Quote:
Originally Posted by Letum
I don't thin "Win","Draw" or "Loose" are appropriate terms. The Axis did not meet any of their major objectives. The British did not have any major objective other than a long term goal of gaining aerial superiority which they failed to do tactically, but gained anyway on account of German strategic decisions.
If your playing chess and one side does not have any real short term objectives other than surviving and being in a position to succeed in futures games and the other player gets up and goes off to Russia half way through, it's not really a "Draw" so much as a 'non-result'.
|
I would disagree that they didn't have any short term objectives, they're just not as easy to quantify. Preventing something from happening, whether by the enemy's inability to do so or by their deciding not to for whatever reason, seems to be a pretty clearly met objective - namely preventing Germany from launching any kind of channel crossing invasion. Based on when they were considering launching such a thing, I think maybe that could be a pretty short term goal met.
But I do agree that 'win', 'lose' 'draw' terms aren't entirely adequate for the result. Britain could claim victory based on achieving the result of defense. If you're playing american football, and the other team fails to score during their downs that is a pretty clear victory for the defensive side. However, Germany basically did reappropriate their resources and 'give up' the attack so in another way, you definitely can argue that the battle resulted in a 'to be continued' that never really got continued.
It seems pretty clear to me that EVERYONE won as a result of Germany not defeating England, though.