[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Great Britain achieved its goal when Germany surrendered.

So by your reckoning Stalingrad wasn't a defeat for the German Army? Mereley a setback? Battles are fought over objectives. Surley? There is a difference between a Battle and a War. Winning this particular battle enabled the UK to stay in the war, Hitler wanted the UK out of the war. How's that not a victory?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Guys, how can you possibly not see that after fighting for months over the Channel, the RAF paid a HUGE price in terms of aeroplanes and above all pilots, and so did Germany, but the Luftwaffe had its forces in Africa, Greece, Russia, Norway and mainland Europe? How can that be a defeat? It was a large scale skirmish, which produced almost equal losses and became relevant only when the USA joined and used England as a massive aircraft and troop carrier.

It was a defeat in the BoB. You don't measure numbers, you measure objectives. The LW's objective was clear, destroy Fighter Command. They couldn't. Using the 'nobody won because there were other forces in other parts of the world' is irrelevant. Whatever the encounter was, it was won by the RAF.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

That I completely agree with. And I'm afraid that this "island mentality" is confusing the judgement of you guys, again I'm not expecting this thing to be understood by the common people, but people like you, who have an interest in aviation and history can't talk about this in terms of victory and defeat.

It's Ironic that the Island Mentality is used against us, we're an island and it was that mentality which meant that instead of just rolling over, as many other countries did, we stood our ground. I'm wary of using the 'we' because I know that it wasn't me, it was my Grandparents, however by us having and using that mentality, you have the freedom to criticise it.. Such is life..


Was it a Battle, a campaign, a skirmish? That's arguing over nomanclature.
Nothing to do with the result.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

So what do you make of Pearl Harbour? Was that a Japanese victory? It was a part of a larger conflict.

Look, if you can't tell the difference between an attack (over 1 day) and a Battle then there's no point arguning this. Pearl harbour was attacked. It triggered the war in the Pacific, in which there were many battles. As far as the attack went it was mainly unsuccessful. Going by objective.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm not ignoring that, the German high command took wrong decisions constantly after Dunkirk, but this doesn't mean that they thought they were doing the right thing.

I appreciate the fact you want to keep it civil, and I hope you see I have the same intentions.

The RAF Fighter Command was put in front of an extremely steep learning curve, truth is that the RAF flew and fought with territorial advantage and had to employ only figthers, not bombers or other complex aircraft.

The opposition they put up against the Germans was exemplar, but in some phases desperate. Still their determination together with the ineptitude of the German command meant that they could put up a fight with inferior machines and still be able to limit damage.

In some way they were given a task somehow simpler than the German one: they knew what what they were defending, the Germans didn't really know what they were attacking.

I agree with all of that.