Wow, what a thread, such passion and personal feelings, I can't condone the wording in some posts, but I can understand it.

The thread went far off topic from the original "how did they cope with it".

Let's see if I can input my 2cents for what it's worth.

Germany did not start WW1, due to the events in Sarajevo and subsequent actions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the at the time existing treaties Germany was drawn into the war, the powder keg that Europe was at the time simply exploded.
Post war humiliation of Germany cetainly didn't help crate a stable political landscape. (Never completely humiliate an enemy after defeating him, since he may later become your ally, Sun Tzu, The Art of War, freely quoted).

The Luftwafffe had an internally torn and inept leadership that failed to see pretty much everything, especially in terms of tactics and strategy.

The Luftwaffe was not designed to deal with the task at hand, it was very much a branch of the armed forces that was at it's best fighting in concert with ground forces.

Luftwaffe pilots were at a distinct phsicological disadvantage, you constantly have to watch your fuel guage over England, it may seem minor but it's certainly not (Kanal Krankheit).

The Luftwaffe leadership completely underestimated the strength of the RAF and Britain's production rate for new airplanes.

Radar in concert with the right strategy of not going for an all out battle with the Luftwaffe was a huge advantage for Britain.

BUT the most understated and yet maybe the most important thing in the battle was the organisation of fighter command, and it's network of civilian spotters all throughout England. This network of spotters, all equiped with a telehone line (state of the art technology at the time), no matter where, was the world's first intranet and was virtually indestructible. The MarkI Eyeball was the true enabler for fighter command and the RAF to fight so effectively and successfully.

Common therories suggest that the RAF was close to being on it's knees when the attacks were shifted from airfields and military installations to bombing cities, new research suggests that the RAF in fact never came close to being on it's knees (History Channel, Battlefield Detectives, Battle of Britain), huge losses, yes, RAF veteran pilots didn't even bother to learn the names of the replacement pilots when they just arrived, but never close to defeat.

While this list is certainly not complete, in conclusion the BoB was a decisive victory for Britain, I am not sure which german officer said it (going to have to research), but when asked when he thought Germany had lost WW2, he answered "with the Battle of Britain" and I completely agree.

Where have I given the impression it wasn't the right thing to do, a quarter of the world? they had no obligation to join the fight, they made their own decisions, it's not like we could hold the canadians , aussies, kiwis and south africans to ransom over it, no we did the right thing ok, and the Americans only joined in......well lets just say it wasn't because we made them do it eh!

And how did it come that aussies, kiwis, indians, south africans had to make that choice in the first place?

The UK conquored all of the world and from my POV, if you want to blame Germany for conquoring all of Europe you have to stop being a British Citizen, or at least argueing from that basis on, and become a human being just like everyboy else. Only from that perspective is fingerpointing justified.

If I seem a little heated in this topic perhaps we need to look at this lovely man's post, he practically pissed on the grave of every fallen British serviceperson......forgive me if it seems unreasonable to get 'miffed' by this, and he had the balls to say I'm an asshole.......

it was a draw. The Battle of Britain was about air superiority over the Channel. You didn't gain air superiority over the Channel area even after the Battle of Britain was over, did you? You had to wait for the Americans to show up in order to achieve that.

Just kidding about the Sun mate ;)

Agreed, that was uncalled for as well.

Sometimes I just love Americans. Cheers Ned.;)

Wasn't it Paulus at Stalingrad?

at no point has this topic been about past British conquests, and as it happens for the large part I don't agree with the way some of these countries were colonised, I will never sanction murdering native populations, but the fact is that for the most part the colonies were relatively at ease with being so, they were given infrastructure and genrally benefited from what the British empire gave them,and for the ones that remain colonies I don't believe we were ever in a position to maintain them as such,it's their choice, I somehow don't think most of europe was that happy being conquered by the Germans, they might have liked it more if they were built some nice new railways, schools, hospitals etc.......I don't know, just because you want to make a little ethnic house cleaning and the world turn against you....how unfair.

Well i have to correct my self, your British Army performed well against the Italians in the MTO, at least until Rommel showed up there.

I'm sorry but that's wrong. It's now a fact that Germany can be considered the main culript of WW1. The Sarajevo killing was only a short term cause, look up for the Schliffen Plan, it was discovered only after the war by some brave German historians and it was the smoking gun, the evidence that the Germans had in mind a European continent invasion and they pushed themselves as much as thinking of a new order for African countries as well.