No, Stalingrad was a decisive battle because it altered the frontline and was the beginning of the end in the Russian campaign for Germany.

Considering its short term and long term effects, the Battle of Britain might as well never have happened.

Oh no, you need to measure both, you can't just look at the facts that draw in your favour, otherwise we're talking of the aforementioned Pyrrhic victory..

[quote]
It's Ironic that the Island Mentality is used against us, we're an island and it was that mentality which meant that instead of just rolling over, as many other countries did, we stood our ground. I'm wary of using the 'we' because I know that it wasn't me, it was my Grandparents, however by us having and using that mentality, you have the freedom to criticise it.. Such is life..
[quote]
Man, let's not play the Island banjo for too long, the truth is that your real strength was in the fact that you're an island, and as such you would have needed to be invaded by an adequate force. They knew this and they failed in their objective on the long run, but not because you overcame them, it was their lack of perseverance.
you'd be surprised on how a single word can make the whole difference. Look what's happening with Victory vs Draw here.

it wasn't me who mentioned Pearl Harbour, still there's people here who think it was a Japanese victory.. what did they exactly win?

..and we still manage to agree, fantastic! :mrgreen:

I`ll bite :-P
Short term : Seelowe postponed (indefinitely )
Long term : diverting resource from the whole point of the war and allowing the Allies to re-take France and then invade Germany.
Apart from that I agree no effect at all :grin:

yes, I mean IF no Battle of Britain was ever fought, how would it have affected the rest of the war?

The numerical odds of the Luftwaffe against the Allies in the ETO would have been no match anyway.

Don't have a heart attack Stern, but I kind of agree with you here, with one reservation.

Germany's attacks and threat of invasion didn't alter anything as regards the British resolve to defeat Germany in the longer term.

The resolve to defeat Germany was there before the Battle and was unchanged subsequent to it.

It did mean though, and here's the reservation, that even after 9 months preparation, the Luftwaffe which attacked Russia the following June was not as numerically strong or experienced as that which attacked the UK. Had the full force of the German land and airforces attacked Russia.... well the rest is conjecture.

Britain maintaining its belligerence meant that German forces and materiel were occupied elsewhere as has been mentioned.

The attrition suffered as a result of the Battle of Britain added to this did make a difference.

In my opinion, of course.

Decisive battle or Soviet victory Stern?

I would say the front line moving isn't that important (does it have to move a centimetre, a metre or a hundred kilometres to count?). It's a victory because the Soviets achieved their objectives and the Germans failed to achieve theirs. Same as the Battle of Britain we can discuss which was more important but at the end of the day that is subjective, the truth is they were all important victories in the final outcome. That they were both victories is beyond doubt.

Regards Mike

The Russians won the war when they were waving their flag over the Reichstag, you can talk about winning or losing at the end of a conflict, you can also talk about battles that influenced the end of the war (i.e. Stalingrad), but they can't all be win or lose, otherwise it'd be more a case of
the Germans advancing like this:

1941: win win win win! win win win! win win und mehr win!
1942: ach, was ist passiert? Nicht mehr win?
1942/1945: ach! lose! lose lose lose! Mehr lose?! Nein nein nein!!! Himmel! lose lose ....

etc..

ww2 wasn't a football championship with scoreboards, it wasn't even the old fashioned way of fighting, with a frontline and one (or more) direct battle in one battlefield. Because of its different entity and development we can't attribute win or loss until the end of the conflict.

..izzat a joke? ;-)
well, for a crippled air force, as some are some are lead to believe, they did damn well, establishing air superiority over such a vast area in such a short time. Again, I don't think the numbers were affected that much, besides the precious experience gained by pilots during the Battle of Britain was of serious use in the eastern campaign.
They wasted a lot of ammo, aircraft, fuel and lives, but not as much to cripple them forever. The sustained strain of enlarged fronts with the Russian campaign, together with the aerial defence of mainland Europe and the Mediterranean were probably the true blow for the Luftwaffe. By 1943 the German pilots based in Sicily already had a sense of defeat and knew that the only sensible solution was to fall back into the mainland.

So we now have to prove a negative!
It should be easier to summise what would have happened if the Luftwaffe had succeeded in achieving it's objectives and the RAF had failed to achieve its.

The Germans would have won.

The British government would have fallen. Churchill would have taken the rap. Halifax would have become PM and a peace settlement would have been agreed (at very unfavourable terms to the British).

Regards Mike

no no, I said if there was no battle of britain at all and things remained as they were.. would it have made any difference?

And yes, things might have gone monumentally wrong if Germany won against Great Britain, thank god it never happened!

So there are no individual victories only final victory?

I guess we can now conclude our discussion (and look forward to the next one). I believe you to be utterly and completely wrong.

Regards Mike