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

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by JimmyBlonde

So nobody actually has any evidence, anecdotes or documentation and this is 15+ pages of blah blah blah, my country is better than yours, right?

Did it seriously never occur to any of you to actually reference and research the opinions of the airmen involved or is this forum just a proving ground for baseless, opinionated hypothesis and personal bickering?

Apparently if you manage to find any information that backs up your argument it is just rubbished as baseless propaganda, to be honest I am standing my ground because I have found an overwhelming amount of literature that states the battle of Britain was germanys first defeat.

[JimmyBlonde]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Apparently if you manage to find any information that backs up your argument it is just rubbished as baseless propaganda, to be honest I am standing my ground because I have found an overwhelming amount of literature that states the battle of Britain was germanys first defeat.

I agree.

There's evidence in the documented behavior of Hitler (losing faith in and complaining about the Luftwaffe after Dunkirk/BoB), Goering (making accusations of cowardice against his own fliers), the reassignments at OKL (Kesselring being shunted to the Med to provide token support for Italian failures) and the attitudes of German airmen (Typified by Adolf Galland's Squadron of Spitfires remarks).

Clearly the reassignment of strategic priorities relating to Operation Sealion was not without some sense of 'loss' attached to it. The fact that Germany was forced, by RAF resistance, to re-evaluate their strategic plan also provides evidence that a defeat occurred and caused a setback which was considered insurmountable in light of other strategic priorities. Then there is the cumulative effect which the loss of resources had on future operations which is hard to estimate in concrete terms but can't be disregarded.

All of that is common knowledge which requires no reference. Some of it is interpretative or subjective but, overall, enough circumstantial evidence is present to make a convincing case for the argument that Germany (and thereby the Luftwaffe) was defeated in the Battle of Britain.

Further supplements to this argument can be found by quoting the Luftwaffe personnel themselves.

"The colossus of World War II seemed to be like a pyramid turned upside down, and for the moment the whole burden of the war rested on the few hundred German fighter pilots on the Channel coast. "

Adolph Galland in reference to BoB, clearly he felt that something was at stake during the campaign.

"...from the strategic point of view it was a failure and contributed to our ultimate defeat. The decision to fight it marks a turning point in the history of the Second World War. The German Air Force was bled almost to death, and suffered losses which could never again be made good throughout the course of the war."

General Werner Kreipe.

And by their operational orders.

The stated aim of Sealion:

"The aim of this operation is to eliminate the English motherland as a base from which war against Germany can be continued and, if necessary, to occupy completely. "

Clearly not accomplished.

The stated aim of the Luftwaffe:

"1. The Luftwaffe will employ all forces available to eliminate the British air force as soon as possible. In the initial stages, attacks will be directed primarily against the hostile air forces and their ground service organization and supply installations, and against air armament industries, including factories producing AAA equipment. "

Clearly not accomplished.


As far as I am concerned the reality of history weighed against those stated strategic aims is more than enough proof that Germany lost the battle. Whatever back-pedalling the Nazis did to make things look more palatable, or whatever pillow humping the Propagandists of Whitehall did to make their triumph look conclusive, is irrelevant.

To conclude:

When you set out to do something you can either succeed or fail in your endeavor.

Those are the only two possible outcomes.

Being given cause to renege on your original course of action and adopt another indicates a realisation that your original desired outcome can not be achieved which is a failure in it's own right whether in the soundness of your plan or the method in which you implemented it.

Nazi Germany clearly stated their desire to subdue Britain by force and tasked the Luftwaffe with carrying out the initial stages of that plan. A determined attempt was made by the Luftwaffe to do so in which they failed which is proven by the fact that their objectives were not met.

This is, regardless of interpretation, and in any sense of the word, a defeat.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by JimmyBlonde

I agree.

There's evidence in the documented behavior of Hitler (losing faith in and complaining about the Luftwaffe after Dunkirk/BoB), Goering (making accusations of cowardice against his own fliers), the reassignments at OKL (Kesselring being shunted to the Med to provide token support for Italian failures) and the attitudes of German airmen (Typified by Adolf Galland's Squadron of Spitfires remarks).

Clearly the reassignment of strategic priorities relating to Operation Sealion was not without some sense of 'loss' attached to it. The fact that Germany was forced, by RAF resistance, to re-evaluate their strategic plan also provides evidence that a defeat occurred and caused a setback which was considered insurmountable in light of other strategic priorities. Then there is the cumulative effect which the loss of resources had on future operations which is hard to estimate in concrete terms but can't be disregarded.

All of that is common knowledge which requires no reference. Some of it is interpretative or subjective but, overall, enough circumstantial evidence is present to make a convincing case for the argument that Germany (and thereby the Luftwaffe) was defeated in the Battle of Britain.

Further supplements to this argument can be found by quoting the Luftwaffe personnel themselves.



