Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - The Battle of Britain Was The First Defeat For The German Luftwaffe.

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- Pilot's Lounge (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=205)

- - The Battle of Britain Was The First Defeat For The German Luftwaffe. (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=26290)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattlehead (Post 338446)

This thread needs some lulz...no disrespect, take it for what it is.

http://i408.photobucket.com/albums/p...rldwar2RTS.gif

Hahaha! Classic.

Reminds me of this one:

http://youtu.be/Jib7aQBpcAM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow (Post 338452)

Hahaha! Classic.

Reminds me of this one:

http://youtu.be/Jib7aQBpcAM

:grin: That's excellent!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 338110)

Apparently if you manage to find any information that backs up your argument it is just rubbished as baseless propaganda, to be honest I am standing my ground because I have found an overwhelming amount of literature that states the battle of Britain was germanys first defeat.

Quote:

"The colossus of World War II seemed to be like a pyramid turned upside down, and for the moment the whole burden of the war rested on the few hundred German fighter pilots on the Channel coast. "

Adolph Galland in reference to BoB, clearly he felt that something was at stake during the campaign.

Quote:

"...from the strategic point of view it was a failure and contributed to our ultimate defeat. The decision to fight it marks a turning point in the history of the Second World War. The German Air Force was bled almost to death, and suffered losses which could never again be made good throughout the course of the war."

General Werner Kreipe.

And by their operational orders.

The stated aim of Sealion:

Quote:

"The aim of this operation is to eliminate the English motherland as a base from which war against Germany can be continued and, if necessary, to occupy completely. "

Clearly not accomplished.

The stated aim of the Luftwaffe:

Quote:

"1. The Luftwaffe will employ all forces available to eliminate the British air force as soon as possible. In the initial stages, attacks will be directed primarily against the hostile air forces and their ground service organization and supply installations, and against air armament industries, including factories producing AAA equipment. "

Clearly not accomplished.

As far as I am concerned the reality of history weighed against those stated strategic aims is more than enough proof that Germany lost the battle. Whatever back-pedalling the Nazis did to make things look more palatable, or whatever pillow humping the Propagandists of Whitehall did to make their triumph look conclusive, is irrelevant.

To conclude:

When you set out to do something you can either succeed or fail in your endeavor.

Those are the only two possible outcomes.

Being given cause to renege on your original course of action and adopt another indicates a realisation that your original desired outcome can not be achieved which is a failure in it's own right whether in the soundness of your plan or the method in which you implemented it.

Nazi Germany clearly stated their desire to subdue Britain by force and tasked the Luftwaffe with carrying out the initial stages of that plan. A determined attempt was made by the Luftwaffe to do so in which they failed which is proven by the fact that their objectives were not met.

This is, regardless of interpretation, and in any sense of the word, a defeat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyBlonde (Post 338463)

I agree.

There's evidence in the documented behavior of Hitler (losing faith in and complaining about the Luftwaffe after Dunkirk/BoB), Goering (making accusations of cowardice against his own fliers), the reassignments at OKL (Kesselring being shunted to the Med to provide token support for Italian failures) and the attitudes of German airmen (Typified by Adolf Galland's Squadron of Spitfires remarks).

Clearly the reassignment of strategic priorities relating to Operation Sealion was not without some sense of 'loss' attached to it. The fact that Germany was forced, by RAF resistance, to re-evaluate their strategic plan also provides evidence that a defeat occurred and caused a setback which was considered insurmountable in light of other strategic priorities. Then there is the cumulative effect which the loss of resources had on future operations which is hard to estimate in concrete terms but can't be disregarded.

All of that is common knowledge which requires no reference. Some of it is interpretative or subjective but, overall, enough circumstantial evidence is present to make a convincing case for the argument that Germany (and thereby the Luftwaffe) was defeated in the Battle of Britain.

Further supplements to this argument can be found by quoting the Luftwaffe personnel themselves.

Adolph Galland in reference to BoB, clearly he felt that something was at stake during the campaign.

