Yes Pearl Harbor was a big tactical Japanese Victory.

Could you do me a favour and run the Battle of Midway through your personal 'What constitutes a victory' filter and let me know the results?

Regards Mike

NO, they didn't. GB came off worst because of the bombing damage and casualties, the air forces suffered similar losses.
Imaging walking around Coventry or London in 1940 and say "hey! We won the battle!", how awkward and out of place you reckon it would have been?
The whole postwar celebration of the Battle of Britain on the British side is because there actually wasn't one back then, cos war carried on, and so did the Blitz.

Yeah, racing alone while others deliberately didn't sounds like a great challenge uh? :rolleyes:

No, I've listed before the successes and achievements of Britain.

'The official Government publication called The Battle of Britiain, which tells the story of those glorious days when the R.A.F. hurled back the overwhelming might of the Luftwaffe between August and October last year, has proved of so great interest to the public that all copies have been sold out at His Majesty's Stationery Office, Kingsway, London.

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/r...reenwidth=1903

It's your opinion, mine was an example.

It was meant as a provocation in regards to the definition of "victory". But then again I suppose you think it was a honourable victory..
I agree about the beer... hmmmmmmmm beer ;)

Really? Why there needs always to be this "winning and losing" scenario? Pearl Harbour was a surprise attack, it was a success, but not a victory.

I gave you the example of the battle of Kursk.

Which year is this?

Now why do you think the two things in the eye's of the British people were two seperate things each with their own name?

It's because the Battle of Britain was understood to be about preventing invasion and the Blitz was about bombing the civilians with the aim of breaking the countries will to carry on fighting.

The british public well knew that they had 'survived' that the invasion hadn't happened (how ever likely it was) and they knew that the RAF was responsible.

If you had said to someone in London or Coventry (or many other cities) hey we won the Battle of Britain I fully would have expected them to reply 'But were bleedin well losing the Blitz!'

Regards Mike

Not me about Kursk. I'm interested in your view on Midway.

Regards Mike

I'm sorry Mike, but the RAF was up there mainly to stop bombers, not to fight against Luftwaffe fighters. Although they shot down many, many others delivered their lethal load to hundreds of targets in Britain, making thousands of victims. Is that a victory?

Yep sure is. The Luftwaffe's job (according to FD16) was to make an invasion uneccessary (by getting the Brits to the negotiating table, which Hitler expected) or make it possible.

It failed in both, lots of people were killed by bombs, lots of RAF fighters were shot down and the Germans never got close to achieving either aim.

The RAF succeeded in what it had to do. The Luftwaffe failed in what it had to do.

So yes that's a victory.

Is your definition of a victory that for it to be so you can't sustain any damage or casulties?

Regards Mike