stated my case for which I'm certain, and stand by every word, and try to remember the question is about WW2 not the Spanish Civil War. It is a fact that the destruction heaped upon Germany was far greater than was visited upon Britain, thankfully. That is'nt propaganda, and we have the R.A.F, the navy and the army to thank for that.
I am thankful for that.
I still don't feel guilty of propagandising and nothing you've added would inspire me to the contrary.
Or chauvanism, we had to destroy not just the German and Italian navy but the French navy also!
I've stated my case for which I'm certain, and stand by every word, and try to remember the question is about WW2 not the Spanish Civil War. It is a fact that the destruction heaped upon Germany was far greater than was visited upon Britain, thankfully. That is'nt propaganda, and we have the R.A.F, the navy and the army to thank for that.
I am thankful for that.
You must agree that it is somewhat difficult for me to show onscreen paper extracts from books with ISBNs so, needs must, internet articles it is. Perhaps offering such articles more than a cursory glance may prove educational on a subject to which you admit a certain deficiency of knowledge. Picking a line that describes the first few days of a war spanning 3 years is hardly indicative of the full article.
I am not highlighting any particular deficiencies within British or Allied forces, just pointing out strengths in the opposition you wish to deny.
My posts in regard of the Spanish Civil War are in direct response to your statements that Germany only gained experience in bombing runs and by implication could not have been in any way an aid to dogfighting skills. You were unaware of air-to-air combat during the conflict - perhaps that has now changed or at least spurs you to research further.
As to chauvinism;
"... we were better at fighting than they were, that's why we won."
Actually, with the latter involvement of the US and their resources, "we" were better equipped (quantity in some things, quality in others) than the declining Axis powers and that, along with Hitler's error in fighting on too many fronts, is an undeniable factor in "our" victory.
I am not highlighting any particular deficiencies within British or Allied forces, just pointing out strengths in the opposition you wish to deny.
My posts in regard of the Spanish Civil War are in direct response to your statements that Germany only gained experience in bombing runs and by implication could not have been in any way an aid to dogfighting skills. You were unaware of air-to-air combat during the conflict - perhaps that has now changed or at least spurs you to research further.
As to chauvinism;
"... we were better at fighting than they were, that's why we won."
Actually, with the latter involvement of the US and their resources, "we" were better equipped (quantity in some things, quality in others) than the declining Axis powers and that, along with Hitler's error in fighting on too many fronts, is an undeniable factor in "our" victory.
But we were better at fighting than they were, the fact that the Nazis could'nt lay their hands on raw materials, new tanks or munitions is because we (the U.K, U.S, U.S.S.R, Poland etc.) denied it to them, on land sea and air. War is about attrition, attrition in men (sadly) and materiel, the fact that we had more equipment is down (hugely) to the amount we denied them. The Battle Of The Bulge denuded Germany of a huge amount of tanks, the lack of air cover that we denied them made success impossible, they had no fuel because we denied it to them. I don't deny the skill of our enemy, it's just a simple fact that we out thought them and we out fought them. Every inch of ground (not quite every inch) the Germans occupied had to be recaptured at the point of a bayonet, our bayonets.
Is it really so hard to give credit and thanks were it's due and remember that, that frail little old man down the road was once a lion, a lion who roared into the most hellish places on earth and overcame it.
Nazi propoganda was all swagger, style over content, it's this style that people remember. It's hard to imagine how George Formby and his ukelele (hope I spelt that right) could beat Horst Wessel. But he did.
Coincidentally you're talking to a man who does'nt buy Varta batteries, use A.E.G appliances or wear Hugo Boss because to my mind they have'nt suitably acknowledged or admitted their war debts.
If all I've written makes me a chauvanist, then I have to say that I'm proud to be one!
I'm sure the Luftwaffe gained valuable experience in Spain, it did them precious little good in Britain or Africa, before American intervention.
Is it really so hard to give credit and thanks were it's due and remember that, that frail little old man down the road was once a lion, a lion who roared into the most hellish places on earth and overcame it.
