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

[bongodriver]

Hitler could have waited to bring such an attack on Britain, but he didn't, he was afraid that waiting too long before dealing with the "British matter" could be counterproductive. It's probably this haste that cost him that battle.

Sorry but that is not what constitutes uneccessary, you see here again you are just downplaying the significance by using the German perspective here, clear example of your bias here, you are obviously enamoured with a strange romanticism about the Germans, facct is they 'did' come to fight and the British found it necessary to stop them, that has nothing to do with British nationalistic views.

yes, but it didn't affect the offensive potential of the German machine, as some believe. The RAF didn't give the Luftwaffe a blow from which they never recovered: they both lost similar numbers of potential, but soon caught up with production and achieved immense tactical experience from the battle.

Semantics again, an attempt at downplaying the significance through some 'dictionary' deffinition, the US won their war of independence(with help from the French)....were the British anhilated?

fair enough, but this is again your personal achievement. It has nothing to do with the actual outcome of the battle.

Oh but it does, it's a personal event for both parties, the defender won his objective (survival and escape) the attacker lost his objective (killing the victim) the battle ends there, the war between these two hasn't, you are just not making sense here mate.

of course they are, but for the two air forces it was a mere war of attrition, neither of the two was annihilated by it.

Why there isn't such a strong battle identification with the one that raged over Europe after the Americans joined, which was longer, more dramatic and above all more decisive than the Battle of Britain itself?

The Battle of Britain is considered more by a conflict per se here, unlike the rest that happened, and that's again only because of propaganda needs.

Ther you go with that anhillation stuff again.....why?

this topic started on the subject of the BOB, I thought it was etiquette to keep threads 'on topic' so the wider picture of the war has no relevance in this thread, that is not a denial of it's significance....just forum etiquette.

Conflict..battle...skirmish....WTF? give it whatever label you want, it happened, it was a fight, we won our objective....that is plain fact, that is all we celebrate about it, nobody suggests it was a total defeat of the wider German military...it was simply a fight the British won and it's wider significance became apparent later....yay lucky for us.....we survived that one and it all turned out pretty f***ing good in the end....lets celebrate it for it contribution for a better world wiithout the Nazis.......is that such a big deal?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Sorry but that is not what constitutes uneccessary, you see here again you are just downplaying the significance by using the German perspective here, clear example of your bias here, you are obviously enamoured with a strange romanticism about the Germans, facct is they 'did' come to fight and the British found it necessary to stop them, that has nothing to do with British nationalistic views.

I dunno how to explain this point anymore

Semantics again, an attempt at downplaying the significance through some 'dictionary' deffinition, the US won their war of independence(with help from the French)....were the British anhilated?

the British dominion over the US mainland was annihilated, the US started a new independent reality, that sounds like a win to me. At the blurry end of the Battle of Britain, apart for reputations and morale, nothing else changed.

Oh but it does, it's a personal event for both parties, the defender won his objective (survival and escape) the attacker lost his objective (killing the victim) the battle ends there, the war between these two hasn't, you are just not making sense here mate.

you (badly) repelled a bombing attack that was carried on for several months, their command was tired to wait any longer on Goering's fail, they moved onto something else, end of story.

You gained some heroes to celebrate, both countries learned LOADS in terms of experience, soon the Germans forgot about it thanks to the early successes of Barbarossa. It was just a phase of a more complicated war, not a battle per se.

Ther you go with that anhillation stuff again.....why?

because in a total war the success is obtained only by complete annihilation of the adversary's offensive potential, subduing it to an unconditioned surrender.

this topic started on the subject of the BOB, I thought it was etiquette to keep threads 'on topic' so the wider picture of the war has no relevance in this thread, that is not a denial of it's significance....just forum etiquette.

Conflict..battle...skirmish....WTF? give it whatever label you want, it happened, it was a fight, we won our objective....that is plain fact, that is all we celebrate about it, nobody suggests it was a total defeat of the wider German military...it was simply a fight the British won and it's wider significance became apparent later....yay lucky for us.....we survived that one and it all turned out pretty f***ing good in the end....lets celebrate it for it contribution for a better world wiithout the Nazis.......is that such a big deal?

I tried to, and it was my original point, but then all kind of $hit started flying in every direction..
Uh and let's not forget this: the western civilised world is grateful to the Allies for the efforts they made to liberate us from the Nazi scum.

[bongodriver]

I dunno how to explain this point anymore

Yeah you got nothing left.....fail

the British dominion over the US mainland was annihilated, the US started a new independent reality, that sounds like a win to me. At the blurry end of the Battle of Britain, apart for reputations and morale, nothing else changed.

But the British military was not anhilated, and we could have chosen to fight back, we just gave up, not worth the effort with all othe commitments (just like the Germans), yeah funny how this argument suits you here.

you (badly) repelled a bombing attack that was carried on for several months, their command was tired to wait any longer on Goering's fail, they moved onto something else, end of story.

You gained some heroes to celebrate, both countries learned LOADS in terms of experience, soon the Germans forgot about it thanks to the early successes of Barbarossa. It was just a phase of a more complicated war, not a battle per se.

Ah so we fought badly now, what happened to the description of exemplary regarding our effort in an earlier post (yeah take a look, you really did say it), sniff...sniff....I smell hypocricy and contradiction again.

because in a total war the success is obtained only by complete annihilation of the adversary's offensive potential, subduing it to an unconditioned surrender.

That is a condition required to win a war....not a battle....loike the 'battle of britain' which was a 'win' for the Brits......grab that thesaurus....win and victory are practically the same thing non?

I tried to, and it was my original point, but then all kind of $hit started flying in every direction..
Uh and let's not forget this: the western civilised world is grateful to the Allies for the efforts they made to liberate us from the Nazi scum.

That s**t flew as soon as people started rubbishing any part the British played in the allied effort, like we just arent worthy of being associated with it....no for most of the Germanophiles her Allies = the US strictly