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

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by winny

So by that you're saying that if the LW achieved it's goals there wouldn't have been an invasion?

There was simply no invasion fleet ready within two weeks (remember

Long term effects of the Battle were that German High Command had to procede with the Russian Offensive before the UK was out of the war, the 2 fronted war was born. This pressured them into launching an attack 2 years (by Hilter's own reckoning) too early, which in turn led to the defeat in the East, surley even you can admit to that. Playing down the significance of the defence of Britian to make it fit your argument is silly.

That's all sounds very reasonable but the decision to move against Russia was not decided instead of carrying through the BoB campaign, but the other way around. If you read German papers (I suggest Klee's summary of sea lion, available at AAF Historical studies only), moving against Russia and postponing sea lion to 1941 was considered already in June-July 1940, before the air battle even begun.

This consideration was the effect of Soviet expansion in the East and the final straw in the decision was made in november 1940, after the Molotov visit to Berlin. There the Soviets suggested a "new order" in Eastern Europe which would effectively cut off Germany from all strategic resources. They hinted about annexing Rumania (oil), Bulgaria, Finnland (nickel) dividing up Turkey (chrome) and this put the two countries on an irreversible crash course much sooner than both would want. Maybe Stalin was just probing the Germans after their unexpected victory in the West, maybe they were serious, its difficult to tell, but the decision in Hitler's - who was actually quite desperate to avoid it during the Molotov meetings - mind that war with Russia was inevitable, and therefore he must strike first was made in November after these meetings. Barbarossa was finalized and authorized in the next month. All this had very little to with the BoB.

A draw would be neither side achieving it's goal. A win is one side achieving their goal. A defeat is not achieving your goal.

The German goal was to neutralize Britain, sought by various means (sea blockade, air campaign, the invasion bluff, diplomatic pressure etc.); this certainly failed in 1940. On the other hand I find Wilmott's analysis on the matter - Britain was not neutralized, but Germany was still an undisputable dominant position on the continent, which Britain could not hope to challange - that the BoB was from the military POV a campaign of small scale and limited significance, and change nothing about the strategic situation. It was however an important political/propaganda victory for the British, ie. that could encourage US involvement in the war (which was already taken as a foreign course by FDR regardless of Churchill, his problem was how to sell the idea to the US public and congress).

[bongodriver]

The German goal was to neutralize Britain, sought by various means (sea blockade, air campaign, the invasion bluff, diplomatic pressure etc.); this certainly failed in 1940. On the other hand I find Wilmott's analysis on the matter - Britain was not neutralized, but Germany was still an undisputable dominant position on the continent, which Britain could not hope to challange - that the BoB was from the military POV a campaign of small scale and limited significance, and change nothing about the strategic situation. It was however an important political/propaganda victory for the British, ie. that could encourage US involvement in the war (which was already taken as a foreign course by FDR regardless of Churchill, his problem was how to sell the idea to the US public and congress).

Now this is perfectly reasonable, us Brits only view it as victory in the sense we saved our bacon from the immediate threat, which as quoted does equate to a defeat of the Germans immediate objectives (for the first time since the start of the war) nobody ever claimed at the time that the war was won at that moment, but we can look back now and say it was pretty much the 'key' turning point, so why can't us Brits just feel a little satisfied that that fight for our lives eventually led to the victory over the Nazi's......you know...the bit we fought on our own (i.e. no USA)

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

There was simply no invasion fleet ready within two weeks (remember



That's all sounds very reasonable but the decision to move against Russia was not decided instead of carrying through the BoB campaign, but the other way around. If you read German papers (I suggest Klee's summary of sea lion, available at AAF Historical studies only), moving against Russia and postponing sea lion to 1941 was considered already in June-July 1940, before the air battle even begun.

This consideration was the effect of Soviet expansion in the East and the final straw in the decision was made in november 1940, after the Molotov visit to Berlin. There the Soviets suggested a "new order" in Eastern Europe which would effectively cut off Germany from all strategic resources. They hinted about annexing Rumania (oil), Bulgaria, Finnland (nickel) dividing up Turkey (chrome) and this put the two countries on an irreversible crash course much sooner than both would want. Maybe Stalin was just probing the Germans after their unexpected victory in the West, maybe they were serious, its difficult to tell, but the decision in Hitler's - who was actually quite desperate to avoid it during the Molotov meetings - mind that war with Russia was inevitable, and therefore he must strike first was made in November after these meetings. Barbarossa was finalized and authorized in the next month. All this had very little to with the BoB.



The German goal was to neutralize Britain, sought by various means (sea blockade, air campaign, the invasion bluff, diplomatic pressure etc.); this certainly failed in 1940. On the other hand I find Wilmott's analysis on the matter - Britain was not neutralized, but Germany was still an undisputable dominant position on the continent, which Britain could not hope to challange - that the BoB was from the military POV a campaign of small scale and limited significance, and change nothing about the strategic situation. It was however an important political/propaganda victory for the British, ie. that could encourage US involvement in the war (which was already taken as a foreign course by FDR regardless of Churchill, his problem was how to sell the idea to the US public and congress).

I keep seeing references to the outcome of the BoB being "insignificant". While I agree that it may have seemed that way to the Germans at the time, I would argue that from the West's point of view it could be seen as one of the most significant outcomes of the war. By failing to suppress the Brits the Germans were powerless to prevent the massive build up of the Allied heavy bomber force which caused such massive destruction to Germany, its cities and industry. It also enabled the build up and launch of the D-Day invasion fleet, without which victory (if possible) would have been a very Russian affair.

Without Britain holding out against Germany, the US may very well have focused its efforts on Japan alone. After all, from what other friendly territory could they have established such a huge fighting force and launched such effective strikes on the continent?

While I have a healthy respect for the ordinary German fighting man and the technology he had at his disposal, there can be no denying that the BoB was an embarrassing failure for Germany which tried very hard to beat the Brits into submission and came away with a bloody nose and not a great deal to show for it's not insignificant losses. It seems it is still quite a sore point.

Just my take on it.

BTW: Great job Bongodriver, I see you've had a bit of a mini-BoB on your hands here over the past few days. From what I've read, I suspect your prime antagonist is still in high school.

[Icebear]

Less than one year after the "Battle of Britain" Germany attacked Russia on June/21/1941 with 3 million soldiers, 3350 tanks, 7300 artillery guns and about 2000 aircrafts! IMO the Brits were just lucky that Hitler was an old lag and a hopeless ingenuous idiot who simply understimated the risk of a war on two frontlines and the importance of the "USS Great Britain". Fighting the WWI he should have been aware of this.

On the other hand; thank god that the Brits were lucky !

P.S.: But it seems they spend all their luck at that time cause as far as I know they still have no chance to win a penalty shootout against Germany

[bongodriver]

P.S.: But it seems they spend all their luck at that time cause as far as I know they still have no chance to win a penalty shootout against Germany

Not just Germany.....England sucks at football full stop, I make emphasis on England so I dont offend the other UK member states, terribly touchy subject in this nation..

[kendo65]

Finally, had to comment on all this.

Stern, in order to defend your basic thesis that there was no winner in the Battle of Britain you seem to have reached a position where your logic has become so stretched it is in danger of snapping completely.

If I understand your argument you are now saying that the BOB wasn't a British victory because essentially no battle is ever a victory, and the only outcome that matters is final victory in the war.

Obviously the Allies lost many battles on the long road towards final victory in 45, and ultimately that is the key strategic goal of any conflict. But to say that no individual battle can be called as win or defeat is bending words and logic too far.

I also want to comment on your point about the propaganda aspect of the battle - how it was built and used by the British at the time. It's undoubtedly true that they made maximum mileage out of the battle - and for totally understandable reasons. To understand the significance it is important to leave aside the recent scholarly debate as to whether the Germans had the capacity to mount a successful invasion or whether Hitler even intended to, and to look at the situation as it was understood in Britain in June 1940.

Germany had smashed through France and the Low Countries in a matter of weeks. The BEF had been routed and had abandoned most of their equipment in France. Germany at that point seemed to be invincible, possessed of overwhelming strength, and sitting just across what to British eyes was an uncomfortably small stretch of water.