Nazi propoganda was all swagger, style over content, it's this style that people remember. It's hard to imagine how George Formby and his ukelele (hope I spelt that right) could beat Horst Wessel. But he did.
Coincidentally you're talking to a man who does'nt buy Varta batteries, use A.E.G appliances or wear Hugo Boss because to my mind they have'nt suitably acknowledged or admitted their war debts.
If all I've written makes me a chauvanist, then I have to say that I'm proud to be one!
I'm sure the Luftwaffe gained valuable experience in Spain, it did them precious little good in Britain or Africa, before American intervention.
I am ever grateful for the services and sacrifices of all who secured the World against the rampant Nazi ideology that culminated in WW2 and my opinion of those events has been formed through rejection wherever possible of claims borne of both distortion / concealment of the truth (propaganda) and zealous nationalism (chauvinism). This allows me not to discount the skills of individuals based on the overall result of actions formulated through inaccurate intelligence and erroneous tactical decisions by Chiefs of Staff.
I don't view myself as a nationalist in previous entries I've given full credit to the nations who fought with us,even ones I'm not enamoured with(France).
The Germans had some very good pilots(and soldiers)but sadly(for them) they did'nt have enough of them or else they would'nt have been shot down so reguarly by our own mediocre pilots,or destroyed by our average troops.The plaintive facts are that Nazi inteligence via the S.S was poor because we were able to detect them with startling ease,the Abwehr again provided little useful information to the Reich because the only anti Nazi of any worth to us Canaris was in charge,Rommel was an excellent commander but Montgomery defeated him(twice),the Bismarck was an excellent battleship with a well trained crew but we sank it because they got their tactics wrong (and allowed the R.A.F to take pictures of it),scientifically we outclassed them don't allow yourself to be fooled by V rockets(as a weapon in WW2 it achieved little)they had far too many different types of tank of pointless complexity. In the end their tank tactics were wrong,we'd leave our tanks on the battlefield and get another,better armour was needed
I don't know what's inspired you to so many insults,everything I've said is backed up by historical fact,I'm more than willing to admit were my knowledge is sketchy(Spanish Civil War, Eastern front)but not were it is'nt Western front, Africa.
P.S.We defeated Rommel at El Al Amein before the Americans joined in, the tide was already beginning to turn(I believe)American intervention served to shorten the war considerably,but we'd have won in the end because we had a superior navy, a better airforce and an equally tenatious calibre of soldier overall, regardless of colour or nationality.
I've said that pretty much from the off, I've lamented every death on both sides (propaganda?) and heralded every ally (nationalism?).
I put it to you that you've misunderstood everything I've
The Germans had some very good pilots(and soldiers)but sadly(for them) they did'nt have enough of them or else they would'nt have been shot down so reguarly by our own mediocre pilots,or destroyed by our average troops.The plaintive facts are that Nazi inteligence via the S.S was poor because we were able to detect them with startling ease,the Abwehr again provided little useful information to the Reich because the only anti Nazi of any worth to us Canaris was in charge,Rommel was an excellent commander but Montgomery defeated him(twice),the Bismarck was an excellent battleship with a well trained crew but we sank it because they got their tactics wrong (and allowed the R.A.F to take pictures of it),scientifically we outclassed them don't allow yourself to be fooled by V rockets(as a weapon in WW2 it achieved little)they had far too many different types of tank of pointless complexity. In the end their tank tactics were wrong,we'd leave our tanks on the battlefield and get another,better armour was needed
I don't know what's inspired you to so many insults,everything I've said is backed up by historical fact,I'm more than willing to admit were my knowledge is sketchy(Spanish Civil War, Eastern front)but not were it is'nt Western front, Africa.
P.S.We defeated Rommel at El Al Amein before the Americans joined in, the tide was already beginning to turn(I believe)American intervention served to shorten the war considerably,but we'd have won in the end because we had a superior navy, a better airforce and an equally tenatious calibre of soldier overall, regardless of colour or nationality.
