Foreign perspectives on the Battle of Britain

[buffnut453]

So no other country was assiting the UK , that alone crap is a peice of period propaganda .

See my post above. You're right. I've removed the word. My intent was not to denigrate the key contributions by Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis, Indians and others. Sorry...!

 

[Rosco P. Coltraine]

Other than using it as a useful opportunity to grab Gibraltar...which would, of course, have greatly helped the Axis.

Franco may have been as thick as pigpoo, but I hardly think he was stupid enough to put his country through the wringer more (and have its economy ruined by Royal Navy blockade) over the rock of Gibraltar.

Errr...and France had no part in its own downfall? France had the largest army in early 1940 while the BEF's contribution was, in relative terms, miniscule.

What a pathetic excuse.
How does that change the fact Germany whupped the BEF before letting it off the hook at Dunkirk?

It's not like 1914 when the BEF Britain can be proud of made its stand at Mons and halted Von Kluck's mighty right hook.

And yet it was Britain being kicked all over France?

Well how else would you describe it? a glorious outflanking and retreat from the river Dyle? a heroic decimation at Arras?

In the year 1940 Germany thumped the Ill-equipped and badly trained British expeditionary force with its bad doctrines no less than the French and Belgian forces. So your countryman's chest-thumping nationalist drivel about Germany getting its nose-bloodied by daring to mess with big scary England is hilarious enough without discovering the actual fanny-whisker the RAF came within losing the battle of Britain.

The Norwegian Campaign was a multi-national effort involving France and Denmark, not forgetting Norwegian forces. Again, why is it Britain's responsibility to defend the rest of Europe?

Not a clue, have you?
Actually it was the result of an VERY ill-conceived plan from Winston Churchill who forced a German invasion thanks to a naval blockade of the port of Narvik (through which Germany was transporting iron ore purchased from Sweden.
He thought the Royal Navy would decisively defeat the Kriegsmarine and thought that British (with neither mountain nor arctic equipment training) and French Forces would easily defeat experienced German and Austrian Alpine troops. And he forgot all about the Luftwaffe, and failed to appreciate that Admiral Raeder could've already worked out an ingenious plan for Norway's invasion.

The complete balls-up that was the Norwegian campaign (and the appalling Quisling regime Norway suffered as a result) WAS the responsibility of Britain.

As for your comment about El Alamein, aren't you forgetting Tobruk? Hardly a defeat. Oh, and we were fighting Germany and Italy at that time.

Yes. A whopping one victory. Oh and I almost forgot that tide-turning defence of Malta. Amazing.

Face it; Germany was on top of Britain for the early part of the war. An entire British 8th army struggled against a German armoured Corps.The RAF didn't even really win the battle of Britain, Goring lost it for Germany when he decided to switch from wiping out the RAF to terror-bombing the English population.
And at the end of the day Hitler didn't even want war with the British Empire. His focus was always on conquering the USSR.

Remember the USSR? it's that other country Nazi Germany went to war with from September 1941. You know, the one they dedicated over 90% of the Wehrmacht towards. Oh and the USSR was also fighting Italy... along with Hungary and Romania.

Italy had some considerable manpower and some good warships and prop fighters but overall their army was more of a shambles and less combat effective than that of Hungary.

Maybe your studies of WWII need to be broadened?

Maybe you actually need to pick up a history book?

 

[buffnut453]

If Gibraltar fell, how the hell would the RN blockade Spain? The Med would effectively be sealed off from RN operations, providing the Axis with nice internal lines of communication - Spain would, by default, rely on Italian and German shipping with other Mediterranean ports.

I never said the Norwegian Campaign was a success (it was an abject disaster). However, while Churchill was the arch-proponent, it WAS a multinational effort. There were French proponents for a Norwegian intervention, and French, Danish and British forces involved (again, not to mention the Norwegians).

I never said Britain was on top during the first part of WWII - you're putting words in my mouth. It was you saying that Britain got kicked all over France as if it was Britain's responsibility to defend France that got my goat. Britain sent forces to help an ally, France, against an aggressive, totalitarian regime that had been rearming for several years before us. But to say that it's the BEF's "fault" that they got booted out of France is ridiculous when the major combatants there were France and Germany.

 

[buffnut453]

Maybe you actually need to pick up a history book?

I would but I can't read.

 

[stona]

It also changed attitudes in the US. Kennedy's insistence that Britain would not survive became less believable and other voices started to be heard.
Cheers
Steve

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Rosco, you might want to tone it down here. Do not let this thread become ruined by throwing out insults. Keep it civil.

