Germany did not lose the Battle of Britain

[revi]

Also amongst the German population was a strong 'denial' that there was such atrocities occurring at Aushwitz/Birkenau. Even today there are some diehards arguing this.

[nearmiss]

Hitler had a bigger problem.

Invading Russia

When German quit invading Britain, regardless of the reason it was a victory for Britain.

[deadmeat313]

On a similar vein, I have heard that the Germans have their own very different story to tell about the disaster at Arnhem. Bridge too far and all that.

Where the Allies see it as one of those "military operation beset by unexpected difficulties" stories, what the Germans see is that the British dropped their Elite Paratroop force in a major surprise attack - and the local Volksjaeger troops managed to contain, isolate and then defeat them!

To put this into perspective, try to imagine German Fallschirmjäger units trying to capture a British coastal town in 1940 (Lowestoft bizarrely comes to mind), and being thoroughly trounced by Dad's Army. We would bloody well never forget.

I've no sources to back this up. And I'm drunk, so I really shouldn't be posting. If any Germans can elaborate on this I'd love to hear it though.

T.

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by revi

Also amongst the German population was a strong 'denial' that there was such atrocities occurring at Aushwitz/Birkenau. Even today there are some diehards arguing this.

The American commanders made Germans from communities local to the deathcamps tour and see the carnage in the camps. They were planning for the denials, no doubt.

Sure enough, even with millions of witnesses there will always be someone to deny it ever happened.

We don't ever want to forget what happened. It will always be a stain on the conscience of nations that knew and did nothing. It is a reminder to the rest of us, the barbarism of humankind can be horrendous--- unchecked.
-----------------------------------------------------

Everyone is watching Myanmar, sitting on their hands and the Hunta is prohibiting help. The Hunta may just be responsible for the deaths of additonal hundreds of thousands of people for not allowing other countries to provide humanitarian aid. Yet, no one wants to engage the Hunta militarily, which is probably long overdue.

Then of course countries know if they send the aid without providing distribution of the materials the Myanmar Hunta will just make their own people pay for the aid... or die.

Is this any less worse than letting Eichman and his murders systematically exterminate people? The people will be just as dead, regardless of the method.

[brando]

"Everyone is watching Myanmar, sitting on their hands and the Hunta is prohibiting help. The Hunta may just be responsible for the deaths of additonal hundreds of thousands of people for not allowing other countries to provide humanitarian aid. Yet, no one wants to engage the Hunta militarily, which is probably long overdue...."

Whether or not anyone wants to engage the Hunta militarily is a moot point, but it's pretty clear that no nation wants to a) start another war in this region, or b) wage war against a nation that is struggling to survive the aftermath of a natural disaster. It's not as though anyone could launch a pinpoint strike that would remove the military junta without a massive amount of collateral damage among the innocent.

We're getting a long way from the Battle of Britain.

B

[Former_Older]

Originally Posted by planespotter

New article by Heinkill:

While the British regard the Battle of Britain as an epic struggle which resulted in a resounding victory, there is evidence that it barely registered in German consciousness in 1940 and is still of only minor significance today.

The first thing that strikes you researching German language internet or published sources about the Battle of Britain, is how scarce they are.

Partly, this can be due to the old adage, “History is written by the victors”, but it also signals that this is a chapter in German history which German historians and even aviation enthusiasts, do not regard the same way British scholars do.

How can this be? Read more!

http://www.freewebs.com/heinkill/booksfilmssites.htm

Revisionist history is often incapable of supporting itself. This is but another example of that

Did Germany lose the Battle of Britain?

Yes. Unless my memory has completely failed me, the criteria for launching Operation Sea Lion had two main facets:

1) elimination of the Royal Navy as a threat to the operation
2) elimination of the Royal Air Force as a threat to the operation

I don't have to cite History for evidence that Operation Sea Lion did not occur. We all know this. But completely apart from the invasion of England, it is very easy to explain why Germany lost the Battle of Britian:

It was the first time they faltered in Europe. They quite obviously tried to win the aerial fight over Britain in 1940

They failed. They lost the Battle. No amount of cutesy revision will sponge that away. making soft excuses like "it barely registered in the German consciousness" is nothing more than a way to introduce a gray area into the argument; it admits defeat by association and admission of something less than what was attempted. I'm sorry, but those are the facts. You can't call a defeat a victory by skewing the events 70 years later, so that it can be looked at in a 'certain point of view'. Germany demonstrably failed to achieve their goals in the Battle of Britain

Failing to achieve your goals in battle never results in your victory. Never.

if you can explain to me just how Germany's goals were achieved in the Battle of Britain, then I will agree with your standpoint. Until then, I will simply tell you that the entire reason Hitler sent planes over England in the summer of 1940 was not so that his young men and Churchill's young men could have a little football match- Germany's goals were not met, and not meeting your goals in battle is the definition of "defeat"

[ElAurens]

Thank you Mr. Older.

I really fear for the generations younger than myself, as they can so easily fail to grasp the obvious, and hence are manipulated by those who indeed would change history for their benefit.

[96th_Nightshifter]

Originally Posted by Former_Older

if you can explain to me just how Germany's goals were achieved in the Battle of Britain, then I will agree with your standpoint. Until then, I will simply tell you that the entire reason Hitler sent planes over England in the summer of 1940 was not so that his young men and Churchill's young men could have a little football match- Germany's goals were not met, and not meeting your goals in battle is the definition of "defeat"

Well said.

[revi]

Germany's goals were not met, and not meeting your goals in battle is the definition of "defeat"

I agree wholeheartedly. There is no 'grey' in what happened. It was a defeat because of all the reasons you have laid out. Any other way of looking at is pathetic. If you follow the other side of this argument, you might soon be saying, Germany did not lose the war.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

Amazing what revisionist nonsense there is out there.

Fact: Hitler issued a directive that plans be drawn up to invade and force the surrender of Britain. OPERATION SEELOWE As part of this plan, huge land forces were assembled on the English channel, complete with invasion barges, naval forces, etc. The invasion plans involved two German Army Groups, and hundreds of thousands of troops.



Fact: Hitler ordered Goring, the leader of the Luftwaffe, to lay the groundwork for a successful invasion by gaining air superiority over the English Channel and southern England. The means to this end was the defeat of the RAF.

Fact: After approximately 2 months of continuous aerial combat on a massive scale, greater than ever seen before in the history of the world, and after failing to gain air superiority, and suffering nearly twice as many losses in aircraft as the RAF, Hitler ordered OPERATION SEELOWE to be posponed indefinitely.

Fact: Because Britain did not fall, and the Germans were unable to invade, they were forced to maintain large forces on the English Channel during 1941, as well as being forced to commit troops in Yugoslavia, Greece, and in North Africa to counter British moves in those areas. The fact they were forced to waste time conquering Yugoslavia and Greece, and therefore forced to start their invasion of the Soviet Union one month late, has been pointed to as a major reason for the failure of Nazi Germany to defeat Russia in 1941, and hence a major reason why they ultimately lost the war. They ran out of good campaigning weather, and were fatally slowed by mud, then caught in the Russian winter. And of course, beyond their failure to defeat the Soviets, they then had a resurgent Britain, with the addition of the U.S., who were then able to invade at Normandy from the British island base, (impossible to invade from mainland USA) as well as devastating German industry with Allied bombers based in Britain, as well as convoys carrying lendlease to the Soviets originating in Britain. Without the victory of the RAF in the Battle of Britain, thus allowing the island of Britain to remain free, none of this was possible.