I've said that pretty much from the off, I've lamented every death on both sides (propaganda?) and heralded every ally (nationalism?).
I put it to you that you've misunderstood everything I've
Everton If the war had been run by the Generals instead of Hitler and his cronies there might have been a very different outcome. For instance if Hitler had not intervened in the development of the me262 jet fighter it would have gone into service at least 12 months earlier and would have had a devastating effect on the American daylight bombing campaign which was the major contributer to the destruction of German heavy industry.
The Introduction of German jets would have meant more rapid deployment of our own jet fighter (which was arguably more versatile) we did'nt deploy jets over Germany because we were afraid they'd shoot one down and acquire the technology.
It is true that Hitlers' handling of the war cost the Germans dearly (but that's hardly our fault) on the ground were it mattered we defeated themWe defeated Rommel in Egypt with his deployments, his tactics and his priorities Similarly in Normandy upon arrival he was unable to turn the tide of the aliied advances back.
The "success" of American daylight raids is (I fear) guilty of propaganda they were not much more accurate than our own night raid (and that has'nt changed much to this day the Chinese embassy got bombed by them, the bridge in Yugoslavia they took ages to destroy etc, the success rate of munitions in the first Gulf War was poor, don't be fooled by the guided missiles going through bunker doors, I'm not lying to you look it up) but yes it would have proved catastrophic for us, for a time but I don't think it would have won them the war, or even gained a ceasefire.
I object to being called names, unjustly, I'm not being nationalistic, when I say that our Navy defeated theirs above and below the sea, that our aiforce blew them out of the sky or that our troops routed them out of almost every position (Kesselring line(?) Italy) and I blame General Mark Clark, and his vanity for that.
Whether you agree or disagree with my views, please, at least accept that I know a little bit about what I'm talking about, and that I admit to the parts that I don't.
Your question is about the Luftwaffe versus the R.A.F and I've tried to refer back to that were ever possible.
Perhaps you should ask another question about the airwar over Spain, and the abscence of fighter cover in Guernica, and then kempie might give me some peace! :-)
It is true that Hitlers' handling of the war cost the Germans dearly (but that's hardly our fault) on the ground were it mattered we defeated themWe defeated Rommel in Egypt with his deployments, his tactics and his priorities Similarly in Normandy upon arrival he was unable to turn the tide of the aliied advances back.
The "success" of American daylight raids is (I fear) guilty of propaganda they were not much more accurate than our own night raid (and that has'nt changed much to this day the Chinese embassy got bombed by them, the bridge in Yugoslavia they took ages to destroy etc, the success rate of munitions in the first Gulf War was poor, don't be fooled by the guided missiles going through bunker doors, I'm not lying to you look it up) but yes it would have proved catastrophic for us, for a time but I don't think it would have won them the war, or even gained a ceasefire.
I object to being called names, unjustly, I'm not being nationalistic, when I say that our Navy defeated theirs above and below the sea, that our aiforce blew them out of the sky or that our troops routed them out of almost every position (Kesselring line(?) Italy) and I blame General Mark Clark, and his vanity for that.
Whether you agree or disagree with my views, please, at least accept that I know a little bit about what I'm talking about, and that I admit to the parts that I don't.
Your question is about the Luftwaffe versus the R.A.F and I've tried to refer back to that were ever possible.
Perhaps you should ask another question about the airwar over Spain, and the abscence of fighter cover in Guernica, and then kempie might give me some peace! :-)
I have not called you any names. If you feel insulted by an allegation of unreasoning nationalism so be it (was it not you who admitted to not buying German brands?) but for you to bandy phrases such as "...unwitting victims of Nazi propaganda" or suggest that anybody who disagrees with your interpretation of events does not honour those who paid so much to safeguard their and our future - that truly is an insult.
You called me a "nationalist" and a "chauvanist", I view neither as complimentary.
