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

[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.

[bongodriver]

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

Well it's sad to say there are quite a few of these hairy shirted lefty treacherous worms that go around spreading that kind of crap in this country.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm approaching this with an unbiased historian perspective.