 

[parsifal]

After a lifetime's interest in the second world war this is the first time I've ever heard anyone claim that Franco had any interest in joining the second world war.

Spain was an economic wreck for a long time after their civil war. And Franco Hitler hated each other.

According to "Spain Under Franco" Max gallo (trans by J Stewart EP Dutton), 1973, he says at Page 79, "On June 14 the day that Paris fell, franco exploited that freedom. He sent a 3000 man force across the straits to occupy the free city of Tangiers....this bloodless victory bouyed him to exort the nation onto more ambitios demands. The slogan ""algiers and oran for Spain' appeared on spanish walls, and britains ambassador was advised repeatedly "Gibraltar para Espana" (Gibraltar for Spain). A few weeks later franco enthusiastically greeted a German mission whose brief it was to lay the groundwork for an alliance and a joint Spanish-German invasion of Gibraltar.

At Page 89, it continues "by mid August Hitler had approved Canaris's plans, and named Lt gen huertz to head the operation. Hitler also continued to press Franco to join the Axis alliance at once.....Franco however had had second thoughts by thgis stage. He had cannily realized that Britain would survive the german onslaught. He realized he muct now extricate himself from his earlier enthusiastic committments.......he wrote a letter to the fuhrer lavishing praise on Hitler as a great general but also reciting a litany of Spains economic woes. Spain was starving and exhausted and if it entered the war, the british would seize the Canary islands. Stil , Franco stated Spain would enter the war as an axis partner if hitler guranteed the capture of Gibraltar, and agreed to cede French Morrocco, Algiers and Equatorial Africa. He also requested massive economic assistance from Germany, including the transfer of more than a million tons of grains....

Franco knew he was safe in making such demands as preconditions for his belligerency, because the price he was asking was too high. He knew that hitlers reputation would have been destroyed if he moved to break up the french empire. he knew that the demands for grains, and other strategic materials could not be met by the germans. The germans were left breathless by the Spanish demands.

As a reault of the British victory at the BoB Franco sent secret diplomatic notes to both Washington and London (at the end of October). He undertook that Spain would remain out of the war, in exchange the Allies continued to allow Spain limited access to overseas trade. Franco had realized that Allied control of the Atlantic dictated the ability to trade...."

 

[Edgar Brooks]

without discovering the actual fanny-whisker the RAF came within losing the battle of Britain.

It's now recognised that the Germans never came close to winning in 1940, ending with fewer aircraft than they started, while the RAF had more than when they started.

Actually it was the result of an VERY ill-conceived plan from Winston Churchill who forced a German invasion thanks to a naval blockade of the port of Narvik (through which Germany was transporting iron ore purchased from Sweden And he forgot all about the Luftwaffe, and failed to appreciate that Admiral Raeder could've already worked out an ingenious plan for Norway's invasion..

It was planned by General von Falkenhorst, not Raeder, and there was no "blockade" of Narvik, just three minefields, about which the Norwegians had been informed. It was, in fact, the rescue of the merchant seamen from the Altmarck, which persuaded Hitler that Norway had to be neutralised before the campaign in Europe, since it had become obvious that the Norwegians couldn't stop the British, if they planned a takeover, so the Germans decided to get in first.

The complete balls-up that was the Norwegian campaign (and the appalling Quisling regime Norway suffered as a result) WAS the responsibility of Britain.

'Fraid not; the invasion had been planned in February, for March 20th., but was postponed to April 9th., so Germany had always planned to invade. It wasn't until the Germans were well in control that the British tried to put forces into Norway, far too late.

The RAF didn't even really win the battle of Britain, Goring lost it for Germany when he decided to switch from wiping out the RAF to terror-bombing the English population.

For one side to lose a conflict, the other side has to win, and Goering was the Luftwaffe.

Remember the USSR? it's that other country Nazi Germany went to war with from September 1941. You know, the one they dedicated over 90% of the Wehrmacht towards.

It's also the country whose paranoid leader killed almost the entire officer class of his armed forces, and refused to believe the British, when he was warned about the coming German invasion. Until he was ready to get his backside in gear, his country suffered for his incompetence.

Maybe you actually need to pick up a history book

times 2

 

[Rosco P. Coltraine]

I can't believe you're persisting with this.

If Gibraltar fell, how the hell would the RN blockade Spain?

