1941

I'm confused, so what's this to prove?

Stern, you asked what year the book was published ;) by the way the clue was "October LAST year" This thread reminds me of the Odin thread on the zoo. He thought that the Brits should have lost because they deserved to. He got very upset and ended up banned by BG.

Indeed!

Thanks for the hint, didn't realise it.

I don't think Britain should have lost, I'm very very happy things went as they did, I just hate it when propaganda gets in the way of history, that's all.

A message to you to all the forum members merging in this thread: if you expose an intelligent exchange of ideas and conclusion I am up for it, but I will feel free to ignore every provocative or out of context message, just don't have time to play with all of you ;)

No problem. I find this stuff interesting. I dont think that anyone on the German side realized the consequences of the British still fighting on. In other words no need for the Afrika Korps to exist, no need to build as many U boats, no need to use the paratroops in Crete, no need to keep the Luftwaffe in France Holland and Norway, no problem getting oil from Libya no need to produce as much A/A hardware etc this would make operations in the Soviet Union much easier.

The Battle of Britain was a defensive victory, Britain was attacked - and Britain defended herself - successfully. I call that victory. The Luftwaffe could not continue with the attack on Britain effectively after that point, for many reasons, particularly with the British technological advances in radar and communications, the poor decisions of the Nazi leadership up until then and after, the heavy losses of experienced German aircrews, the failure of the Nazi war machine to produce an effective heavy bomber etc... Most importantly psychologically the RAF now had the edge - after winning the Battle of Britain.

It has been mentioned here that Churchill did not perceive this as a victory which is wrong, - 'Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few' - was specifically describing the victory. Yes he later made a statement to remind people that this had been a battle, and although it had been won the war would continue.

Ok so losses of men and machines on both sides were comparable,(although with inferior machines and fewer numbers the RAF still managed to attrit the Luftwaffe to the point of defeat - not destruction but defeat) this does not negate the fact that, the attack was fought off, so therefore it was victory for the defenders. Tactical, maybe. Insignificant to anyone else other than the British, maybe, but a victory none the less. Many historians and academics regard it as a pivotal victory, pertaining significance to the eventual outcome of the war, I don't like to speculate. But in terms of the battle itself, it was won by the RAF and lost by the Luftwaffe.

I think you are absolutely correct, they assumed that after they had finished the Soviet Union off in a few weeks they could come back and deal with Britain. Clearly they never considered that the UK could form the springboard for America to bring her energy, effort and resources to bare. Then again they obviously never even considered that when they declared war on the US! Is that declaration of war the single biggest strategic mistake in military history?

Regards Mike

Why am I reminded of a football game with a score of 1:0? The loosing team claims the game was a tie because the goal scored on them was an 'own goal'.