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

[bongodriver]

With all this talk of British inferior machines but territorial advantage and German leadership ineptitude blah.....we really just need to weigh up each sides wakness and strenght and it will pretty much equate to an even match....which the Germans came off worst from.

p.s. just to add I'm talking in that particular battle with the immediate forces involved and not the German military as a whole or their other conflicts at the time.

[bongodriver]

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.

testimony of a very few people, and it may have even been edited deliberately to give the impression, who can say they didn't interview as many if not more people who knew all about it? they just never got put into the final cut.

Go out on the steets of America and ask where France is (theres even a funny video about it)....it doesn't mean the US as a whole is ignorant of geography.

[bongodriver]

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.

By the rules of the competition at the time....yes we did.

Just out of interest, what exactly is the agenda here with trying to discredit every achievent Britain ever made?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

By the rules of the competition at the time....yes we did.

Just out of interest, what exactly is the agenda here with trying to discredit every achievent Britain ever made?

Yeah, racing alone while others deliberately didn't sounds like a great challenge uh?

No, I've listed before the successes and achievements of Britain.

[Sammi79]

The Battle of Britain was a defensive victory, Britain was attacked - and Britain defended herself - successfully. I call that victory. The Luftwaffe could not continue with the attack on Britain effectively after that point, for many reasons, particularly with the British technological advances in radar and communications, the poor decisions of the Nazi leadership up until then and after, the heavy losses of experienced German aircrews, the failure of the Nazi war machine to produce an effective heavy bomber etc... Most importantly psychologically the RAF now had the edge - after winning the Battle of Britain.

It has been mentioned here that Churchill did not perceive this as a victory which is wrong, - 'Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few' - was specifically describing the victory. Yes he later made a statement to remind people that this had been a battle, and although it had been won the war would continue.

Ok so losses of men and machines on both sides were comparable,(although with inferior machines and fewer numbers the RAF still managed to attrit the Luftwaffe to the point of defeat - not destruction but defeat) this does not negate the fact that, the attack was fought off, so therefore it was victory for the defenders. Tactical, maybe. Insignificant to anyone else other than the British, maybe, but a victory none the less. Many historians and academics regard it as a pivotal victory, pertaining significance to the eventual outcome of the war, I don't like to speculate. But in terms of the battle itself, it was won by the RAF and lost by the Luftwaffe.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

With all this talk of British inferior machines but territorial advantage and German leadership ineptitude blah.....we really just need to weigh up each sides wakness and strenght and it will pretty much equate to an even match....which the Germans came off worst from.
p.s. just to add I'm talking in that particular battle with the immediate forces involved and not the German military as a whole or their other conflicts at the time.

NO, they didn't. GB came off worst because of the bombing damage and casualties, the air forces suffered similar losses.
Imaging walking around Coventry or London in 1940 and say "hey! We won the battle!", how awkward and out of place you reckon it would have been?
The whole postwar celebration of the Battle of Britain on the British side is because there actually wasn't one back then, cos war carried on, and so did the Blitz.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The whole postwar celebration of the Battle of Britain on the British side is because there actually wasn't one back then, cos war carried on, and so did the Blitz.

'The official Government publication called The Battle of Britiain, which tells the story of those glorious days when the R.A.F. hurled back the overwhelming might of the Luftwaffe between August and October last year, has proved of so great interest to the public that all copies have been sold out at His Majesty's Stationery Office, Kingsway, London.

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/r...reenwidth=1903

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

'The official Government publication called The Battle of Britiain, which tells the story of those glorious days when the R.A.F. hurled back the overwhelming might of the Luftwaffe between August and October last year, has proved of so great interest to the public that all copies have been sold out at His Majesty's Stationery Office, Kingsway, London.

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/r...reenwidth=1903

Which year is this?

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

NO, they didn't. GB came off worst because of the bombing damage and casualties, the air forces suffered similar losses.
Imaging walking around Coventry or London in 1940 and say "hey! We won the battle!", how awkward and out of place you reckon it would have been?
The whole postwar celebration of the Battle of Britain on the British side is because there actually wasn't one back then, cos war carried on, and so did the Blitz.

Now why do you think the two things in the eye's of the British people were two seperate things each with their own name?

It's because the Battle of Britain was understood to be about preventing invasion and the Blitz was about bombing the civilians with the aim of breaking the countries will to carry on fighting.

The british public well knew that they had 'survived' that the invasion hadn't happened (how ever likely it was) and they knew that the RAF was responsible.

If you had said to someone in London or Coventry (or many other cities) hey we won the Battle of Britain I fully would have expected them to reply 'But were bleedin well losing the Blitz!'

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by blackmme

Now why do you think the two things in the eye's of the British people were two seperate things each with their own name?

It's because the Battle of Britain was understood to be about preventing invasion and the Blitz was about bombing the civilians with the aim of breaking the countries will to carry on fighting.

The british public well knew that they had 'survived' that the invasion hadn't happened (how ever likely it was) and they knew that the RAF was responsible.

If you had said to someone in London or Coventry (or many other cities) hey we won the Battle of Britain I fully would have expected them to reply 'But were bleedin well losing the Blitz!'

Regards Mike

I'm sorry Mike, but the RAF was up there mainly to stop bombers, not to fight against Luftwaffe fighters. Although they shot down many, many others delivered their lethal load to hundreds of targets in Britain, making thousands of victims. Is that a victory?