The Battle of Britain Was The First Defeat For The German Luftwaffe.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

What can I say......as far as I know it's our taxes paying to make amends for dresden and the likes, you seem to be misled over any non aknowledgement of the said raids by the British, we are fully aware of it and I don't think anybody deep down is proud of it, I'm afraid I'm at a loss why you brought market garden up at all in that case, even good commanders have made mistakes but I have already agreed with you Montgomery was a useless bellend.

I have no info on British taxes to repay for Dresden, do you have any links or reference to this?

It was brought up because the Allied command reckoned it shouldn't be done, unfortunately Montgomery was so insistent (even against the advice of his own men) because he reckoned his race with Patton was more important than the sake of his men. That's something to be ashamed of, leaving an obviously incompetent man, who won the war in North Africa only thanks to the American help, to decide on such a vast operation, with inadequate intelligence and without proper interforce coordination.

Originally Posted by fruitbat

As to the Bomber command raids, i don't think anyone now would say it was a good thing, but we are judging from todays standpoint and with hindsight, both of which were absent in the 40's.

You'd be surprised to hear what I have heard in certain circles, mate.

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Well heres a case where you are putting words in mouths, read this entire thread and you will not find a single suggestion from anybody that Britain would have fought the war alone and won it, the point we make is we just fought it, and we were fighting it without being provoked because it was the right thing to do, and we would have fought it to the last with or without help.

I was referring to the victories in North Africa, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Don't think anyone will disagree much with this, save maybe the last part, Change aussies for USA.

well the Commonwealth part of the PTO was fought pretty much on their own.

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Oh really...and where exactly did your supplies come from? it's not like you were alone now, you already mentioned the Italians after all, yep thats right, we may have had our supplies from an ally, but it was our boots on the ground....alone, against the Germans and Italians....2 against 1 just in case you don't get it.

and yes by our boots I mean the comonwealth

lol with all respect for my own country, Italy was more of a burden to Germany than anything else. Our soldiers were brave and humane (and it's often recognised by British and Russians), but it wasn't enough.

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

You have a strange conception of air superiority Stern. Air superiority doesn't mean total exclusion of all nuisance hit and run jabo raids, or total prevention of night time city bombing.

The level of German incursion into British airspace lessened dramatically in 1941 and onward, as they spent more of their time shooting down our fighters and bombers on the ridiculous rhubarbs and circuses introduced once Dowding and Park were shoved out to the sidelines.

Air superiority is defined in the NATO Glossary as "That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by opposing air forces."
When the Battle of Britain was over you didn't have air superiority, until the Americans showed up.

As more and more of the Luftwaffe were pulled east, for obvious reasons, air superiority over France gradually moved in the Allies favour until by June 1944there was almost total air superiority over the Normandy beaches.

It's not a simple case of the Brits being hopeless until the Yanks arrived, but of course you know that.

the British were good at defending their mainland, but they could have suffered attacks of far superior entity without being able to put adequate opposition, had the battle carried on and Hitler concentrated all his forces towards Great Britain.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The British were good at defending their mainland, but they could have suffered attacks of far superior entity without being able to put adequate opposition, had the battle carried on and Hitler concentrated all his forces towards Great Britain.

But the Battle didn't carry on, Hitler was losing far too many aircraft and getting nowhere with his attempt to beat Britain into negotiation, the onslaught petered out and Britain won the Battle of Britain.

'Could have, if, maybe, schmaybee'.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Sternjaeger, you can make all the 'matter of fact' responses you like with all this mysterious alternate evidence stuff you quote, but the Battle of Britain was a victory for the British therefore a defeat for the Germans, plain and simple fact, this has nothing to do with our overall ability to endure the war or a few incompetent leaders, Germany came to us to fight on our doorstep and they were denied their objective, Kongo Otto would have us believe it was all just a bit-of-a-laugh on the Germans part and they didn't take it seriously enough so they went home when all the sausage ran out.

lol man, we're going around in circles here. A battle is won when there's a defeat, the Luftwaffe wasn't defeated, nor was the RAF, it was a draw.

Again from Wikipedia:
On 17 September 1940, Hitler held a meeting with Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring and Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt. Hitler became convinced the operation was not viable. Control of the skies was lacking, and coordination among three branches of the armed forces was out of the question. Later that day, Hitler ordered the postponement of the operation. He ordered the dispersal of the invasion fleet in order to avert further damage by British air and naval attacks.[36]
The postponement coincided with rumours that there had been an attempt to land on British shores on or about 7 September, which had been repulsed with large German casualties. The story was later expanded to include false reports that the British had set the sea on fire using flaming oil. Both versions were widely reported in the American press, and in William L. Shirer's Berlin Diary but officially denied by Britain and Germany. Author James Hayward has suggested that the whispering campaign around the 'failed invasion' was a successful example of British black propaganda to bolster morale at home and in occupied Europe, and convince America that Britain was not a lost cause.[37]
After the London Blitz, Hitler turned his attention to the Soviet Union, and Seelöwe lapsed, never to be resumed. However, not until 13 February 1942, after the invasion of Russia, were forces earmarked for the operation released to other duties.[38]

The invasion was postponed to an undefined date, it was never classed as cancelled.