With the same thing that blockaded Germany - The Royal Navy. They didn't need Gibraltar to do that. Especially considering Spain almost had no navy to resist a blockade. And if they needed a supporting base Britain could've just invaded and occupied the Canary Islands without Spain being able to resist much. And whoevers hands Gibraltar would've been in wouldn't have changed the fact that it is a geographic choke point for shipping

The Med would effectively be sealed off from RN operations, providing the Axis with nice internal lines of communication - Spain would, by default, rely on Italian and German shipping with other Mediterranean ports.

Exactly how would Spain have stopped the Royal Navy from just powering its way through?
German and Italian shipping (not to mention airpower) was stretched to he brink as it was.

This historical "what-if" is pointless anyway as there was no chance of Spain ever joining the war to get Gibraltar.

I never said the Norwegian Campaign was a success (it was an abject disaster). However, while Churchill was the arch-proponent, it WAS a multinational effort. There were French proponents for a Norwegian intervention, and French, Danish and British forces involved (again, not to mention the Norwegians).

No matter how you spin it, the operation was a British failure. It was a British plan and was British commanded and the crucial failures are British responsibilities.

It it doesn't change the fact that German forces slapped British forces around in Norway. Just like they would continue to do.

I never said Britain was on top during the first part of WWII - you're putting words in my mouth.

I'm not saying that you ever said that Britain was on top. So it's actually you putting words in my mouth.
All I've done is point out that Germany was on top.

It was you saying that Britain got kicked all over France

Which the general consensus would be that they did.

as if it was Britain's responsibility to defend France that got my goat.

No. I never made any such implication.
I just pointed out how the British military go its pants pulled down in France. That's all I said.

Britain sent forces to help an ally, France, against an aggressive, totalitarian regime that had been rearming for several years before us.

What has this got to do with the fact British forces performed embarrassingly badly?
The BEF could've gone to war with Tibet, but it would make no difference if they performed that badly. The salient point here is that the BEF and the RAF put on an overall pitiful show.

But to say that it's the BEF's "fault" that they got booted out of France is ridiculous when the major combatants there were France and Germany.

When did I ever say it was anyone's fault?

All I did was point out how appallingly British forces performed in the early stages of the war. Where you've got the idea I'm blaming the BEF for the fall of France is beyond me...

 

[Rosco P. Coltraine]

Rosco, you might want to tone it down here. Do not let this thread become ruined by throwing out insults. Keep it civil.

Apologies for that. But I'm finding his tone a tad patronising and condescending (without much basis).

 

[Rosco P. Coltraine]

According to "Spain Under Franco" Max gallo (trans by J Stewart EP Dutton), 1973, he says at Page 79, "On June 14 the day that Paris fell, franco exploited that freedom. He sent a 3000 man force across the straits to occupy the free city of Tangiers....this bloodless victory bouyed him to exort the nation onto more ambitios demands. The slogan ""algiers and oran for Spain' appeared on spanish walls, and britains ambassador was advised repeatedly "Gibraltar para Espana" (Gibraltar for Spain). A few weeks later franco enthusiastically greeted a German mission whose brief it was to lay the groundwork for an alliance and a joint Spanish-German invasion of Gibraltar.

At Page 89, it continues "by mid August Hitler had approved Canaris's plans, and named Lt gen huertz to head the operation. Hitler also continued to press Franco to join the Axis alliance at once.....Franco however had had second thoughts by thgis stage. He had cannily realized that Britain would survive the german onslaught. He realized he muct now extricate himself from his earlier enthusiastic committments.......he wrote a letter to the fuhrer lavishing praise on Hitler as a great general but also reciting a litany of Spains economic woes. Spain was starving and exhausted and if it entered the war, the british would seize the Canary islands. Stil , Franco stated Spain would enter the war as an axis partner if hitler guranteed the capture of Gibraltar, and agreed to cede French Morrocco, Algiers and Equatorial Africa. He also requested massive economic assistance from Germany, including the transfer of more than a million tons of grains....

Franco knew he was safe in making such demands as preconditions for his belligerency, because the price he was asking was too high. He knew that hitlers reputation would have been destroyed if he moved to break up the french empire. he knew that the demands for grains, and other strategic materials could not be met by the germans. The germans were left breathless by the Spanish demands.

As a reault of the British victory at the BoB Franco sent secret diplomatic notes to both Washington and London (at the end of October). He undertook that Spain would remain out of the war, in exchange the Allies continued to allow Spain limited access to overseas trade. Franco had realized that Allied control of the Atlantic dictated the ability to trade...."

