look at us, still debating over this at 9am!! Aren't we a sad bunch?! :mrgreen:

time for a black coffee me thinks!

Again I will stress there are no denials of any conduct good or bad from my part, I just don't get the point of all this revision on a past achievement, what was wrong with the established theory, why are people using so much of their time on this, will the world be a better place?

If you can sincerely tell me that the UK would have accepted the same results had they lost WW I, this argument may hold some truth. (For perspective, that would have ment giving up Wales, Scotland, Ireland (all areas without native english populations), all british colonies, demilitarisation of the Midlands under threat of France to occupy them if the huge compensation money was not to be paid.)

I personaly agree, Germany should have accepted it. And it probably would have without the added strains black Friday brought to the world.

In regards to the US, I dare say that WWII changed the US as fundamentally. If you compare the US before and after WW2, the attitudes displayed towards the world had utterly changed. If for the better or worse is debateable.

Funny I was thinking exactly the same......and drinking gallons of tea I might add :grin:

Milk, please!

yeah, i am a Sissi, hehe.

Yes, actually, I do think the world will be a better place if you take other perspectives but your own at least into consideration. The planet is growing awfully small at an ever greater pace, and our example here alone speaks volumes about different nationalities having ever more discourse. The times of comfy nationalities only caring for their own are coming to a dead end, in the modern world that means, in the best case, stagnation and losing attachment to the rest of the world, in the worst one it is potentially dangerous.

it's a good question....but I dare say there would have been bugger all we could have done about it........and theres a good chance the Welsh, Scottish and N irish wouldn't have had too much trouble coming to terms with it.

Hmmm......history repeats itself, all it takes if for the world to drop it's guard in false sense of security and whammo, some nutjob is trying to take over the world, I'm sorry but if the rest of the world want's to be sheep for the next time thats your choice, I like what we have now.

and I'm afraid a bit of National pride will give the incentive to defend it.

IMO, but only as a "political scientist and international relationist" and not as a great historian, I would just say this:

1) I am not sure if Germany could have invaded the UK, just because the Royal Navy would have prevented it.
Maybe sacrificing itself, but nonetheless preveting a great german invasion.

2) The forces in the air were more or less equal, considering all the factors included: Britons on the defence, on their soil, the Channel, radars etc... The RAF would have not been easily liquidated by the LW, a "tactical" air force in 1940.
It was not , IMO, a decisive victory by either the RAF or the LW. It was more of a sign that the British were able to defend themselves, and succesfully, against air attacks.

2) It was the Royal Navy that was fundamental in obtaining victory over the Axis in the WW2 on the western front.
Italy lost the North African campaign not because there were not enough Italian soldiers (and Germans of the Afrika Korps),but because we were not supplied succesfully by our Regia Marina. We had TERRIFIC losses starting from late 1941 on, caused by the presence of the Royal Navy and its aggressive attacks against our main naval supply routes.
Malta was also an important naval base just in the middle of the route.

3) Maritime powers have been (and probably are) quite often the victorios ones.
The Normandy invasion would have never happened had without the great combination of the huge British and the American navies combined.

4) Germany quite always suffered by the chronic lack of a "wide strategic vision" in their wars. Tactically they were great, strategically they just weren't.
We, Italians, were strategically disastrous.... and tactically, so and so...
The British were not.
The thing is: The Axis could win battles, the Allies could win wars.
Just think about the decision to not invade Malta in the summer of 1942 (decision chose by Rommel himself, with the approval of Hitler, not listening to Mussolini and Kesselring in Rome) when all the plans for "Operation C3" had been precisely studied and programmed and the Ramcke Brig. and the Folgore Airborne would have had a decisive role.
In hindsight I say though: PERSONALLY that decision was a sound one for me, as my grandpa was in Sicily in the 1th inf. Superga Division as a medic and that division was chosen for the landing.
Had it happened, maybe I wouldn't be here today :cool:

5) The invasion of the Soviet Union, enough said....
Again, many wrong strategic decisions made by the Germans (or Hitler, you name it)

But talking about all of this now in 2011 , just reminds me of how lucky we are now, and how has the world changed...
How nationalities have somehow lost their "great power" they had, how we live in a totally different world, where country barriers are
fading away, economy has become (luckily or unfortunately, you decide it....) the most important element in every institution, countries lose their
sovereign powers which is in turn delegated to "higher authorities", how ideologies
have faded away (again, lucikly or unluckily, your choice) and youngsters doesn't follow politics in the same way as our fathers did.
The "concept" of "Country" has changed, and we live in a totally different world nowadays...


Cheers
Rick

I suppose it's not the specific case of the Battle of Britain, it's more a case of assigning improper definitions to events and giving special meanings to events that were important only in hindsight for the sake of national pride.

Was BoB a necessary battle? No.
Did it bring any change to the conditions at the beginning of the conflict? No.
Was it a victory for the British? It surely was for morale and propaganda.
Was it a military victory? No.

It's an important debate for many historians, and it's getting harder to deal with when thinking of recent conflicts (from the 80s onwards).