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

[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

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by 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

Same here, we have more things outside of this that we do agree on.

I just find it very confusing how some people interpret a Brit saying 'we won the battle of britain' as 'we won the war single handed', even more confusing is this desparate need by the same people to find the most insignificant semantics to try and discredit the British with any ability to fight in any way shape or form, the fact is we fought extremely well for the most part and have a hell of alot to be proud of, like just fighting because it was the right thing to do, so we had friends to help....mainly because they knew it was the right thing to do as well, if it floats your boat to believe the Germans were merely distracted by anything the Brits did then fine.....it's a free world (but no thanks to the Allies eh?)

just because your history teacher was British doesn't prove anything

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Same here, we have more things outside of this that we do agree on.

I just find it very confusing how some people interpret a Brit saying 'we won the battle of britain' as 'we won the war single handed', even more confusing is this desparate need by the same people to find the most insignificant semantics to try and discredit the British with any ability to fight in any way shape or form, the fact is we fought extremely well for the most part and have a hell of alot to be proud of, like just fighting because it was the right thing to do, so we had friends to help....mainly because they knew it was the right thing to do as well, if it floats your boat to believe the Germans were merely distracted by anything the Brits did then fine.....it's a free world (but no thanks to the Allies eh?)

I completely agree on this,I never said that the British didnt fight with courage and determination,but as you said it's easy to get lost in the semantics.

People who are passionate and proud about their country and history talk about "victory" "d-day" "freedom" "spitfire" etc... it's the shallow propaganda fascination that is appealing to the masses. Historians go beyond this,the risk of a biased judgement is far too great,it's necessary to research,analyse events within their historical context,leaving hindsight for conclusions,but it's dangerous to use hindsight to judge upon history.

Was the invasion of Russia a mistake? It wasn't in 1941,but in hindsight we can say it was. If Hitler pushed his way to Moscow,it could have meant a serious blow for Russian integrity,he decided instead to lose time to capture the Dnepr area to reach onto strategic reserves,again the right thing to do with the perspective of the time,but in hindsight it was a mistake.

just because your history teacher was British doesn't prove anything

That is true,but he surprised me,as much as it surprised me that he wasn't alone in his judgement.