General Werner Kreipe.

And by their operational orders.

The stated aim of Sealion:

Clearly not accomplished.

The stated aim of the Luftwaffe:

Clearly not accomplished.

As far as I am concerned the reality of history weighed against those stated strategic aims is more than enough proof that Germany lost the battle. Whatever back-pedalling the Nazis did to make things look more palatable, or whatever pillow humping the Propagandists of Whitehall did to make their triumph look conclusive, is irrelevant.

To conclude:

When you set out to do something you can either succeed or fail in your endeavor.

Those are the only two possible outcomes.

Being given cause to renege on your original course of action and adopt another indicates a realisation that your original desired outcome can not be achieved which is a failure in it's own right whether in the soundness of your plan or the method in which you implemented it.

Nazi Germany clearly stated their desire to subdue Britain by force and tasked the Luftwaffe with carrying out the initial stages of that plan. A determined attempt was made by the Luftwaffe to do so in which they failed which is proven by the fact that their objectives were not met.

This is, regardless of interpretation, and in any sense of the word, a defeat.

Right. So.....how did they cope with it?

Its a sad state of affairs when reading this thread is more fun than the game;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snapper (Post 338467)

Right. So.....how did they cope with it?

They abandoned their plan to invade England and continued with their other campaigns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by #402FOX (Post 338468)

Its a sad state of affairs when reading this thread is more fun than the game;)

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r...irdfight-1.gif

Jimmy, I appreciate your input, it would be useful if you could give the source of your quotes though.

I came to the conclusion that there will never be an agreement about the outcome of the aerial battle of 1940, that's why I regard it as a draw.

The most obvious fact is that Germany didn't achieve its goals as expected, Britain managed to defend his status quo of non invaded country (apart for the small Channel islands).

This can obviously look as a blatant victory of the RAF, but there's more into it than just this conclusion.

The aerial battle that raged over the Channel and England was in a certain way a war of attrition: the frontline didn't move, the two contending parts threw their best air force capabilities, but without a proper defeat of either of the sides, just a weakening of their potential.

Focussing on the simple fact that the Germans didn't achieve what they wanted with the Operatio Sea Lion doesn't change the fact that it's Great Britain who paid the heavier toll, because of the extended bombing damage, other than the RAF losses. It's hard to consider that a win.

I believe that it (rightly) became a matter of national pride, which is completely understandable, but the connotation of victory is hardly the outcome of the Battle of Britain.

The Battle of Britain was just an attack on a siege situation, if we talk about winning the war then I couldn't agree more, but the Battle of Britain (again, mistakenly named so), was just an early attack wave against a fortification, which surely went monumentally wrong, but it wasn't there that the whole war was lost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyBlonde (Post 338469)

They abandoned their plan to invade England and continued with their other campaigns.

it was formally never abandoned.. Hitler was still blabbering about invading Great Britain in 1944..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snapper (Post 338467)

Right. So.....how did they cope with it?

What do you mean with "cope with it"?

I think the Nazi propaganda machine tried to convince the people that the campaign was successful (don't forget that after the failed BoB, there has been the Blitz and after the Blitz frequent incursions of low level attacks if I remember well) so possibly the broad public was not much informed about an eventual defeat or whatever name you want to give it. And soon public attention turned towards other theatres of war. So from the point of view public opinion might not have been much affected apart from those secretly listening to BBC and not taking BBC programme for too much of a propaganda itself.

About the military, I cannot tell.

In terms of planning:
Well, I guess Hitler hoped that wiping the SU off the maps (which was likely his primary goal anyway) would take away one potential ally for GB and hoping to keep GB on their island until he had finished Stalin so a two front war could be avoided (the initial motivation for seeking a decision in the West first). It might have worked if the campaign in Russia would have ended in a German victory (not likely in hindsight imho).

Beowulf: This clip is fantastic. Lol, all the remaining sparrows are so curious and want to see the end of the fight. Lol. Good find