I said in my first entry that "I honestly fear" they were unwitting victims (the selective nature of your quotes is telling) that allows the reader to decide for themselves whether they are or not.
As for not noting our erstwhile foes' ability I did say that "the wehrmacht was a highly effective fighting unit with innumerable remarkable victories to their credit" and that they also had an "excellent command and control structure".
The chauvanist remark I'm happy to dismiss as a fit of pique, but the nationalist remark I won't. A patriot loves their country a nationalist hates everybody elses.
I view with the utmost respect and admiration our Polish allies (in particular) for they were the first nation to stand up to Hitlers' aggression, they never gave in, they never stopped fighting and they never complained they were there in Africa, they captured Monte Cassino and we betrayed them twice (we did'nt help them in 1939 and we left them under Soviet control). The amazing thing is they still like us and want to come here!
I'm happy to discuss and disagree cheerfully with anyone, but I find your appraisal of my "well-reasoned arguments" bewildering.
I said in my first entry that "I honestly fear" they were unwitting victims (the selective nature of your quotes is telling) that allows the reader to decide for themselves whether they are or not.
As for not noting our erstwhile foes' ability I did say that "the wehrmacht was a highly effective fighting unit with innumerable remarkable victories to their credit" and that they also had an "excellent command and control structure".
The chauvanist remark I'm happy to dismiss as a fit of pique, but the nationalist remark I won't. A patriot loves their country a nationalist hates everybody elses.
I view with the utmost respect and admiration our Polish allies (in particular) for they were the first nation to stand up to Hitlers' aggression, they never gave in, they never stopped fighting and they never complained they were there in Africa, they captured Monte Cassino and we betrayed them twice (we did'nt help them in 1939 and we left them under Soviet control). The amazing thing is they still like us and want to come here!
I'm happy to discuss and disagree cheerfully with anyone, but I find your appraisal of my "well-reasoned arguments" bewildering.
Chauvinism (by original definition) includes nationalism and I have used both words to describe the same attribute. You happily admit to chauvinism but find nationalism an insult; that is some dichotomy.
You have also failed to notice that each of my posts has been made in response to specific aspects of your answers;
1) exaggeration - to which you admit and in all cases should be avoided since it undermines even the most cogent of arguments.
2) ignorance - you also admit to not being well (if at all) versed in a major conflict immediately preceding WW2 that certainly played a role in shaping the abilities of Luftwaffe pilots. When information is proffered you dismiss it as a form unacceptable to aid your research. Is that extract from Aviation History, being merely a published periodical with an ISSN, really not as acceptable a source as a book with an ISBN? I prefer to make that judgement after reading, not instead of.
3) emotion - why even bring up the idea that any argument in favour of enemy pilots being skilled aviators would be a criticism of the efforts of the Allies? Surely it actually enhances the Allies standing if the enemy is a greater foe.
For someone who has a hangup about Nazi propaganda (you certainly make frequent reference to it) perhaps the irony of its definition needs to be highlighted;
Propaganda - manipulation of information by distortion� and concealment� of facts to influence the behaviour, opinions, emotions� or attitudes of a group.
You have also failed to notice that each of my posts has been made in response to specific aspects of your answers;
1) exaggeration - to which you admit and in all cases should be avoided since it undermines even the most cogent of arguments.
2) ignorance - you also admit to not being well (if at all) versed in a major conflict immediately preceding WW2 that certainly played a role in shaping the abilities of Luftwaffe pilots. When information is proffered you dismiss it as a form unacceptable to aid your research. Is that extract from Aviation History, being merely a published periodical with an ISSN, really not as acceptable a source as a book with an ISBN? I prefer to make that judgement after reading, not instead of.
3) emotion - why even bring up the idea that any argument in favour of enemy pilots being skilled aviators would be a criticism of the efforts of the Allies? Surely it actually enhances the Allies standing if the enemy is a greater foe.
