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

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Bingo.

It was Winston Churchill that spoke first on the radio about "the Battle of Britain", and it became the propaganda name for it, but de facto the air operations of Germany against Great Britain were just a part of the invasion plan, and the bombing of England continued up to 1945 with V1s and V2s.

The glory of the Battle of Britain is a modern phenomenon (you probably know better than me that up until the movie Battle of Britain the public opinion knew or cared little about it. So the idea was to pick up on a moment of national pride and dust it off, but it has been misinterpreted. Surely the brave RAF pilots and everyone involved deserve all the praise in the world for the fantastic effort made to stop the Germans, but the effort to repel the air offensive of 1940 doesn't mean there was a straight victory.

The propaganda was in need of a positive message, so they started claiming the victory of a battle that was perceived as such only from one side.

I dunno if I made myself clear, I reckon I should gather my thoughts and expose them in a more organic form. I am still afraid that national bias is getting in the way here. Nobody is depriving you of your pride or anything like that, it's just a case of a fair assessment of a specific part of the war.

Stern you have made some really interesting points throughout this discussion. But your comment about the glory of the Battle of Britain being a modern phenonomenon kick started by the 1969 movie is absolutely and totally wrong, laughable actually. The Battle and the 'Few' was part of the british consciousness from 1940 onward and revered.

I'll add an edit, I think you must have been trolling with that remark. Quite frankly its the same as saying to any American on the forum that everyone had forgotten about Pearl Harbor until Michael Bay made a (very, very, very bad) movie about it!

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Mike, I know what you mean, I found it silly myself, but it was was I was told by many people who were here in the 60s. There wasn't a lot of celebration for WW2 veterans 20 years after the end of the war.

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Mike, I know what you mean, I found it silly myself, but it was was I was told by many people who were here in the 60s. There wasn't a lot of celebration for WW2 veterans 20 years after the end of the war.

Stern don't confuse the overall WW2 remembrance with the Battle of Britain. It was and is an absolute part of the national consciousness and culture. I'm sure as the Few and my parents generation pass away it will of course dim but then it will take on a different form and take it's place alongside Hastings, Trafalgar and Waterloo. (all draws? )

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by blackmme

Stern don't confuse the overall WW2 remembrance with the Battle of Britain. It was and is an absolute part of the national consciousness and culture. I'm sure as the Few and my parents generation pass away it will of course dim but then it will take on a different form and take it's place alongside Hastings, Trafalgar and Waterloo. (all draws? )

Regards Mike

Mike, I remember buying the DVD of the restored edition of Battle of Britain, inside there was a short documentary with interview to the average people on the street, and very few could give a precise definition of the Battle of Britain: many had no idea, some believed that it was how Great Britain won WW2..

I think the examples that you mentioned are bang on: Hastings, Trafalgar and Waterloo were the battles that determined a final victory of one of the sides, comparing them to the aerial battle of 1940 over the channel is a mistake, since they weren't sub-conflicts of a much wider war.

After Great Britain declared war to Germany, V-E day was celebrated in 1945, not in 1940. In the grand scheme of things the aerial Battle of Britain was an early large scale attrition war, which ended up with similar results (apart for the thousands of civilian casualties on the British side) for both sides. No matter how hard you try to think of it, you can't really think of it as a victory.

In hindsight, considering what happened afterwards and how the war ended, you can say that it was a contributing factor to the ultimate victory, but nothing suggests that, had Hitler decided so, the Luftwaffe couldn't have carried on operations against Great Britain for longer.


Let's think of an example which might not be as emotionally linked as the BoB, think of the Battle of Kursk:

Russia lost 3 times the number of men, vehicles and aircraft that they displaced, but they pushed back the Germans and gained territory. It's an awkward situation, cos it cost them a lot more in terms of men and resources, but they managed to push back the enemy and gain territory.

With the Battle of Britain nothing changed.

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Mike, I remember buying the DVD of the restored edition of Battle of Britain, inside there was a short documentary with interview to the average people on the street, and very few could give a precise definition of the Battle of Britain: many had no idea, some believed that it was how Great Britain won WW2..

I think the examples that you mentioned are bang on: Hastings, Trafalgar and Waterloo were the battles that determined a final victory of one of the sides, comparing them to the aerial battle of 1940 over the channel is a mistake, since they weren't sub-conflicts of a much wider war.

After Great Britain declared war to Germany, V-E day was celebrated in 1945, not in 1940. In the grand scheme of things the aerial Battle of Britain was an early large scale attrition war, which ended up with similar results (apart for the thousands of civilian casualties on the British side) for both sides. No matter how hard you try to think of it, you can't really think of it as a victory.

In hindsight, considering what happened afterwards and how the war ended, you can say that it was a contributing factor to the ultimate victory, but nothing suggests that, had Hitler decided so, the Luftwaffe couldn't have carried on operations against Great Britain for longer.

I won't comment on historical analysis via DVD extra's.

It most certainly was a victory and a very, very important one.

No Trafalgar wasn't a final battle if was very much a 'sub conflict' (to use your term), it was a battle where both (three sides really) sides took heavy losses (both during and after the battle) and one that safeguarded the UK from invasion. I think the comparison is very apt even down to the fact that Trafalgar is IMHO has greater 'cultural' recognition than Waterloo and Hastings.

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by blackmme

I won't comment on historical analysis via DVD extra's.

why, because it's in a movie DVD? It's witting testimony, direct accounts from the 60s there for you, not a book written by someone, but audio/video reference.

It most certainly was a victory and a very, very important one.

The outcome of the Battle of Britain was very very important indeed, but it wasn't a victory..

I always get the impression that there's a weird conception of Victory here: take the Schneider Cup, did you win that one too? I'd be embarrassed to say yes to that.

