disagreement is kinda given for granted, denial is a different matter altogether.
You guys de-contextualise the air battle of 1940 as an episode per se, not considering it part of a more fluid, multi-layered and complicated warfare.
"THE Battle of Britain" was happening only in England, there was no perception or interest as such in Germany on the matter. Surely, you lived it personally cos you were the ones being attacked and bombed, nobody is questioning that, but it had little or no reach to the Germans.
You put up an efficient but desperate in some points defence system, which fortunately allowed you to put a marginal but effective limit to the offensive.
The RAF and Luftwaffe lost a similar number of pilots (The Luftwaffe lost more aircrew), and the numbers of the 4 months of intense battle show a similar number in losses proportionally. Let's not forget that the RAF sent up mainly two kinds of fighter planes and that's it, while the Luftwaffe invested more in terms of bombers and fighters.
Because of the poor planning and mistakes made by their Air Marshal, the Luftwaffe didn't manage to produce results as they were supposed to: the RAF was effective ONLY because of FAC and Radar, the real target that the Luftwaffe should have neutralised first.
Everything else is history of course, but the decision of concentrating the majority of fighters and logistic efforts over the Russian campaign wasn't an admission of defeat.
It was a clash, no different from the WW1 ones, the difference being that it was fought in the air instead of a trench.
Both factions were suffering heavy losses, stress and fatigue, but the British had the edge because of the defence position, they didn't have to cross the Channel to bring their offensive (they wouldn't have the means anyway).
Many people talked about "David vs Goliath", with the difference that Goliath didn't die, just lost his interest and moved onto something else. You want to call that a victory? Feel free, but objectively the matter is far more complicated than "win or lose".
The victory of the Battle of Britain was a perfect propaganda idea to celebrate a much needed victory after the shambles of the BEF and Dunkirk, this goes without saying, and of course it is understandable to be happy about the loosening of the attacks, but it's not like they stopped altogether or you managed to cripple the Luftwaffe.
Truth is that the Germans didn't perceive it as a "battle", it was part of an operation which was interrupted by the command as it was going on.
There is a lot of arguing among historians on the definition of "battle", and its sometimes lazy or inappropriate use, especially in a WW2 context.
It really feels like there can't be an objective victory celebration without sliding into propaganda, if you know what I mean.
I don't want to deprive anyone of their finest hour, but this whole concept of "winning" makes me think of Charlie Sheen's winning, more than the real victory that was celebrated on V-Day.
|