For someone who has a hangup about Nazi propaganda (you certainly make frequent reference to it) perhaps the irony of its definition needs to be highlighted;
Propaganda - manipulation of information by distortion� and concealment� of facts to influence the behaviour, opinions, emotions� or attitudes of a group.
You've now moved from saying I did'nt accept the skill of our foe (when clearly I did) to surmising that I deny the skill of their pilots.
A different contributor posted an answer about the poor quality of Russian aircraft, and their pilots, at no point have I denied the bravery of the pilots of the international brigade. But it is plainly a fact that only the R.A.F possessed fighter planes of a superior quality to the Luftwaffe so what benefit was to be derived(regardless of my ignorance) by the communist airforce (in Spain) is questionable, and where they at Guernica? For all the Luftwaffes' acclaimed ability during the evacuation of Dunkirk what was in essence something of a turkey shoot for them we got off rather lightly considering. Along a narrow stretch of sea a flotilla of little fishing boats and pleasure craft (unarmed an unescorted) got through, read Lighthollers' account of the evacuation in his boat Sundowner.
Thankfully our pilots were far more efficent at sinking Italian ships en-route to Libya armed and escorted by (amongst others) the Luftwaffe.
Allow me to clarify things for you (as you must be the only one who's struggling) I have no hang ups with regard to Nazism or Nazi propaganda (it's a discredited ideology) I don't buy Varta batteries because they used slave labour during the war (and have'nt properly compensated their victims), I don't use A.E.G because they made ovens for the crematoria and I don't wear Hugo Boss because I'm reliably informed he made the uniforms for the S.S.which is yet another example of the selective nature of your quoting. It has nothing to do with nationalism, it has everything to do with their "war debt".
Please do pay attention you'll save everyone alot of time and me a little work.
A different contributor posted an answer about the poor quality of Russian aircraft, and their pilots, at no point have I denied the bravery of the pilots of the international brigade. But it is plainly a fact that only the R.A.F possessed fighter planes of a superior quality to the Luftwaffe so what benefit was to be derived(regardless of my ignorance) by the communist airforce (in Spain) is questionable, and where they at Guernica? For all the Luftwaffes' acclaimed ability during the evacuation of Dunkirk what was in essence something of a turkey shoot for them we got off rather lightly considering. Along a narrow stretch of sea a flotilla of little fishing boats and pleasure craft (unarmed an unescorted) got through, read Lighthollers' account of the evacuation in his boat Sundowner.
Thankfully our pilots were far more efficent at sinking Italian ships en-route to Libya armed and escorted by (amongst others) the Luftwaffe.
Allow me to clarify things for you (as you must be the only one who's struggling) I have no hang ups with regard to Nazism or Nazi propaganda (it's a discredited ideology) I don't buy Varta batteries because they used slave labour during the war (and have'nt properly compensated their victims), I don't use A.E.G because they made ovens for the crematoria and I don't wear Hugo Boss because I'm reliably informed he made the uniforms for the S.S.which is yet another example of the selective nature of your quoting. It has nothing to do with nationalism, it has everything to do with their "war debt".
Please do pay attention you'll save everyone alot of time and me a little work.
I wish you would pay some attention. I become more and more confused by the thrust of your posts.
I have never corrected your grammar - the only correction I have made is to one of my own posts.
I have not moved position on anything - my posts have always been about aviator skills; those same aviators you describe as liars in the first sentence of your first post.
You have no hangup on propaganda? - reread your 1st and 4th posts of this thread along with your only contribution to this one...
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/History/Questio n480403.html
I have never corrected your grammar - the only correction I have made is to one of my own posts.
I have not moved position on anything - my posts have always been about aviator skills; those same aviators you describe as liars in the first sentence of your first post.
You have no hangup on propaganda? - reread your 1st and 4th posts of this thread along with your only contribution to this one...
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/History/Questio n480403.html
From what I have heard from the older generation of my family (people who were actually involved in WW2) 123everton has been spot on in what he's been saying. Claymore you really shouldnt go around calling people chauvanists and nationalists its statements like you have made that cause wars! you appear to be talking about stuff you clearly no nothing about!