Adolph Galland in reference to BoB, clearly he felt that something was at stake during the campaign.



General Werner Kreipe.

And by their operational orders.

The stated aim of Sealion:



Clearly not accomplished.

The stated aim of the Luftwaffe:



Clearly not accomplished.


As far as I am concerned the reality of history weighed against those stated strategic aims is more than enough proof that Germany lost the battle. Whatever back-pedalling the Nazis did to make things look more palatable, or whatever pillow humping the Propagandists of Whitehall did to make their triumph look conclusive, is irrelevant.

To conclude:

When you set out to do something you can either succeed or fail in your endeavor.

Those are the only two possible outcomes.

Being given cause to renege on your original course of action and adopt another indicates a realisation that your original desired outcome can not be achieved which is a failure in it's own right whether in the soundness of your plan or the method in which you implemented it.

Nazi Germany clearly stated their desire to subdue Britain by force and tasked the Luftwaffe with carrying out the initial stages of that plan. A determined attempt was made by the Luftwaffe to do so in which they failed which is proven by the fact that their objectives were not met.

This is, regardless of interpretation, and in any sense of the word, a defeat.

Right. So.....how did they cope with it?

[#402FOX]

Its a sad state of affairs when reading this thread is more fun than the game

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by #402FOX

Its a sad state of affairs when reading this thread is more fun than the game

[JimmyBlonde]

Originally Posted by Snapper

Right. So.....how did they cope with it?

They abandoned their plan to invade England and continued with their other campaigns.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by JimmyBlonde

They abandoned their plan to invade England and continued with their other campaigns.

it was formally never abandoned.. Hitler was still blabbering about invading Great Britain in 1944..

[Al Schlageter]

If "Germany didn't achieve its goals as expected", then Germany lost and GB won, PERIOD.

Germany lost 1,922 aircraft (including 879 fighters, 80 Stukas and 881 bombers). German Luftwaffe losses from August 1940 until March 1941 were 2,840 aircraft. Casualties of the German aircrew were 3,363 KIA, 2,117 WIA and 2,641 taken prisoner.

The Lw never really recovered from these losses.

Germany paid the heavier toll as GB was not knocked out of the war. Damage during the BoB and the Blitz was quickly repaired.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

If "Germany didn't achieve its goals as expected", then Germany lost and GB won, PERIOD.

that's the tangible evidence I was looking for

Germany lost 1,922 aircraft (including 879 fighters, 80 Stukas and 881 bombers). German Luftwaffe losses from August 1940 until March 1941 were 2,840 aircraft. Casualties of the German aircrew were 3,363 KIA, 2,117 WIA and 2,641 taken prisoner.

Interesting numbers, but I have different ones

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

GB Strength at the beginning of the conflict:

1,963 serviceable aircraft

Germany strength at the beginning of the conflict:

2,550 serviceable aircraft.

544 aircrew killed 2,698 aircrew killed
422 aircrew wounded
967 captured
638 MIA bodies identified by British Authorities
1,547 aircraft destroyed 1,887 aircraft destroyed


So Germany had more planes and lost slightly more, but in fact it proportionally lost less aircraft. The huge difference in terms of aircrew is because apart for the 109s, all attacking aircraft were multi-crew (the skilled crew members like pilots and navigators lost were in similar numbers of the ones lost by the RAF).

As I mentioned before, it was attrition and it caused similar losses on both ends.

The Lw never really recovered from these losses.

the LW neve recovered from the losses of the Eastern Campaign, not the Battle of Britain. Thanks to replacements they still had pretty much the same number of aircraft when the BoB ended and Barbarossa started.

Germany paid the heavier toll as GB was not knocked out of the war.
Damage during the BoB and the Blitz was quickly repaired.

43000 civilians killed and 46000 wounded is small numbers to you?

Originally Posted by Snapper

Right. So.....how did they cope with it?

What do you mean with "cope with it"?

I think the Nazi propaganda machine tried to convince the people that the campaign was successful (don't forget that after the failed BoB, there has been the Blitz and after the Blitz frequent incursions of low level attacks if I remember well) so possibly the broad public was not much informed about an eventual defeat or whatever name you want to give it. And soon public attention turned towards other theatres of war. So from the point of view public opinion might not have been much affected apart from those secretly listening to BBC and not taking BBC programme for too much of a propaganda itself.

About the military, I cannot tell.

In terms of planning:
Well, I guess Hitler hoped that wiping the SU off the maps (which was likely his primary goal anyway) would take away one potential ally for GB and hoping to keep GB on their island until he had finished Stalin so a two front war could be avoided (the initial motivation for seeking a decision in the West first). It might have worked if the campaign in Russia would have ended in a German victory (not likely in hindsight imho).

Beowulf: This clip is fantastic. Lol, all the remaining sparrows are so curious and want to see the end of the fight. Lol. Good find