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

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

aawww come on mate, it's not a matter of who's victorious, for an historian it's firstly a matter of mechanics, not feelings.

If we look at the aerial battle numbers, both had similar losses, and the end of the big daily air operations was anyway asynchronous with the Blitz itself.

There's too much of a blurred line there, there's no breaking of frontlines, loss or gain or territory, disbandment of an army or any other sign that would identify it as a battle. It was an intensification of aerial defence over a few months, depicted by propaganda (and rightly so for the sake of morale) as a "battle", which had an old fashioned yet appealing sound to it, especially cos the perception was one of victory. But it didn't last long unfortunately, cos the bombing of civilian targets continued

Eh up, we have agreed to disagree but given the definition above.

Couple of things.

The bombing of civilians in the Blitz was to achieve a completely different stated objective from the objective at the start of the Battle of Britain.

And given your definition above where do say Trafalgar and Midway fit?

there's no breaking of frontlines: Tick for both
loss or gain or territory: Tick for both
disbandment of an army: Tick for both
Or any other sign that would identify it as a battle.... Well other than one side very clearly achieved it's objectives and one side didn't

Your 'logic' doesn't work Stern, sorry.

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by blackmme

Eh up, we have agreed to disagree but given the definition above.

Couple of things.

The bombing of civilians in the Blitz was to achieve a completely different stated objective from the objective at the start of the Battle of Britain.

And given your definition above where do say Trafalgar and Midway fit?

there's no breaking of frontlines: Tick for both
loss or gain or territory: Tick for both
disbandment of an army: Tick for both
Or any other sign that would identify it as a battle.... Well other than one side very clearly achieved it's objectives and one side didn't

Your 'logic' doesn't work Stern, sorry.

Regards Mike

I'm not an expert on Trafalgar, so I can't give you an assessment for that one, but Midway was indeed a gain of territory (it wasn't land per se, it was ocean control), and indeed the losses sustained by the Japanese were a critical hit from which they never fully recovered (unlike Germany in 1940).

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm not an expert on Trafalgar, so I can't give you an assessment for that one, but Midway was indeed a gain of territory (it wasn't land per se, it was ocean control), and indeed the losses sustained by the Japanese were a critical hit from which they never fully recovered (unlike Germany in 1940).

Your having a wriggle aren't you Stern you really are!

LOL

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

guys, really, there's no point, just leave it.

You don't WANT to be objective, it's your issue, not mine.

I know I can discern from national sentiment and history, hindsight and the danger of it, you guys just don't seem to.

What surprises me is that instead of looking into a different approach to the issue and try to understand where it comes from, you diminish it as rubbish, thinking that your being right is in your numbers and being louder (or in several cases, offensive).

This kind of attitude is really dangerous for the sake of history, but then again it seems to be a recurrent issue in historical circles anyway.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

guys, really, there's no point, just leave it.

You don't WANT to be objective, it's your issue, not mine.

I know I can discern from national sentiment and history, hindsight and the danger of it, you guys just don't seem to.

What surprises me is that instead of looking into a different approach to the issue and try to understand where it comes from, you diminish it as rubbish, thinking that your being right is in your numbers and being louder (or in several cases, offensive).

This kind of attitude is really dangerous for the sake of history, but then again it seems to be a recurrent issue in historical circles anyway.

I think our point is...what was wrong with the 'status quo', why does it 'need' revisiting, not being funny but you give the impression you are trying to 'change' history and therefore are guilty of all the 'revisionism' here.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

I think our point is...what was wrong with the 'status quo', why does it 'need' revisiting, not being funny but you give the impression you are trying to 'change' history and therefore are guilty of all the 'revisionism' here.

as I said, there's nothing wrong with the public perception of the status quo, I just find it strident in a historical concept so broad as WW2, especially for an event with such blurred edges and different perceptions from the contending sides.

[bongodriver]

No it's not just the public perception, and the perception of the opposing side would be more digestable if it wasn't complete and utter 'denial'

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

guys, really, there's no point, just leave it.

You don't WANT to be objective, it's your issue, not mine.

I know I can discern from national sentiment and history, hindsight and the danger of it, you guys just don't seem to.

What surprises me is that instead of looking into a different approach to the issue and try to understand where it comes from, you diminish it as rubbish, thinking that your being right is in your numbers and being louder (or in several cases, offensive).

This kind of attitude is really dangerous for the sake of history, but then again it seems to be a recurrent issue in historical circles anyway.

With the greatest of respect Stern (and I think all of our exchanges have been respectful).

I don't think its because we won't see the light its more the fact that since defining your position on the BoB you haven't been able to sustain any form of coherent argument that supports it (and people have noticed ).

I'm sure there will be future discussions where are in absolute agreement.

Regards Mike

[bongodriver]

Stern....the only thing that prevents you being classed as a Nationalist in this argument is the fact you are Italian, but you clearly have some romantic vision of the Germans, which is fair enough, take the Nazi out of them and they were an incredible force and worthy of all the envy.

[planespotter]

I think this is good interesting article on BOB game hub:

Die Luftschlacht um England. Did Germany really lose the Battle of Britain?

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