Quote:
Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger
So if it wasn't a battle by your definition it was a campaign
definition: A series of military operations undertaken to achieve a large-scale objective during a war.
Which ended in a failure on the Axis side and a victory on the side of the British.
The objective of the Axis was to get the British to sue for peace or destroy their capability to resist an invasion (depending upon who you listen to) , an objective that they failed to accomplish.
The objective that the British had was to repel the Axis attacks and gain time to rebuild their offensive capabilities, which they succeeded in doing. Obviously a victory.
Of cource battle would be equally vaild if you used the definition "A protracted controversy or struggle" and it does roll off the tongue better than the "Britain campaign"
Cheers!
|
yep, a campaign that was over when Germany surrendered unconditionally. But saying that the interruption of the aerial clashes over the Channel in 1940 was "the victory of a battle" is propaganda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bongodriver
Well to be honest I'm sold on all the 'historian perspective' stuff, I have to agree, but humans were involved so feelings are a 'factor', morale is a factor in conflict, it's another weapon in the armoury.
so German Morale 'had' to be affected by the first bit of resistance they got, the losses they suffered, it must have been a contributing factor to the decision to pack up the Bratwurst rations and send them east.
for 3 months the British fought almost expecting to lose, we didn't give up.
What I'm asking you Stern is maybe to get back in touch with your 'human' side instead of the robotic historian, and see how it feels.....
|
Trust me, sentiment is taken into account, but it can't determine historical facts
I believe in the importance of the celebrations for the Battle of Britain, if anything for the remembrance of "the few" and as a cause of aggregation and pride for a country, so I understand his moral and social value, but these aspects can't be of historical influence, it's a dangerous form that can take to a biased revisionism of historical events.