Ps i bet you also read The Sun.
Ps i bet you also read The Sun.
The Germans overstated their kill rate in the Battle Of Britain I have'nt moved at all from that.
I don't deny that the German pilots were skilful, just not as skilful as ours.The Germans had some very good armour it's true, but the supreme tank in WW2 was the T34. I'll repeat because you do seem to struggle ever so, the Spitfire and the Hurricane were better than both the Focke Wolfe and the ME109, the Typhoon was better than the Stuka, the Bismarck was spotted by the R.A.F despite the best efforts of the Luftwaffe to prevent them flying over ground they occupied and which 2 capital ships happened to be located, it was sunk by the Royal Navy (partly because she did'nt refuel when she had the chance), Rommel was defeated twice by Montgomery (once without the Americans), we did beat them at El Al Amein (without the Americans), the foremost scientist was Oppenheimer.
But yet over 60 years after the war people talk about German superiority, when the truth is as good as they were at prosecuting the war, thankfully they were'nt good enough. In any department and every department we in the end held the advantage. The German newsreels of the day won't say that, and the tone of German newsreels regardless of critical analysis, have the ability to pervade the piece.
If I see something I disagree with (which I feel to be untrue) then I respectfully reserve the right to say so, it's the whole point this website, and if I see a question relating to German superiority then I'm going to express the opinion that they've been seduced by their propaganda.
Thankyou for demonstrating my consistency.
I don't deny that the German pilots were skilful, just not as skilful as ours.The Germans had some very good armour it's true, but the supreme tank in WW2 was the T34. I'll repeat because you do seem to struggle ever so, the Spitfire and the Hurricane were better than both the Focke Wolfe and the ME109, the Typhoon was better than the Stuka, the Bismarck was spotted by the R.A.F despite the best efforts of the Luftwaffe to prevent them flying over ground they occupied and which 2 capital ships happened to be located, it was sunk by the Royal Navy (partly because she did'nt refuel when she had the chance), Rommel was defeated twice by Montgomery (once without the Americans), we did beat them at El Al Amein (without the Americans), the foremost scientist was Oppenheimer.
But yet over 60 years after the war people talk about German superiority, when the truth is as good as they were at prosecuting the war, thankfully they were'nt good enough. In any department and every department we in the end held the advantage. The German newsreels of the day won't say that, and the tone of German newsreels regardless of critical analysis, have the ability to pervade the piece.
If I see something I disagree with (which I feel to be untrue) then I respectfully reserve the right to say so, it's the whole point this website, and if I see a question relating to German superiority then I'm going to express the opinion that they've been seduced by their propaganda.
Thankyou for demonstrating my consistency.
...consistency in choosing to ignore (i.e. not bother to research) valid data in regard of Luftwaffe pilot skills outclassing RAF pilot skills, gained through prosecution of the Spanish Civil War. Congratulations!
You broadened the scope of the topic from fighter pilots to include all other branches of the armed forces. I remained on topic.
I agree with, and have not argued against, most of your analysis of WW2 except for that about aviators. While you continue to dismiss pre WW2 data, I will continue to consider this ignorance on your part. A pity because you are far from ignorant on many other aspects of the war.
And I defy anyone to describe a phrase such as "we've kicked German arses all over the world TWICE!" as not chauvinistic/nationalistic.
You broadened the scope of the topic from fighter pilots to include all other branches of the armed forces. I remained on topic.
I agree with, and have not argued against, most of your analysis of WW2 except for that about aviators. While you continue to dismiss pre WW2 data, I will continue to consider this ignorance on your part. A pity because you are far from ignorant on many other aspects of the war.
And I defy anyone to describe a phrase such as "we've kicked German arses all over the world TWICE!" as not chauvinistic/nationalistic.
Latest Posts
Crosswords7 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Listener 4847 Demeaning By Lionheart
Crosswords14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.