Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II
aawww come on mate, it's not a matter of who's victorious, for an historian it's firstly a matter of mechanics, not feelings.
If we look at the aerial battle numbers, both had similar losses, and the end of the big daily air operations was anyway asynchronous with the Blitz itself.
There's too much of a blurred line there, there's no breaking of frontlines, loss or gain or territory, disbandment of an army or any other sign that would identify it as a battle. It was an intensification of aerial defence over a few months, depicted by propaganda (and rightly so for the sake of morale) as a "battle", which had an old fashioned yet appealing sound to it, especially cos the perception was one of victory. But it didn't last long unfortunately, cos the bombing of civilian targets continued  |
Eh up, we have agreed to disagree but given the definition above.
Couple of things.
The bombing of civilians in the Blitz was to achieve a completely different stated objective from the objective at the start of the Battle of Britain.
And given your definition above where do say Trafalgar and Midway fit?
there's no breaking of frontlines: Tick for both
loss or gain or territory: Tick for both
disbandment of an army: Tick for both
Or any other sign that would identify it as a battle.... Well other than one side very clearly achieved it's objectives and one side didn't
Your 'logic' doesn't work Stern, sorry.
Regards Mike