No Trafalgar wasn't a final battle if was very much a 'sub conflict' (to use your term), it was a battle where both (three sides really) sides took heavy losses (both during and after the battle) and one that safeguarded the UK from invasion. I think the comparison is very apt even down to the fact that Trafalgar is IMHO has greater 'cultural' recognition than Waterloo and Hastings.

Regards Mike

the cultural recognition is debatable me thinks. What do you base it on, the fact that you have a celebrative square in London?

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

why, because it's in a movie DVD? It's witting testimony, direct accounts from the 60s there for you, not a book written by someone, but audio/video reference.


The outcome of the Battle of Britain was very very important indeed, but it wasn't a victory..

I always get the impression that there's a weird conception of Victory here: take the Schneider Cup, did you win that one too? I'd be embarrassed to say yes to that.



the cultural recognition is debatable me thinks. What do you base it on, the fact that you have a celebrative square in London?

To address your points

1.
I'm seriously going to leave the DVD, I think ignoring a vast amount of information and deciding that a DVD extra is the best source is just daft.

2.
What has the Schneider trophy got to do with this?

3.
Well the square, the preserved HMS Victory, the currency (up to quite recently), the Trafalgar day celebrations (widely celebrated on the 200th anniversary) , the beer... hmmmmmm beer etc, etc.

Regards Mike

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

In the grand scheme of things the aerial Battle of Britain was an early large scale attrition war, which ended up with similar results (apart for the thousands of civilian casualties on the British side) for both sides. No matter how hard you try to think of it, you can't really think of it as a victory.

It is a victory, it's not as obvious because there was no mass surrender, or no symbolic flag raising, or no territory gained. However it was a victory. If one side achieves thier goal and the other dosn't, it's not a draw. It was a battle for air supremacy ,'to destroy Fighter Command, in the air and on the ground', not part of the invasion, the invasion was dependant on the outcome of the air battle.

It was also a big confidence boost, Britain had 'stood firm', the first country in Europe to do so. I can, and do, think of it as a victory, quite small in the scheme of things, numbers wise, but vital. It was also a battle that favoured the defenders, for all sorts of reasons, not least The Channel, but we've had that for centuries, the Island Mentality.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

In hindsight, considering what happened afterwards and how the war ended, you can say that it was a contributing factor to the ultimate victory, but nothing suggests that, had Hitler decided so, the Luftwaffe couldn't have carried on operations against Great Britain for longer.

You cannot ignore the complete failure of German high command, they are after all part of the battle. The ifs and maybes can never be known. All we do know is that Hitler and his generals never returned to try and finish off Fighter Command.

I know we've got previous and I'd like to keep this civil, if it wasn't a draw, and the LW didn't achive their objective how can you say that it was'nt a victory, if not for Britain, then at the very least for Fighter Command. They did their job. The LW couldn't.

[bongodriver]

Exactly, the Nazi's blitzed across europe as if nothing stood in their way, but got their first taste of resistance from us on our doorstep......but I think the penny has dropped....it wasn't a victory because of our efforts.....it was the tea, nothing seems to be more repugnant to a German than our love of tea, see how many times in this forum a German has tried to insult a brit over our tea drinking.....I guess it's like garlic for vampires.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

It is a victory, it's not as obvious because there was no mass surrender, or no symbolic flag raising, or no territory gained. However it was a victory. If one side achieves thier goal and the other dosn't, it's not a draw. It was a battle for air supremacy ,'to destroy Fighter Command, in the air and on the ground', not part of the invasion, the invasion was dependant on the outcome of the air battle.

Great Britain achieved its goal when Germany surrendered.

Guys, how can you possibly not see that after fighting for months over the Channel, the RAF paid a HUGE price in terms of aeroplanes and above all pilots, and so did Germany, but the Luftwaffe had its forces in Africa, Greece, Russia, Norway and mainland Europe? How can that be a defeat? It was a large scale skirmish, which produced almost equal losses and became relevant only when the USA joined and used England as a massive aircraft and troop carrier.

It was also a big confidence boost, Britain had 'stood firm', the first country in Europe to do so. I can, and do, think of it as a victory, quite small in the scheme of things, numbers wise, but vital. It was also a battle that favoured the defenders, for all sorts of reasons, not least The Channel, but we've had that for centuries, the Island Mentality.

That I completely agree with. And I'm afraid that this "island mentality" is confusing the judgement of you guys, again I'm not expecting this thing to be understood by the common people, but people like you, who have an interest in aviation and history can't talk about this in terms of victory and defeat.

So what do you make of Pearl Harbour? Was that a Japanese victory? It was a part of a larger conflict.

You cannot ignore the complete failure of German high command, they are after all part of the battle. The ifs and maybes can never be known. All we do know is that Hitler and his generals never returned to try and finish off Fighter Command.

I'm not ignoring that, the German high command took wrong decisions constantly after Dunkirk, but this doesn't mean that they thought they were doing the right thing.

I know we've got previous and I'd like to keep this civil, if it wasn't a draw, and the LW didn't achive their objective how can you say that it was'nt a victory, if not for Britain, then at the very least for Fighter Command. They did their job. The LW couldn't.

I appreciate the fact you want to keep it civil, and I hope you see I have the same intentions.

The RAF Fighter Command was put in front of an extremely steep learning curve, truth is that the RAF flew and fought with territorial advantage and had to employ only figthers, not bombers or other complex aircraft.

The opposition they put up against the Germans was exemplar, but in some phases desperate. Still their determination together with the ineptitude of the German command meant that they could put up a fight with inferior machines and still be able to limit damage.

In some way they were given a task somehow simpler than the German one: they knew what what they were defending, the Germans didn't really know what they were attacking.