Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tyrannis on October 02, 2011, 06:18:29 AM

Title: Question about the battle of Britain.
Post by: Tyrannis on October 02, 2011, 06:18:29 AM
Was watching a documentary on the Battle of Britain on the military channel last night.

At the end of the show, it made a statement which caught me as odd, because i'd never heard it before.

It claimed that Hitler sent his generals to invade Russia as punishment for their failure to win the air war with Britain.

How true is this? Did hitler really Invade Russia simply to punish his generals for failure? Or is this statement completely false?


Ive never heard it described like that before, which is why it seems odd to me.
 :salute
Title: Re: Question about the battle of Britain.
Post by: nrshida on October 02, 2011, 06:45:50 AM
Perhaps they meant he sent the Generals to the Russian front to punish them but no that wasn't the reason to invade. Think about what Russia and the Middle East has in common.  :old:
Title: Re: Question about the battle of Britain.
Post by: Melvin on October 02, 2011, 06:58:54 AM
Think about what Russia and the Middle East has in common.  :old:


Hairy women?
Title: Re: Question about the battle of Britain.
Post by: cpxxx on October 02, 2011, 06:59:55 AM
Considering he always intended to invade the Soviet Union and never really had any interest in invading Britain. That can hardly be true.
It would hardly have been a punishment anyway as early on in the invasion, it would be the place to be.

Are you sure you didn't misunderstand the comment? I've seen some distortions in documentaries but that's particularly bad.
Title: Re: Question about the battle of Britain.
Post by: B-17 on October 02, 2011, 07:20:40 AM

Hairy women?

:rofl :rofl
Title: Re: Question about the battle of Britain.
Post by: nrshida on October 02, 2011, 07:23:00 AM
Hairy women?

 :rofl Yes that's it, old Adolf was after hairy women  :rofl
Title: Re: Question about the battle of Britain.
Post by: Tyrannis on October 02, 2011, 07:33:56 AM
Considering he always intended to invade the Soviet Union and never really had any interest in invading Britain. That can hardly be true.
It would hardly have been a punishment anyway as early on in the invasion, it would be the place to be.

Are you sure you didn't misunderstand the comment? I've seen some distortions in documentaries but that's particularly bad.
How i typed it is nearly a word-for-word quote of what they said.
It struck me as odd, i knew about the oil in Russia.
Title: Re: Question about the battle of Britain.
Post by: M0nkey_Man on October 02, 2011, 09:50:51 AM
Perhaps they meant he sent the Generals to the Russian front to punish them but no that wasn't the reason to invade. Think about what Russia and the Middle East has in common.  :old:
does it start with o and end with il?
Title: Re: Question about the battle of Britain.
Post by: Devil 505 on October 02, 2011, 09:52:40 AM
Remember too, that Hitler believed that the Opperation Barbarossa would be another swift victory. He was so sure of this, that he delayed the start by 5 weeks to sure up his southern flanks by invading the Balkans. After the Stalingrad debackle, yes, troops and officers were sent to the Ostfront as punnishment for poor actions in other theaters. But before that, victory over Spviet Union was viewed as Germany's greatest triumph.  
Title: Re: Question about the battle of Britain.
Post by: wil3ur on October 02, 2011, 10:53:30 AM
I have to say TV is getting worse and worse.  For one thing, not a single General failed in the Battle of Britain.  This was a loss for Doenitz and Goering (with Goering bearing a larger responsibility).
Title: Re: Question about the battle of Britain.
Post by: bortas1 on October 02, 2011, 08:26:14 PM
Remember too, that Hitler believed that the Opperation Barbarossa would be another swift victory. He was so sure of this, that he delayed the start by 5 weeks to sure up his southern flanks by invading the Balkans. After the Stalingrad debackle, yes, troops and officers were sent to the Ostfront as punnishment for poor actions in other theaters. But before that, victory over Spviet Union was viewed as Germany's greatest triumph.  
makes me wonder about what intell the germans had on the interior of russia. major german intell failer i mean would be the first time on that. :headscratch:
Title: Re: Question about the battle of Britain.
Post by: SmokinLoon on October 02, 2011, 08:57:53 PM
The invasion of the Soviet Union would have gone MUCH better if Hitler would have just sat back and let his generals do their job.  But, Hitler got lucky with the Czechs, Polish, French and Belgians, and even to a certain degree with the British so he truly believed that he was a military genius and this generals were fools.  Obviously... well... we know the rest of the story.   :D
Title: Re: Question about the battle of Britain.
Post by: Ack-Ack on October 02, 2011, 10:29:47 PM
I have to say TV is getting worse and worse.  For one thing, not a single General failed in the Battle of Britain.  This was a loss for Doenitz and Goering (with Goering bearing a larger responsibility).

It a loss for all German military branches as one of the key reasons for the postponement and later cancellation of Sea Lion was the fact that there was hardly any coordination between the various military branches.

ack-ack
Title: Re: Question about the battle of Britain.
Post by: curry1 on October 02, 2011, 10:51:03 PM
does it start with o and end with il?
How i typed it is nearly a word-for-word quote of what they said.
It struck me as odd, i knew about the oil in Russia.

Can someone please give me a logical argument about how the wars currently beings fought in the middle east have anything to do with oil?  Especially Afghanistan.
Title: Re: Question about the battle of Britain.
Post by: Tyrannis on October 03, 2011, 01:06:33 AM
Can someone please give me a logical argument about how the wars currently beings fought in the middle east have anything to do with oil?  Especially Afghanistan.
Please no, make your own topic about that subject.

No need to hijack my topic that bad.
Title: Re: Question about the battle of Britain.
Post by: nrshida on October 03, 2011, 01:15:59 AM
Can someone please give me a logical argument about how the wars currently beings fought in the middle east have anything to do with oil?  Especially Afghanistan.

I'm sure you can construct that for yourself Curry, if you are a critical thinker capable of objective observation and extrapolation. Perhaps here is not the place for a discussion about that.

Title: Re: Question about the battle of Britain.
Post by: wil3ur on October 03, 2011, 10:10:42 PM
It a loss for all German military branches as one of the key reasons for the postponement and later cancellation of Sea Lion was the fact that there was hardly any coordination between the various military branches.

ack-ack

To a very large extent... this was true.  I still say, and this is not entirely the fault of the two; that resources were pulled and action stopped before an ultimate victory was assured.  Blitzkrieg failed before Russia was ever invaded when the Reich came up against the channel. They should have pressed the attack there and let Russia stew.  In both instances they failed as Generals and cowed to Der Furher pulling resources from the blockade on the Naval side, and giving preference to civilian over Military targets on the Air side.

The failure of German Generals throughout the war was one of servitude to Hitler, rather than achieving ultimate victory.  Doenitz and Goering in the BoB are prime examples of this systemic failure.
Title: Re: Question about the battle of Britain.
Post by: wil3ur on October 03, 2011, 10:11:40 PM
Can someone please give me a logical argument about how the wars currently beings fought in the middle east have anything to do with oil?  Especially Afghanistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline