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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Hello again.......so because there was no 'battle' and there was 'no end' therefore no 'victory' and no 'defeat' how exactly could there even be a 'draw', one could consider the 'end' was the point German air operations ceased, no need for anhilation (thats an end of war scenario)

I think what we have achieved with this thread is merely pointing out theres a very fine line between definitions over this event, and it seems hardly worth the effort trying to prove the alternate history, it's still going to be one of the largest air 'battles' of the second world war which gives it enough significance, I know it's upsetting for many to consider the British came of victorious, but what can we do.

aawww come on mate, it's not a matter of who's victorious, for an historian it's firstly a matter of mechanics, not feelings.

If we look at the aerial battle numbers, both had similar losses, and the end of the big daily air operations was anyway asynchronous with the Blitz itself.

There's too much of a blurred line there, there's no breaking of frontlines, loss or gain or territory, disbandment of an army or any other sign that would identify it as a battle. It was an intensification of aerial defence over a few months, depicted by propaganda (and rightly so for the sake of morale) as a "battle", which had an old fashioned yet appealing sound to it, especially cos the perception was one of victory. But it didn't last long unfortunately, cos the bombing of civilian targets continued

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

aawww come on mate, it's not a matter of who's victorious, for an historian it's firstly a matter of mechanics, not feelings.

If we look at the aerial battle numbers, both had similar losses, and the end of the big daily air operations was anyway asynchronous with the Blitz itself.

There's too much of a blurred line there, there's no breaking of frontlines, loss or gain or territory, disbandment of an army or any other sign that would identify it as a battle. It was an intensification of aerial defence over a few months, depicted by propaganda (and rightly so for the sake of morale) as a "battle", which had an old fashioned yet appealing sound to it, especially cos the perception was one of victory. But it didn't last long unfortunately, cos the bombing of civilian targets continued

Well to be honest I'm sold on all the 'historian perspective' stuff, I have to agree, but humans were involved so feelings are a 'factor', morale is a factor in conflict, it's another weapon in the armoury.
so German Morale 'had' to be affected by the first bit of resistance they got, the losses they suffered, it must have been a contributing factor to the decision to pack up the Bratwurst rations and send them east.

for 3 months the British fought almost expecting to lose, we didn't give up.

What I'm asking you Stern is maybe to get back in touch with your 'human' side instead of the robotic historian, and see how it feels.....

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

So if it wasn't a battle by your definition it was a campaign

definition: A series of military operations undertaken to achieve a large-scale objective during a war.

Which ended in a failure on the Axis side and a victory on the side of the British.

The objective of the Axis was to get the British to sue for peace or destroy their capability to resist an invasion (depending upon who you listen to) , an objective that they failed to accomplish.

The objective that the British had was to repel the Axis attacks and gain time to rebuild their offensive capabilities, which they succeeded in doing. Obviously a victory.

Of cource battle would be equally vaild if you used the definition "A protracted controversy or struggle" and it does roll off the tongue better than the "Britain campaign"

Cheers!

yep, a campaign that was over when Germany surrendered unconditionally. But saying that the interruption of the aerial clashes over the Channel in 1940 was "the victory of a battle" is propaganda.

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Well to be honest I'm sold on all the 'historian perspective' stuff, I have to agree, but humans were involved so feelings are a 'factor', morale is a factor in conflict, it's another weapon in the armoury.
so German Morale 'had' to be affected by the first bit of resistance they got, the losses they suffered, it must have been a contributing factor to the decision to pack up the Bratwurst rations and send them east.

for 3 months the British fought almost expecting to lose, we didn't give up.

What I'm asking you Stern is maybe to get back in touch with your 'human' side instead of the robotic historian, and see how it feels.....

Trust me, sentiment is taken into account, but it can't determine historical facts

I believe in the importance of the celebrations for the Battle of Britain, if anything for the remembrance of "the few" and as a cause of aggregation and pride for a country, so I understand his moral and social value, but these aspects can't be of historical influence, it's a dangerous form that can take to a biased revisionism of historical events.

[bongodriver]

yep, a campaign that was over when Germany surrendered unconditionally. But saying that the interruption of the aerial clashes over the Channel in 1940 was "the victory of a battle" is propaganda.

By this logic surely that means there were no 'battles' at all during WWII

it's a dangerous form that can take to a biased revisionism of historical events.

it seems to me the only ones to gain from any 'revisionism' are the losers......food for thought.

[scotchegg]

Disappointing though it is to have to advise people who like to cite their academic experience / credentials of this, please look up 'ad hominem', and then avoid it when discussing...erm...anything.

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

aawww come on mate, it's not a matter of who's victorious, for an historian it's firstly a matter of mechanics, not feelings.

If we look at the aerial battle numbers, both had similar losses, and the end of the big daily air operations was anyway asynchronous with the Blitz itself.

There's too much of a blurred line there, there's no breaking of frontlines, loss or gain or territory, disbandment of an army or any other sign that would identify it as a battle. It was an intensification of aerial defence over a few months, depicted by propaganda (and rightly so for the sake of morale) as a "battle", which had an old fashioned yet appealing sound to it, especially cos the perception was one of victory. But it didn't last long unfortunately, cos the bombing of civilian targets continued

Eh up, we have agreed to disagree but given the definition above.

Couple of things.

The bombing of civilians in the Blitz was to achieve a completely different stated objective from the objective at the start of the Battle of Britain.

And given your definition above where do say Trafalgar and Midway fit?

there's no breaking of frontlines: Tick for both
loss or gain or territory: Tick for both
disbandment of an army: Tick for both
Or any other sign that would identify it as a battle.... Well other than one side very clearly achieved it's objectives and one side didn't

Your 'logic' doesn't work Stern, sorry.

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by blackmme

Eh up, we have agreed to disagree but given the definition above.

Couple of things.

The bombing of civilians in the Blitz was to achieve a completely different stated objective from the objective at the start of the Battle of Britain.

And given your definition above where do say Trafalgar and Midway fit?

there's no breaking of frontlines: Tick for both
loss or gain or territory: Tick for both
disbandment of an army: Tick for both
Or any other sign that would identify it as a battle.... Well other than one side very clearly achieved it's objectives and one side didn't

Your 'logic' doesn't work Stern, sorry.

Regards Mike

I'm not an expert on Trafalgar, so I can't give you an assessment for that one, but Midway was indeed a gain of territory (it wasn't land per se, it was ocean control), and indeed the losses sustained by the Japanese were a critical hit from which they never fully recovered (unlike Germany in 1940).

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm not an expert on Trafalgar, so I can't give you an assessment for that one, but Midway was indeed a gain of territory (it wasn't land per se, it was ocean control), and indeed the losses sustained by the Japanese were a critical hit from which they never fully recovered (unlike Germany in 1940).

Your having a wriggle aren't you Stern you really are!

LOL

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

guys, really, there's no point, just leave it.

You don't WANT to be objective, it's your issue, not mine.

I know I can discern from national sentiment and history, hindsight and the danger of it, you guys just don't seem to.

What surprises me is that instead of looking into a different approach to the issue and try to understand where it comes from, you diminish it as rubbish, thinking that your being right is in your numbers and being louder (or in several cases, offensive).

This kind of attitude is really dangerous for the sake of history, but then again it seems to be a recurrent issue in historical circles anyway.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

guys, really, there's no point, just leave it.

You don't WANT to be objective, it's your issue, not mine.

I know I can discern from national sentiment and history, hindsight and the danger of it, you guys just don't seem to.

What surprises me is that instead of looking into a different approach to the issue and try to understand where it comes from, you diminish it as rubbish, thinking that your being right is in your numbers and being louder (or in several cases, offensive).

This kind of attitude is really dangerous for the sake of history, but then again it seems to be a recurrent issue in historical circles anyway.

I think our point is...what was wrong with the 'status quo', why does it 'need' revisiting, not being funny but you give the impression you are trying to 'change' history and therefore are guilty of all the 'revisionism' here.