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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by blackmme

Decisive battle or Soviet victory Stern?

I would say the front line moving isn't that important (does it have to move an centimetre, a metre or a hundred kilometres to count?). It's a victory because the Soviets achieved their objectives and the Germans failed to achieve theirs. Same as the Battle of Britain we can discuss which was more important but at the end of the day that is subjective, the truth is they were all important victories in the final outcome. That they were both victories is beyond doubt.

Regards Mike

The Russians won the war when they were waving their flag over the Reichstag, you can talk about winning or losing at the end of a conflict, you can also talk about battles that influenced the end of the war (i.e. Stalingrad), but they can't all be win or lose, otherwise it'd be more a case of
the Germans advancing like this:

1941: win win win win! win win win! win win und mehr win!
1942: ach, was ist passiert? Nicht mehr win?
1942/1945: ach! lose! lose lose lose! Mehr lose?! Nein nein nein!!! Himmel! lose lose ....

etc..

ww2 wasn't a football championship with scoreboards, it wasn't even the old fashioned way of fighting, with a frontline and one (or more) direct battle in one battlefield. Because of its different entity and development we can't attribute win or loss until the end of the conflict.

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The Russians won the war when they were waving their flag over the Reichstag, you can talk about winning or losing at the end of a conflict, you can also talk about battles that influenced the end of the war (i.e. Stalingrad), but they can't all be win or lose, otherwise it'd be more a case of
the Germans advancing like this:

1941: win win win win! win win win! win win und mehr win!
1942: ach, was ist passiert? Nicht mehr win?
1942/1945: ach! lose! lose lose lose! Mehr lose?! Nein nein nein!!! Himmel! lose lose ....

etc..

ww2 wasn't a football championship with scoreboards, it wasn't even the old fashioned way of fighting, with a frontline and one (or more) direct battle in one battlefield. Because of its different entity and development we can't attribute win or loss until the end of the conflict.

So there are no individual victories only final victory?

I guess we can now conclude our discussion (and look forward to the next one). I believe you to be utterly and completely wrong.

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by blackmme

So there are no individual victories only final victory?

I guess we can now conclude our discussion (and look forward to the next one). I believe you to be utterly and completely wrong.

Regards Mike

Under an academic, historical point of view, yes.

it's all down to how you scale your point of view on history. When looking at a conflict in its entire size, you can't take into account every single minor battle that happened, but only the effects it had, regardless of who felt like he won that day.

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Under an academic, historical point of view, yes.

it's all down to how you scale your point of view on history. When looking at a conflict in its entire size, you can't take into account every single minor battle that happened, but only the effects it had, regardless of who felt like he won that day.

The Battle of Britain was not a minor battle and the effect of the Luftwaffe not achieving it's aim and the RAF achieving it's aim (there are words for these conditions) are simple to understand, look at the geopolical world around you to see them.

Regards Mike

[Momod]

Somewhere in a parallel universe the Germans did win the battle of britain but there was no healthy debate over that episode because free speech, democracy and all the freedoms we know today would have disappeared 71 years ago, "Never in the field of human conflict......"

[flyingblind]

After Dunkirk, Hitler really would have liked Britain to roll over and say OK you win we'll just let you get on with it in Europe. As they didn't then Britain was far too big a threat to be left alone to recoupe and re-arm especially with the Commonwealth/Empire behind her. The obvious course would be a swift invasion as in France and Poland. The problem was the Channel or rather the British Navy that out gunned and out classed the German Navy and would blow any invasion fleet out of the water. The only answer to the British Navy would be to bomb it into submission and the only way that could be achieved was by gaining air superiority so the bombers could do their stuff. And that was what the Battle of Britain was about. Germany set out to destroy the airfields and planes of the RAF by bombing them out of existance. The RAF fighters went up to stop the bombers and the German fighters tried to protect their bombers. The odds were that Germany may have succeeded if Churchill hadn't ordered a bombing mission against Berlin in retaliation for German bombs hitting civilians around London. At that point the German command lost the plot and ordered an all out attack on London so giving fighter command some breathing space to get their act together.

If Britain had been successfully invaded then it would have been almost impossible for America to enter the war in Europe. Germany failed to get across the Channel and D-day was a mamouth undertaking for the allies. How do you suppose the Americans could have done it across the Atlantic? In the Pacific they could go from one island to the next building up a supply chain as they went.

Once America entered the war then Britain became, in effect, a giant aircraft carrier and staging post just off the coast of the European mainland.

Apart from a lack of resources probably the biggest obstacle that Germany faced throughout the war was her misfortune in placing a megalomaniac dictator and his cronies in absolute power who had a rather shakey grasp of tactics and resolutely refused to listen to those who had until he was forced to or it was all a little too late.