Under an academic, historical point of view, yes.

it's all down to how you scale your point of view on history. When looking at a conflict in its entire size, you can't take into account every single minor battle that happened, but only the effects it had, regardless of who felt like he won that day.

The Battle of Britain was not a minor battle and the effect of the Luftwaffe not achieving it's aim and the RAF achieving it's aim (there are words for these conditions) are simple to understand, look at the geopolical world around you to see them.

Regards Mike

So by that you're saying that if the LW achieved it's goals there wouldn't have been an invasion?
Long term effects of the Battle were that German High Command had to procede with the Russian Offensive before the UK was out of the war, the 2 fronted war was born. This pressured them into launching an attack 2 years (by Hilter's own reckoning) too early, which in turn led to the defeat in the East, surley even you can admit to that. Playing down the significance of the defence of Britian to make it fit your argument is silly.

I disagree, it's all about objective. Not cost. First world war bears this out, time and time again. Was Stalingrad a defeat for the Russians because they lost so many men, and Stalingrad was virtually destroyed? The Germans wanted Stalingrad, the Russians stopped them. A win for the Russians.

The island banjo? it's ingrained into the phyce of the UK, again you try to lessen the importance of the actions of the UK in the first 2 years of WW2

OK, I'm quite happy to say the LW 'gave up 'through lack of perseverance, however giving up in any other battle would be, and is, considered a loss.
Find me one example where an Army gave up fighting and it was considered a win?

A draw would be neither side achieving it's goal. A win is one side achieving their goal. A defeat is not achieving your goal.


I'm sorry but you asked me plainly "So what do you make of Pearl Harbour? Was that a Japanese victory? It was a part of a larger conflict."

I said that objectivley, it wasn't a Japanese victory. They wanted to destroy the US Fleet whilst it was docked, they didn't. That was not my point, my point was that Pearl Harbour was not, and should never be considered a battle. It was a surprise attack. In the space of a few hours.

So, my main point is that unless you achieve your goal whilst not letting your enemy achieve theirs, you're a loser.

What you're using as an example of a draw would be seen as a defeat in any other circumstances, it's the equivilent of a boxer not coming out of his corner, that's not a draw.

Somewhere in a parallel universe the Germans did win the battle of britain but there was no healthy debate over that episode because free speech, democracy and all the freedoms we know today would have disappeared 71 years ago, "Never in the field of human conflict......"

After Dunkirk, Hitler really would have liked Britain to roll over and say OK you win we'll just let you get on with it in Europe. As they didn't then Britain was far too big a threat to be left alone to recoupe and re-arm especially with the Commonwealth/Empire behind her. The obvious course would be a swift invasion as in France and Poland. The problem was the Channel or rather the British Navy that out gunned and out classed the German Navy and would blow any invasion fleet out of the water. The only answer to the British Navy would be to bomb it into submission and the only way that could be achieved was by gaining air superiority so the bombers could do their stuff. And that was what the Battle of Britain was about. Germany set out to destroy the airfields and planes of the RAF by bombing them out of existance. The RAF fighters went up to stop the bombers and the German fighters tried to protect their bombers. The odds were that Germany may have succeeded if Churchill hadn't ordered a bombing mission against Berlin in retaliation for German bombs hitting civilians around London. At that point the German command lost the plot and ordered an all out attack on London so giving fighter command some breathing space to get their act together.

If Britain had been successfully invaded then it would have been almost impossible for America to enter the war in Europe. Germany failed to get across the Channel and D-day was a mamouth undertaking for the allies. How do you suppose the Americans could have done it across the Atlantic? In the Pacific they could go from one island to the next building up a supply chain as they went.

Once America entered the war then Britain became, in effect, a giant aircraft carrier and staging post just off the coast of the European mainland.

Apart from a lack of resources probably the biggest obstacle that Germany faced throughout the war was her misfortune in placing a megalomaniac dictator and his cronies in absolute power who had a rather shakey grasp of tactics and resolutely refused to listen to those who had until he was forced to or it was all a little too late.

If i would have posted and pissed off as many people as this bloke i would have been banned long ago.

Cheese

I don't think anybody is pi$$ed off here, but thanks for your valuable opinion.

Certainly haven't pissed me off. I think your completely and utterly wrong and I believe that has been demonstrated on this thread but I have really enjoyed the discussion.
Carry on Stern.

Regards Mike

as said before, agreeing to disagree would probably be the easiest way of this going around in circles ;)

Good with me.

Guess what beer i'm drinking....:)

Regards Mike