Once again, leave aside recent debate as to the true capacity of the German forces to mount an assault or the intentions of the German High Command. As far as the British were concerned in 1940 the situation was grave and of the utmost seriousness. People expected an invasion to come. This was no mere skirmish or sideshow - the country viewed it as a fight for its very existence.

That the RAF was able to resist the Luftwaffe offensive and ultimately force cancellation/abandonment of the German capacity for invasion was viewed as a victory. The nation collectively held its breath in Summer 1940, and let out a sigh of relief when it became apparent that the invasion threat was receding.

This was a key point in the early stages of the war - for the first time the Germans had not emerged with a clear victory. The effect on British morale was obviously huge and this was built up deliberately with wartime propaganda. The Battle of Britain assumed a kind of mythic significance in the British psyche. Funnily enough given your distaste, Bungay's book does a great job of peeling back the mythic element cast in 1940 and succeeding years and re-evaluating the events from new perspectives - that's a key element in his book and one that I thought was done very successfully.

I also have to say that I am a little concerned that some of our German friends seem to have great trouble dealing with the trauma caused to their own national psyche by WW2. There seems to be a split between distaste and revulsion at what the Nazis represented, and an understandable patriotic urge to support their own country. So we seem to get an almost hysterical defensiveness mixed with shame concerning Germany's defeat. It seems apparent that some (maybe the younger ones) harbour a worrying tendency to want to refight the battles, justify or rationalise away the events of the war.

Sorry for the cod psychology, but I'm just commenting honestly on what I've read in this thread. No offense intended.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Finally, had to comment on all this.

Stern, in order to defend your basic thesis that there was no winner in the Battle of Britain you seem to have reached a position where your logic has become so stretched it is in danger of snapping completely.

If I understand your argument you are now saying that the BOB wasn't a British victory because essentially no battle is ever a victory, and the only outcome that matters is final victory in the war.

Obviously the Allies lost many battles on the long road towards final victory in 45, and ultimately that is the key strategic goal of any conflict. But to say that no individual battle can be called as win or defeat is bending words and logic too far.

I also want to comment on your point about the propaganda aspect of the battle - how it was built and used by the British at the time. It's undoubtedly true that they made maximum mileage out of the battle - and for totally understandable reasons. To understand the significance it is important to leave aside the recent scholarly debate as to whether the Germans had the capacity to mount a successful invasion or whether Hitler even intended to, and to look at the situation as it was understood in Britain in June 1940.

Germany had smashed through France and the Low Countries in a matter of weeks. The BEF had been routed and had abandoned most of their equipment in France. Germany at that point seemed to be invincible, possessed of overwhelming strength, and sitting just across what to British eyes was an uncomfortably small stretch of water.

Once again, leave aside recent debate as to the true capacity of the German forces to mount an assault or the intentions of the German High Command. As far as the British were concerned in 1940 the situation was grave and of the utmost seriousness. People expected an invasion to come. This was no mere skirmish or sideshow - the country viewed it as a fight for its very existence.

That the RAF was able to resist the Luftwaffe offensive and ultimately force cancellation/abandonment of the German capacity for invasion was viewed as a victory. The nation collectively held its breath in Summer 1940, and let out a sigh of relief when it became apparent that the invasion threat was receding.

This was a key point in the early stages of the war - for the first time the Germans had not emerged with a clear victory. The effect on British morale was obviously huge and this was built up deliberately with wartime propaganda. The Battle of Britain assumed a kind of mythic significance in the British psyche. Funnily enough given your distaste, Bungay's book does a great job of peeling back the mythic element cast in 1940 and succeeding years and re-evaluating the events from new perspectives - that's a key element in his book and one that I thought was done very successfully.

I also have to say that I am a little concerned that some of our German friends seem to have great trouble dealing with the trauma caused to their own national psyche by WW2. There seems to be a split between distaste and revulsion at what the Nazis represented, and an understandable patriotic urge to support their own country. So we seem to get an almost hysterical defensiveness mixed with shame concerning Germany's defeat. It seems apparent that some (maybe the younger ones) harbour a worrying tendency to want to refight the battles, justify or rationalise away the events of the war.