So in other words; Franco had neither the means nor the intention of committing to the war beyond that odd small acquisition for propaganda purposes?

 

[Glider]

I doubt that Franco ever had any intentions on Gibraltar, I have seen references in the War Cabinet minutes as early as May 1940 where Spain was helping the British with the evacuation of non essential people from Gibraltar. Had he been serious then he wouldn't have helped in this or any other way

 

[Rosco P. Coltraine]

It's now recognised that the Germans never came close to winning in 1940, ending with fewer aircraft than they started, while the RAF had more than when they started.

For one side to lose a conflict, the other side has to win, and Goering was the Luftwaffe.

Recognised by whom exactly? C'mon name these historians and their works supporting this new theory.

Because the last I heard the established consensus amongst historians (backed by an overwhelming weight of evidence) is that RAF fighter command was held by the knackers by the Luftwaffe before Goring ordered a switch to terror-bombing.

I'm not sure what Germany ending the battle with less than they began has to do with the bigger picture. Although I'd like to see the loss ratios prior to the Luftwaffe's switch to terror-bombing.

And I think you know as well as the rest of us that there obviously was much more to the Luftwaffe than merely Herman Goring.

It was planned by General von Falkenhorst, not Raeder

I never mentioned who planned it. I only said how Raeder had an established plan.

and there was no "blockade" of Narvik, just three minefields, about which the Norwegians had been informed.

If that minelaying wasn't a blockade in both purposes and intent, then exactly what was it?

It was, in fact, the rescue of the merchant seamen from the Altmarck, which persuaded Hitler that Norway had to be neutralised before the campaign in Europe, since it had become obvious that the Norwegians couldn't stop the British, if they planned a takeover, so the Germans decided to get in first.

'Fraid not; the invasion had been planned in February, for March 20th., but was postponed to April 9th., so Germany had always planned to invade. It wasn't until the Germans were well in control that the British tried to put forces into Norway, far too late.

So in other words; planned British action in blockading German ore supplies forced the German invasion.

This debacle was the result of a British planned action and under British command.
Yet somehow Britain is in no way responsible?

It's also the country whose paranoid leader killed almost the entire officer class of his armed forces, and refused to believe the British, when he was warned about the coming German invasion. Until he was ready to get his backside in gear, his country suffered for his incompetence.

[stunned face]

What has that got to do with anything? Does it somehow suddenly change the fact that over 90% of the Wehrmacht was deployed against the USSR? That for Hitler and the OKW Britain was seen as a mere sideshow?

It's as though you see all of this as some petty national peeing contest.

 

[buffnut453]

Norway was NOT a British plan, it was a multi-national plan, at least at the political level. Do you really think France would commit forces to a solely British plan? Never! And once again, the majority of forces fighting in Norway were, funny old thing, Norwegian. Why not direct your ire at them for not defending their own country?

I'm not suggesting Spain would seal off the Straits of Gibraltar. I'm suggesting that with Gibraltar gone and the western part of North Africa in Axis hands, the Straits would effectively become a no-go area for British shipping. Shore-based guns, coupled with even a modest maritime presence by the Italian and/or German navies (overstretched as they were) would see to that.

For France, IIRC the German breakthroughs were primarily due to tanks breaking through the French lines which resulted in a general retreat to avoid being encircled. Not sure how that automatically results in the BEF "getting it's pants pulled down".

My key gripe is that even when Britain won (eg the Battle of Britain) you infer that it was due to German mistakes rather than any success on the part of Britain. In other words it's a no win situation - by your argument, Britain's defeats show how inferior it was to Germany while Britain's victories are belittled, ridiculed or blamed solely on German mistakes.

The last factor you seem to be ignoring is that it's a damn sight easier to go on the offensive than it is to defend. By attacking, you can choose where and when to mass forces whereas the defenders have to hold the entire line. That's a much harder task, particularly when your main ally isn't particularly interested in defending their own country. The host nation suffered from a lack of any integrated air defence network, atrocious comms and leadership that was lacklustre to say the least. Germany had been building its military forces for conquest since the early 1930s whereas everyone else was seeking to avoid war and started their build-ups much later. Germany were better prepared for the war and, because they were on the offensive, were able to choose the time and place to attack. Inevitably that confers a key advantage. Even if the BEF had put on a stellar performance, it wouldn't have made one iota of difference to the outcome. And it's bloody hard to put on a stellar performance when the entire front line is in retreat.

