Germany did not lose the Battle of Britain

[Avimimus]

Originally Posted by Former_Older

You know quite well that we are talking about ONE battle, and my words are in reference to that ONE battle. I did not expand the discussion to include how a tactical failure today can or cannot lead to a strategic victory tomorrow- YOU have just introduced that aspect. I am commenting on the Battle of Britain, not the whole of WWII.

On one hand, it's quite insulting to everyone in the discussion since you decided to paint everyone with all the same brush, and on the other, it's quite a negative comment on me personally in regards to my intellect. Obviously you can see I'm a little aware of myself and what's going on so please consider your comments more carefully when you try to show me how dumb I am in the future, and think twice before you try to put words in my mouth

Far from being a "naive and dangerous" statement of mine, you have taken my words not only out of my intended context, but even out of the context of the discussion. I can't quite see how everyone else here knows exactly what was said but you don't, but I'll try to clarify for you:

I did not say:

Failing to achieve your goals in battle never results in winning a war. Never. [future tense]

I DID say:

Failing to achieve your goals in battle never results in your victory. Never. [present tense]


Is that clear as crystal yet? Are my statements now beyond distortion? I didn't say that once you lose a battle, the war is lost. That is a simplistic and wooden-headed statement you are trying to attribute to me and I'd appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth

"Tactical" and "Strategic" victories and how they effect the course of the war is not the topic. I am not here talking about the outcome of the war as affected by the dynamic influence of a series of campaigns. So my statement stands regardless of how you intend to twist and pervert it. You can't take what I said hours ago, change the topic to what YOU want to talk about, and then tell me how wrong I am. If you want to discuss how losing a battle can result in winning a war I will not disagree with you, but that is not what I and everyone else here are discussing

Please explain to me how the failure of Germany to secure their goals during the Battle of Britain resulted in their Victory in the Battle of Britain

If you can do that, I'll agree with you

My apologies

1. You treat me as being far too clever than I am. I didn't twist the topic around to another one, I really believed we were talking about another one from the very beginning. I take it your goal was simply to dismiss any arguments that the Germans didn't fail to achieve their goals for the Battle of Britain. At the same time I simply assumed that discussing any past campaign (despite having 20/20 hindsight) is essentially similar to discussing a present or future campaign.

In my mind you can't simply demonstrate what happened or why what happened was inevitable. Instead one must consider the full range of decisions that could have been made, their implications in the complex military/civilian environment, the failures of the command staff's understanding and a variety of scenarios (including counter-factual ones). This is a very different goal.

So, I was thinking about all of the long term implications that the battle of Britain could have had on the outcome of the war (as opposed to the the extensive failure to achieve the goals set by the German high command for the operation).

2. The key point is confusion over the term "Victory". I generally equate it with a long-standing sustainable success. It is the outcome of a war or a major part of a war that later has long term positive impacts on civilian policy. This is how I've always used the word and seems to be the main source of confusion.

3. This particular the phrase was also important: "Failing to achieve your goals in battle never results in your victory. Never."
This seemed to be a generalisation to all wars, past, present and future. Doing such would require not viewing a military action in the context of the larger, complex chain of events or civilian goals is indeed dangerous and naive. I suspect that you would agree with this.

No one familiar with military history could possibly maintain the position you seemed to be given the complexities of outcomes of decisions in warfare (no plan surviving contact with the enemy &C). I actually realised that it was very unlikely that you maintained such a position, but I was unable (for unrelated reasons) to return to the computer to reread what you wrote and to correct my post.

So, certainly the following statement is one I would agree with: "Failing to achieve your goals in battle never results in your achievement of your goals in the same battle. Never."

We probably are in agreement on most if not all points and this was simply due to a difference in the use of language and a couple mistakes in how the arguments were made (in particular my use of the word naive).

S!

[Former_Older]

I should say sorry too for being a little too...confrontative. I do think though that you should use my comments in the context for which they were uttered

[Roy]

Originally Posted by Avimimus

This statement is clearly flawed. This isn't directed at you sir, but at the whole room as many may share you're opinion. I might even say it is naive and dangerous. For one thing one doesn't always know what the prerequisites for or impact of a victory may be. In the second Iraq war we recently achieved our goals and it did not bring victory, in Vietnam we achieved goals for body count numbers and those goals did not bring victory.

Achieving goals and not being victorious is one thing. NOT achieving goals and being victorious is something completely different. Both examples you provided (that are quite the opposite of what Former_Older said) could lead to several pages of discussion about who won/lost depending on the point of view, but that's another topic.

While there may be cases where you can fail certain goals and still be victorius (extreme example: if winning a war implies being victorious and the goal is to have less than X casualties in said war, you can fail that goal and still "win") it is not the case for Former Older's post!

[Golf Pro]

French did not lose the Battle of Waterloo.

West Ham United did not lose the 2006 FA Cup final.

These things are self-evident.

[Avimimus]

Thank you, but I was the one who made the biggest mistake in the language I used. It serves me right for writing a message at two in the morning. I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone or derail the thread - I just wasn't thinking clearly.

Originally Posted by Roy

Achieving goals and not being victorious is one thing. NOT achieving goals and being victorious is something completely different. Both examples you provided (that are quite the opposite of what Former_Older said) could lead to several pages of discussion about who won/lost depending on the point of view, but that's another topic.

While there may be cases where you can fail certain goals and still be victorius (extreme example: if winning a war implies being victorious and the goal is to have less than X casualties in said war, you can fail that goal and still "win") it is not the case for Former Older's post!

Thanks, to amend my point: "Any action in warfare can have unintended and unforeseen consequences and implications, even to the extent that a victory could look like a defeat and a defeat could look like a victory". That is what I should have written and it is a relatively obvious point.

[Stuntie]

Germany lost the Battle of britain.
I can't see how you can argue otherwise.

Germany slunk away having lost, but was able to largely hide the fact for a number of reasons.

Understanding German indifference to the outcome is different to saying that they won it.



People prefer to discuss and research battles they won, or defeats that are seen as 'heroic' like Stalingrad. BoB was an embaressing defeat - they were expected to win, but didn't. Harder to come to terms with than an defeat by overwhelming odds.

It was 'somewhere else' not a war at home, like the air defense of the Reich.
No impact on the people, so of little concern.

No ground troops were involved so no reports of ground battles lost that would equate to obvious defeat. Defeat of an arial campaign not being really understood by the public at that point.

Events of greater importance soon overshadowed it (Russia and the defense of the reich) making it of less emotive power to the Germans.

So it was an embaressment the Germans wanted to forget, and one that affected few in Germany itself making it easy to gloss over, and given later events marginalise to further push it from their minds.

History may be written by the winners, but the loosers have a habit of glossing over the embarassing bits in their books.


It's big in Britain because we won.
It's big in the scheme of the war because it stopped the Nazi juggernaut.
It may be overshadowed in numbers by later battles, but was still a significant victory.

[Roy]

Originally Posted by Former_Older

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"

Agree completely!

[MarckCargo]

"The Battle of Britain" was easy to win by Germany. Sometimes over confident makes massiveness, isn't it. There is nothing good about war ever in the history as my point of view.