Sorry for the cod psychology, but I'm just commenting honestly on what I've read in this thread. No offense intended.

All he is saying that an historians definition of victory differs from that of an armchair general, and that war is not a follow up of closed chapters but an ongiong fluid living being that does not care much about individual (national) interpretation of artifically set dates. Stern should have broken off a long time ago already as it became clear that this is a concept of history most people can't appear to get their head wrapped around. The rest of the post is rather sad..

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

All he is saying that an historians definition of victory differs from that of an armchair general, and that war is not a follow up of closed chapters but an ongiong fluid living being that does not care much about individual (national) interpretation of artifically set dates. Stern should have broken off a long time ago already as it became clear that this is a concept of history most people can't appear to get their head wrapped around.

Yeah - to me it seems to be a classic post-modern take on events - perspectiveless.

Unfortunately national perspective counts for a lot. That's what people have been arguing about for the last 37 pages.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

The rest of the post is rather sad..

In my opinion this whole thread is rather sad.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Yeah - to me it seems to be a classic post-modern take on events - perspectiveless.

Unfortunately national perspective counts for a lot. That's what people have been arguing about for the last 37 pages.

In my opinion this whole thread is rather sad.

It's not there for perspectives, national or otherwise, its there for learning mechanics. It's like looking at a car as a work of art or as a piece of machinery. The first is great for passion, the second is great for understanding how it came into being and how it works.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Yeah - to me it seems to be a classic post-modern take on events - perspectiveless.

Unfortunately national perspective counts for a lot. That's what people have been arguing about for the last 37 pages.



In my opinion this whole thread is rather sad.

In my opinion it's sad that in 2011 we still can't have an objective approach to historical events without someone taking the national perspective.

What you call "classic post-modern" (?) and "perspectiveless" is the only take a historian can afford to take on events. While at uni we studied propaganda a lot, but to understand the phenomenon itself, not as a search of truth.

In this thread I've been called names, I've been insulted by people that just popped by to have a go at the "high school kid", I've been accused of being anti-British, while all I did was motivating a point that isn't only mine, but of experts, historians and people of the time as well.

I'm not expecting everyone joining in a conversation to produce their qualifications (especially because we can all lie here), but one's preparation and cultural level easily emerges from what one writes, and frankly I felt a bit in the middle of a silly patriotic turmoil, but the wrong kind of patriotism, the one that sparks up only when some "old enemy" or someone else (read any foreigner) questions the pillars of your "culture". Britons are very protective of their heritage, and much rightly so, but are rarely capable of objective hindsight on it, there's a basic fear that someone somewhere is trying to deprive them of their achievements, and are ready to justify anything they say or do (or that the Kingdom says or does) regardless of it making sense or not. It's a very empire-like mentality, and if the old fashioned concept of empire has long gone, the mentality is still all there. I've heard many here celebrating the glories of the past and moaning about the lack of glory in the present, and rolling in and out of that nostalgia for the past it's what's left for many. I don't find this wrong, but it should still allow for some common sense and objectiveness.

My intention is not to deprive anyone with anything, brave people will be brave people forever, but western culture has been so biased in the portrayal of WW2 over the years that things have taken a very wrong shape. This is very dangerous, because it doesn't allow for an objective and unbiased judgement of history. This doesn't mean to me that the Nazis shouldn't be condemned as evil, but the Allies too committed questionable crimes and forced denial afterwards, so much that in a history talk meeting I attended some months ago, a gentleman arrived to define the city bombings during the Blitz as "not a war crime" simply to justify the actions of Bomber Harris and the drop of two atomic bombs over Japan, while there's no justification or theory in the world that will change the fact that these attacks were deliberate and a war crime as much as the German ones, so much that the 1949 Geneva Convention was all about human rights of civilians.

I've heard horrific explanations here "because it was getting boring" on which I deliberately did not comment, because it shows what little respect and objectiveness there is for the subject.

My take on Bungay is because in the world of academia he isn't (yet) considered worth mentioning, and even if my ideas seem to agree more with him than with James Holland (but then again it was semantics, Dutch or whoever it was picked strategically short sentences and put them out of context), I still don't repute his approach an academic one.