Finally, what is meant by "embarrassingly badly"? Did they turn and run? Did they fail to do their best given that everything around them was crumbling (including the flanking forces that were supposed to help hold the line)? This discussion would be rather more mature if your language was a little less pejorative.

 

[Njaco]

This discussion would be rather more mature if your language was a little less pejorative.

Actually, it would be mature if it stayed away from personal attacks.

Because the last I heard the established consensus amongst historians (backed by an overwhelming weight of evidence) is that RAF fighter command was held by the knackers by the Luftwaffe before Goring ordered a switch to terror-bombing.

Goering ordered it when ordered by Hitler. A puppet really has no brains.

 

[parsifal]

So in other words; Franco had neither the means nor the intention of committing to the war beyond that odd small acquisition for propaganda purposes?

The quote doesnt say anything of the sort. Read it again.....it says after the fall of Paris he used the opportunity to take tangiers, and was initially very keen to take advantage of the spoils. as at June 1940, everybody expected britian to make peace following the example of the French. Franco believed that as well. Then the British refused to surrender and more than that, put up an effective defence aginst the the german air attacks in the late summer. By early autumn, Franco realized that Britian was not going to fold as expected and in fact was dealing the Germans a thorouhly bloody nose over south east england. Franco as a result of that reversed his earlier enthusiastic support and belligerent stance, and backed right away from siding with the germans. A direct result of Britains victory in the BoB.

Spain had more means to fight than is suggested in his letter. The letter is a classic excercise of obfuscation, as Franco realized the germans did not have the slam dunk lay down mezzaire hand that he had first thought.

So, now i have given you some quoted material, and taken to time to explain exactly what that material means. You are saying that Franco lacked the means and never intended to go to war. Perhaps you should give some alternative material now for consideration, or is it true what they are saying that you are all just froth and bubble?

Just so we are clear, this is the position given by Gallo. Franco was strictly neutral before the fall of france, and returned to a somewhat pro-axis neutrality after the battle Of Britain. Between the fall of France, and failure to subdue the British....about three months, Spain was enthusiastic in its support of the germans, and possessed more means than she was prepared to let on. But it is true that Spain was in deep trouble economically, after the Civil War....Im not arguing otherwise. What I am saying is that Franco ever the realist was following the direction of the wind in 1940, and contrary to his post June assessment, Britain not only survived, it had a number of victories that convinced Franco not to join the Axis. oner of those victories was over Britain, which you deny ever happened I see. Other victories that influenced Franco were achieved at taranto, in Abysynnia and North Africa. Britain's aggressive stance at sea, particularly in the Med, convinced Franco he needed to stay neutral. If history had played otherwise, he would have changed his position accordingly

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Recognised by whom exactly? C'mon name these historians and their works supporting this new theory..

Stephen Bungay "The Most Dangerous Enemy"; James Holland "Battle of Britain"; Patrick Bishop "Battle of Britain"; Dilip Sarkar "How the Spitfire Won the Battle of Britain"; plus sundry government files in our National Archives in London.

Because the last I heard the established consensus amongst historians (backed by an overwhelming weight of evidence) is that RAF fighter command was held by the knackers by the Luftwaffe before Goring ordered a switch to terror-bombing.

Even though they only managed to close one airfield for 24 hours, and had to give up daylight attacks on the north and midlands? And the attacks on London were ordered by Hitler; Goering followed orders.

I'm not sure what Germany ending the battle with less than they began has to do with the bigger picture. Although I'd like to see the loss ratios prior to the Luftwaffe's switch to terror-bombing.

We've already established that loss ratios really mean nothing, but only on 5 days did the Luftwaffe shoot down more than they lost, on two days there was parity, and on 8 intensive days the RAF achieved an average of around 2:1; it doesn't sound much, but the Germans never got near the 5:1 ratio that Osterkamp had demanded. The Germans thought that they'd brought the RAF down to their last 24 aircraft, when, in fact, they'd replaced losses and had aircraft in reserve. The Germans lost 2,698 aircrew, Fighter Command lost 544.

And I think you know as well as the rest of us that there obviously was much more to the Luftwaffe than merely Herman Goring

It was you who said that Goering lost the Battle, so I was just replying to that nonsense; as another has pointed out, it was Hitler who ordered the attacks on London, not Goering.
.

