Talk:Adlertag/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Adlertag. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Untitled
Oppose - operations do get their own articles that need to be expanded. Battle of Britain was a defensive campaign by the RAF to prevent success of the German strategy. However the name needs to change to German in conforming with the convention that the operational codenames are retained in their original language.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
rename proposal
Per naming convention on operational codenames the article is proposed to be renamed to the German name--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
"With the only the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth left as a viable threat to the Third Reich, "
in the opening section. The United States was a viable threat to the Third Reich. The Soviet Union was a viable threat to the Third Reich. Presumably the person who wrote that sentence knew that, and meant to imply that the British were the only ones still fighting the Germans ... at that time. Not only that, the British were not a "threat" to the Third Reich, their capabilities were purely defensive and they posed no offensive risk to the Germans. This should be better worded.Eregli bob (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- The only ridiculous statement here is your complaint. In case you didn't know, the Soviets were very keen to stay out of the conflict, as were the Americans. Idiotic to say the least. Dapi89 (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- How were the British possibly a "viable threat" to Hitler's Germany when they were the only country in the world still opposing him ? England in 1940 had no allies and negligble offensive capability against German-controlled Europe. I will re-word some of the cliche-ridden drivel on this page when I have the time.Eregli bob (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- No you won't. If you do I will revert. And if you continue to offend by using snide puerile bile I will notify the administrators for blatant violation of civility. So if you've finished with the bullshit I'll continue. I am not here to fill in the gaps in your knowledge. However, this once I'll let you in on something: The entire British Empire remained a threat. The British were not alone. India had a population in the hundreds of millions for example. Enough manpower to provide a threat. Of course, the fact is self evident. Dapi89 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- How were the British possibly a "viable threat" to Hitler's Germany when they were the only country in the world still opposing him ? England in 1940 had no allies and negligble offensive capability against German-controlled Europe. I will re-word some of the cliche-ridden drivel on this page when I have the time.Eregli bob (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- The only ridiculous statement here is your complaint. In case you didn't know, the Soviets were very keen to stay out of the conflict, as were the Americans. Idiotic to say the least. Dapi89 (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
"Hitler gave the German armed forces (Wehrmacht) a directive (Directive No. 16) which ordered the preparation for the aerial attack and pacification of the United Kingdom in order to prevent it from becoming a base from which the Western Allies could continue the war against the Greater German Reich and German-occupied Europe."
A base from which the western allies..... in June 1940, which western allies would those be ? Someone has put some very sloppy writing into this article. Eregli bob (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Either the Germans expected to be at war with the Americans eventually, or they didn't. Seems to be arguing it both ways here.Eregli bob (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong again. Look up the term Western Allies. The Western Allies remained in being before the entry of the United States into the war and this is the wording that Hitler used. It was to prevent a continuation of the war by the Western Allies. This is exactly as the articles indicates. Please go away, and re-read some basic history books. It isn't sloppy. Your reading is. Dapi89 (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I looked at Western Allies, and a pretty pathetic excuse of an entry, that is. Poland, maybe ? Which allied countries did Hitler allegedly claim were using Britain as an operational base in mid-1940 ? A handful of gunboats from the Norwegian Navy, perhaps? In 1944 there were a million Americans using Britain as a base. In 1940, there were not. I look forward to you providing a citation as to the wording that Hitler used.Eregli bob (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have already done so: The UK was to eliminated as base from which the war against Germany could continue. Dapi89 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- What does the British Commonwealth mean? Australia? Canada? New Zealand? The remnants of the defeated nations? Dapi89 (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have already done so: The UK was to eliminated as base from which the war against Germany could continue. Dapi89 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I looked at Western Allies, and a pretty pathetic excuse of an entry, that is. Poland, maybe ? Which allied countries did Hitler allegedly claim were using Britain as an operational base in mid-1940 ? A handful of gunboats from the Norwegian Navy, perhaps? In 1944 there were a million Americans using Britain as a base. In 1940, there were not. I look forward to you providing a citation as to the wording that Hitler used.Eregli bob (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong again. Look up the term Western Allies. The Western Allies remained in being before the entry of the United States into the war and this is the wording that Hitler used. It was to prevent a continuation of the war by the Western Allies. This is exactly as the articles indicates. Please go away, and re-read some basic history books. It isn't sloppy. Your reading is. Dapi89 (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The consolidated report of the OKW (also known as Wehrmachberich) regarding the operations against France from June 5th to 25th ended with the words Es bleibt nur noch ein Feind: England! or "Only one enemy remains: England!" MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- With respect MrB, it is quite obvious that Britain was not the only enemy: The British Commonwealth, Australia, Canada, New Zealand were all at war with Germany. It is an enduring myth of the Battle of Britain: the 'English' were not alone. Dapi89 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- The statement is cited to Hitler Directive No. 16, which is available here (towards the bottom of the page). The relevant sentence appears to be "The purpose of this operation will be to eliminate the English mother country as a base for continuation of the war against Germany and, if it should become necessary, to occupy the entire island." Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh I know that, I think this is a psychological element, or call it propaganda, making everyone feel that the war is close to over. But these types of statements lead to misconceptions that foster around for ages. MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- The statement is cited to Hitler Directive No. 16, which is available here (towards the bottom of the page). The relevant sentence appears to be "The purpose of this operation will be to eliminate the English mother country as a base for continuation of the war against Germany and, if it should become necessary, to occupy the entire island." Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- With respect MrB, it is quite obvious that Britain was not the only enemy: The British Commonwealth, Australia, Canada, New Zealand were all at war with Germany. It is an enduring myth of the Battle of Britain: the 'English' were not alone. Dapi89 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Word Order
"Conversely the Germans remained opaque to Allied developments" surely this should be the other way round, that is: "Conversely Allied developments remained opaque to the Germans"? --TristramBrelstaff (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I think that was the way it was in the source. But if its doesn't fit right with you, "be bold" and change it! Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)