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

But the Battle didn't carry on, Hitler was losing far too many aircraft and getting nowhere with his attempt to beat Britain into negotiation, the onslaught petered out and Britain won the Battle of Britain.

'Could have, if, maybe, schmaybee'.

exactly, the RAF held its position until the LW raids ended, they didn't end because the RAF shot down all the bombers though, they ended because the Germans wanted it to end. The Battle of Britain ended because the Germans turned their attention otherwise. Having said this, the RAF did a supreme job with what they had.

[ATAG_Dutch]

The Battle of Britain ended because Germany gave up trying.

They were prevented from achieving their objectives.

The 'heavy arm of diplomacy' failed.

It didn't work.

They stopped.

Britain won the battle because Germany stopped trying to win.

Whether they stopped trying because of other commitments, shortage of sausage, unsustainable losses or disagreements regarding the price of fish is irrelevant.

They stopped.

Britain therefore won.

[bongodriver]

So we werent defeated in France then.....Dunkirk was a draw because we chose to retreat? the Germans didn't wipe us out because of the 'famous' German humanity and benevolence.....

Sorry SJ it was a defeat, German objectives were denied...which is why they gave up...that is a defeat....you wiki post even points to the significance of the result of the BOB because without britain D-day would never have happened and Germany almost certainly would have won the war in western europe, why exactly did the germans not just surrender when the allies invaded? it would have been classed a draw by your logic.

on a previous topic, the Germans were under no obligation to build V1/V2 rockets and continue bombing us so why shouldnt we have bombed Dresden where components were being made (we even dropped leaflets saying we would do it) still an awfull event but it's debateable on how 'illegal' it may have been.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

So we werent defeated in France then.....Dunkirk was a draw because we chose to retreat? the Germans didn't wipe us out because of the 'famous' German humanity and benevolence.....

Dunkirk wasn't a defeat, there wasn't even a proper battle. This is the stupid western revisionism of history that needs to give a tag of "victory" or "defeat" to every conflict, but it's ridiculous, anachronistic and inapplicable for the modern warfare introduced by WW2.

The whole definition of "Battle of Britain" is somehow wrong: the air operations to gain air superiority were only the first phase of Operation Sea Lion, they weren't a battle per se. It was turned into "The Battle of Britain" by propaganda. The British propaganda was in dear need of some kind of victory after the embarrassment of Dunkirk and the horrible attacks sustained by the civilians, but the reality is that they kept on receiving thousands of V1s and hundres of V2s up until 1944.

Sorry SJ it was a defeat, German objectives were denied...which is why they gave up...that is a defeat....you wiki post even points to the significance of the result of the BOB because without britain D-day would never have happened and Germany almost certainly would have won the war in western europe, why exactly did the germans not just surrender when the allies invaded? it would have been classed a draw by your logic.

In hindsight maybe you can talk about a victory (considering the broader scheme of things), but you can't always apply hindsight when talking about history.

on a previous topic, the Germans were under no obligation to build V1/V2 rockets and continue bombing us so why shouldnt we have bombed Dresden where components were being made (we even dropped leaflets saying we would do it) still an awfull event but it's debateable on how 'illegal' it may have been.

yeah, but the Americans refused to bomb civilian targets in Europe (most of the times), whereas you had this "right back at you Jerry!" attitude in propaganda that eventually wasn't working anymore either, since people knew what it meant and they were concerned about their troops more than giving back to the Germans what they deserved (in theory).

"Bomber" Harris was the mastermind of setting European civilian targets on fire with his "an eye for an eye" attitude.

[bongodriver]

but you can't always apply hindsight when talking about history.

I can't make any sense of this, by definition hindsight is everything to do with history.

The whole definition of "Battle of Britain" is somehow wrong: the air operations to gain air superiority were only the first phase of Operation Sea Lion, they weren't a battle per se. It was turned into "The Battle of Britain" by propaganda.

The Germans lost it, the Brits had the rights to call it whatever they wanted, and it was coined from the Chuchill speech anyway, we called our part the Battle of Britain, the losers called it 'Operation sea lion' whatever, while were at it why was the war called the world war? not everybody fought it.

Dunkirk wasn't a defeat, there wasn't even a proper battle. This is the stupid western revisionism of history that needs to give a tag of "victory" or "defeat" to every conflict, but it's ridiculous, anachronistic and inapplicable for the modern warfare introduced by WW2.

Ah yeah all this winning and losing...it's so irrelevant......WTF are you talking about?

[Boandlgramer]

Bongodriver , what was in real life your most used weapon against your enemy ?
This kind of weapon ?
http://www.newgape.de/media/images/i...12178492_1.jpg

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Boandlgramer

Bongodriver , what was in real life your most used weapon against your enemy ?
This kind of weapon ?
http://www.newgape.de/media/images/i...12178492_1.jpg

Mainly just my inteligence and ability to maintain a discussion without makin 'personal' snide remarks.

[Sternjaeger II]

I'm sorry Bongo,you know I like you man,but I dont think we'll ever agree on this one. I'm approaching this with an unbiased historian perspective,you're taking this more on a national pride thing.

I suppose that when my (British) history professor told me "there's no way to point out to a Briton that the Battle of Britain was in fact no victory" he knew what he was talking about