I never mentioned who planned it. I only said how Raeder had an established plan. If that minelaying wasn't a blockade in both purposes and intent, then exactly what was it? So in other words; planned British action in blockading German ore supplies forced the German invasion.

How, exactly, can a set of minefields force an invasion that was planned weeks before, and had already been postponed? You also said "naval blockade," when the mines were air-dropped, and no RN units were anywhere near Narvik.

This debacle was the result of a British planned action and under British command.
Yet somehow Britain is in no way responsible?

The Germans invaded, the Norwegians hesitated, so a British force was cobbled together, almost at a moment's notice, and failed to reverse the German advance. I'd say that the invaders were responsible for the whole thing.

What has that got to do with anything? Does it somehow suddenly change the fact that over 90% of the Wehrmacht was deployed against the USSR? That for Hitler and the OKW Britain was seen as a mere sideshow?

Trying to point out that we (and, later, the Americans) had to spend vast amounts shoring up a paranoid military incompetent, when we could have used the material for our own purposes.

It's as though you see all of this as some petty national peeing contest

You really can be an objectionable individual, can't you? Attack my country with ill-founded, or downright wrong, accusations, and expect a corrective (not offensive) response; you seem not to have noticed that I didn't refute a large part of your tirade, because a lot of what happened up to 1942 is indefensible, but, as usual, everyone talks about el Alamein as if it was all down to Montgomery, and forgets that the first victory was due to "the Auk," who stopped Rommel in his tracks.

 

[parsifal]

It also seems to me to be very easy to dismiss britains efforts up to the end of 1942 as ones of continual failure, because there were few offensive victories. There were plenty of defensive victories, and the fact that Britian survived is testament in itself of the ultimate victory in this early period.

Blaming Britain solely or substantially for the debacle in France in 1940, is demonstably unreasonable, and in detail is just plain wrong. There were 10 British Divisions out of more than 100 Allied Divisions in total committed to the battle. Where the Germans engaged the british formations directly there was a conspicuous lack of success for the Germans. The defensive effort around Dunkirk was first class, and one properly shared with the much maligned French I might add.

Britains army was outclassed up to 1940, mostly because it was heavily outnumbered. In the desert its armour was let down by poor doctrine and training, but its Infantry performed well enough. In the air, the LW never defeated the RAF, and saying the defeat was avoided due to Gorings mismanagement alone, is just so demonstrably wrong and hopelessly ill-informed. There were multiple reasons for the victory. I would place at the very top, the masterful defense put up by Dowding and Park, one of the most least understood victories in the history of warfare. I would also mention the short endurance of the Me 109, the advantages of the British Chain Home radar stations, the high rate of airframe replacements, fighting over friendly territory, the relentless attrition, and the list goes on and on. sure Gorings failure was a factor, but saying it was the only factor, and in particular appearing to argue that the British played no significant part in their own survival is just so manifestly unreasonable, and so obviously wrong it would be funny, except it is earnestly believed by its proponent.

At sea the British were winning. On the water and over the water there is no question. Below the water it was again simply a question of survival.....a defensive victory simply by being able to stay alive and viable as a belligerent nation.

So, whilst it does have to be recognized that the Germans held the advantage in fighting up to 1942, the inherent underlying tone and message that underpins the author of that statement......that Britains efforts were hopeless and laughable in some way are clearly wide of the mark. In the fighting up to the end of 1942, Britian has to be counted as the overall winner....not because she had defeated Germany, or even that she was winning more than she lost, but because despite Germany's best efforts, the British were still in the fight, and by the end of 1942 had friends that could help her.

Germany had expended a lot of blood and a lot of treasure, had brought big enemies into the battle, and not defeated any of them or achieved outcomes that could change the strategic landscape. At least some of that avoidance of defeat was the reault of British efforts. Britain was therefore, the strategic victor in those terrible battles up to the end of 1942.

 

[Njaco]

In the fighting up to the end of 1942, Britian has to be counted as the overall winner....not because she had defeated Germany, or even that she was winning more than she lost, but because despite Germany's best efforts, the British were still in the fight, and by the end of 1942 had friends that could help her.

Maybe not a win but a draw perhaps?

 

[stona]

Exactly Parsifal. Dowding's intention in what we call the Battle of Britain was not to destroy the Luftwaffe. It was for Fighter Command to survive until November 1940 when the weather would preclude an invasion. In this he was successful,he achieved his objectives,the RAF won. It's really not that complicated.
Cheers
Steve