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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

With all this talk of British inferior machines but territorial advantage and German leadership ineptitude blah.....we really just need to weigh up each sides wakness and strenght and it will pretty much equate to an even match....which the Germans came off worst from.
p.s. just to add I'm talking in that particular battle with the immediate forces involved and not the German military as a whole or their other conflicts at the time.

NO, they didn't. GB came off worst because of the bombing damage and casualties, the air forces suffered similar losses.
Imaging walking around Coventry or London in 1940 and say "hey! We won the battle!", how awkward and out of place you reckon it would have been?
The whole postwar celebration of the Battle of Britain on the British side is because there actually wasn't one back then, cos war carried on, and so did the Blitz.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The whole postwar celebration of the Battle of Britain on the British side is because there actually wasn't one back then, cos war carried on, and so did the Blitz.

'The official Government publication called The Battle of Britiain, which tells the story of those glorious days when the R.A.F. hurled back the overwhelming might of the Luftwaffe between August and October last year, has proved of so great interest to the public that all copies have been sold out at His Majesty's Stationery Office, Kingsway, London.

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/r...reenwidth=1903

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

'The official Government publication called The Battle of Britiain, which tells the story of those glorious days when the R.A.F. hurled back the overwhelming might of the Luftwaffe between August and October last year, has proved of so great interest to the public that all copies have been sold out at His Majesty's Stationery Office, Kingsway, London.

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/r...reenwidth=1903

Which year is this?

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

NO, they didn't. GB came off worst because of the bombing damage and casualties, the air forces suffered similar losses.
Imaging walking around Coventry or London in 1940 and say "hey! We won the battle!", how awkward and out of place you reckon it would have been?
The whole postwar celebration of the Battle of Britain on the British side is because there actually wasn't one back then, cos war carried on, and so did the Blitz.

Now why do you think the two things in the eye's of the British people were two seperate things each with their own name?

It's because the Battle of Britain was understood to be about preventing invasion and the Blitz was about bombing the civilians with the aim of breaking the countries will to carry on fighting.

The british public well knew that they had 'survived' that the invasion hadn't happened (how ever likely it was) and they knew that the RAF was responsible.

If you had said to someone in London or Coventry (or many other cities) hey we won the Battle of Britain I fully would have expected them to reply 'But were bleedin well losing the Blitz!'

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by blackmme

Now why do you think the two things in the eye's of the British people were two seperate things each with their own name?

It's because the Battle of Britain was understood to be about preventing invasion and the Blitz was about bombing the civilians with the aim of breaking the countries will to carry on fighting.

The british public well knew that they had 'survived' that the invasion hadn't happened (how ever likely it was) and they knew that the RAF was responsible.

If you had said to someone in London or Coventry (or many other cities) hey we won the Battle of Britain I fully would have expected them to reply 'But were bleedin well losing the Blitz!'

Regards Mike

I'm sorry Mike, but the RAF was up there mainly to stop bombers, not to fight against Luftwaffe fighters. Although they shot down many, many others delivered their lethal load to hundreds of targets in Britain, making thousands of victims. Is that a victory?

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm sorry Mike, but the RAF was up there mainly to stop bombers, not to fight against Luftwaffe fighters. Although they shot down many, many others delivered their lethal load to hundreds of targets in Britain, making thousands of victims. Is that a victory?

Yep sure is. The Luftwaffe's job (according to FD16) was to make an invasion uneccessary (by getting the Brits to the negotiating table, which Hitler expected) or make it possible.

It failed in both, lots of people were killed by bombs, lots of RAF fighters were shot down and the Germans never got close to achieving either aim.

The RAF succeeded in what it had to do. The Luftwaffe failed in what it had to do.

So yes that's a victory.

Is your definition of a victory that for it to be so you can't sustain any damage or casulties?

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by blackmme

Yep sure is. The Luftwaffe's job (according to FD16) was to make an invasion uneccessary (by getting the Brits to the negotiating table, which Hitler expected) or make it possible.

It failed in both, lots of people were killed by bombs, lots of RAF fighters were shot down and the Germans never got close to achieving either aim.

The RAF succeeded in what it had to do. The Luftwaffe failed in what it had to do.

So yes that's a victory.

Is your definition of a victory that for it to be so you can't sustain any damage or casulties?

Regards Mike

I dunno man, it's a combination of facts that makes me think it was a draw:

1) Germany didn't achieve its results as planned, but it didn't give up, it turned its attention to another front.
2) Britain did sustain a lot of damage by the bombing raids, which continued well into 1941.
3) There was no change in terms of territorial dominance (heck, channel islands weren't even freed until the end of the war!), just a war of attrition, with Britain sustaining more of the damage.

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I dunno man, it's a combination of facts that makes me think it was a draw:

1) Germany didn't achieve its results as planned, but it didn't give up, it turned its attention to another front.
2) Britain did sustain a lot of damage by the bombing raids, which continued well into 1941.
3) There was no change in terms of territorial dominance (heck, channel islands weren't even freed until the end of the war!), just a war of attrition, with Britain sustaining more of the damage.

1. It didn't give up, it just stopped trying... uhuh gotcha....

2. Yes but unless one of those raids had a nuke onboard it wasn't going to change diddly....

3. Yes you are correct there was no change of territorial dominance. Trouble for your argument is that one of the stated aims of one side was to affect a change of territorial dominance and the stated aim of the other was to prevent this!

And yet you think it was a draw.....

Regards Mike

[FFCW_Urizen]

ok, let´s not use the terms victory or defeat or draw. germanys goal was to force gb to the negotiation table or destroy gb air force to the point, that an invasion can be considered. since neither of those two goals were achieved, i call that a big failure at least. whereas england reached their goal, preventing air superiorty of lw, which i´d call a success.

though i can understand, why u say it´s a draw stern, with the reasons you have given, i on the other hand think it is still a defeat. yes they delayed their plans and moved onto another frontline, but on the other hand, would they have done the same, if "Operation Seelöwe" were successful? what if hitler used this failure as an excuse, not to lose his face? yes, it is highly speculative, but we didn´t live at that time, we only know, what historians found. but even a historian doesn´t know, what went on in the individuals head. we are talking about the us, germany, france and so forth, but we are not taking into consideration the personality of their leaders.

so long uri

PS: sorry, but since english is not my native tongue, my ideas and opinions are not as eloquently put as they should have been.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by blackmme

1. It didn't give up, it just stopped trying... uhuh gotcha....

2. Yes but unless one of those raids had a nuke onboard it wasn't going to change diddly....

3. Yes you are correct there was no change of territorial dominance. Trouble for your argument is that one of the stated aims of one side was to affect a change of territorial dominance and the stated aim of the other was to prevent this!

And yet you think it was a draw.....

Regards Mike

Mike, it's not the first time I say this (funnily enough it's always with Britons): I'm afraid we will have to agree on disagreeing over this matter.

Uh, since we're on it and since I provided some examples of what I reckon successful achievements of the UK, if anything to show I'm not following some personal crazy agenda of a discrediting campaign against GB, can you please give me some examples of historical, social etc.. events that you reckon Great Britain is guilty or should be ashamed/sorry for?