What was the significance of the battle of britain?
438294
There were several significances, political and military.\n\nPolitically, of course, it showed that Germany was not invulnerable and that air power was not going to conquer the world on its own. The Luftwaffe was shown to have vulnerabilities.\n\nMilitarily, Germany suffered losses in pilots and trained air crews that she could never recover from, while the losses in aircraft were temporary. New airplanes can be built relatively quickly, but the training of people is much more complicated. Every German airman who was lost over Britain was a permanent loss, because even if he survived the battle he could not avoid capture. If a British airman, on the other hand, were shot down and survived, he could be up in a new airplane in a matter of days.\n\nStrategically, the loss of the Battle of Britain meant that Operation Sealion (the conquest of England) could not go forward, and this would have several repercussions through the rest of the war. It would leave a large air platform within range of Germany's economic and industrial heartland from which Britain, and later the United States, could continuously launch bombing raids from. It left England as a powerful enemy force in Germany's flank which would have to be watched and defended against, thus diverting massive amounts of soldiers, weapons and industrial manpower into the ineffective West Wall. It would leave a springboard for Allied armies to eventually launch Overlord and bring about the cross-channel invasion. Because of the geography and terrain, Italy and the Balkans had been a serious drain on German capabilities but was not Churchill's 'Soft Underbelly.'
13817
Great Britain was powerful because of their navy. It enforced British imperialism throughout the world, and hence made Britain a superpower. Also, Britian had advanced textiles and technologies. Their air forces and military were very powerful, despite their population's size and geographical limits.\n\nGreat Britain lost almost all its colonies (and a hell of a lot of men) in and in the aftermath of WWII, and WWII also led to the military buildup of the United States Armed Forces, which meant the US Navy was now more powerful, thanks to American industry. Russia, too, recovered from its war slump and (using Lend-Lease weapons and vehicles) built a massive military and economy that allowed it to rival the US.\n\nPlus, nuclear weapons. We and the USSR had them, Britain didn't (not for a while) and that made us superpowers and them our allies. You will find military power often defines "superpower". That and economic power. The UK lacks the geographical resources and population to have a robust economy, and it is not a center of great technological achievement, like Japan. It's military is potent but kept small by a comparatively low budget due to limited resources and the population.
151066
Im sure people asked this in ww2 too. what did we get in return?  The end of the war.
616836
It made England the new Naval power. And It was the Naval Power until WW2. I think it still is one of the top naval powers. Once England became naval power, they started to explore different areas of the world and eventually took over almost half the world. (Colonies in North America, Africa, Asia, Australia).\n\nSpain was the naval power until, the spanish armada was defeated. Once it was defeated, England became the new naval power. Marked the End of Spanish Super power.
479712
I went of the BBC website and searched, assuming that I have the right show it was part of their WWII series below is the link to the website for that episode\nWhen I kept looking I found a review that is probably what you are looking for (link 2)
776670
The Battle of Algiers.\n\nHey, let's have a DIFFERENT photo next time.
238100
It was the last battle, where they LOST and surrendered.  The battle of Yorktown.  We were helped by the French Navy, who kept the British from escaping.\n\nIn World War 2 a famous aircraft carrier was named the Yorktown.\n\nPS; There was another battle where more British soldiers died.  That was the battle of Saratoga.  So I guess it matters what you mean by "worst" defeat.
194737
Iwo Jima is significant because of WWII's Battle Of Iwo Jima. The island was of value to the U.S. from a strategic standpoint. They were already taking over a good portion of the Pacific theater, and Iwo Jima was a step closer to the main islands of Japan. In Imperial Japan's eyes, the loss of the island signaled that their defeat was close at hand.
329949
the brits won for sure, don't know about the others
1113586
'If you think it wasnt justified you are badly mistaken!!!!  The country was under seige and the people were constantly bombed...had no water and no food.  the fruit was covered with dust from the bombings and many people were ill or died through contamination.  The people were proud to be British and to fight for freedom.  Some of the people there are more patriotic towards England than the English themselves despite their ancestory coming from 8 different nations.  Remember one thing....if it wasnt for the Maltese people the war could have been lost to the Italians and the Germans!!!! Malta was the only British stronghold left at the time and the English had only three small aircraft called Faith Hope and Charity.  The Germans were attacking Malta from North Africa and the Italians from Italy....considering Sicily is about 60 miles away from Malta you can see the disadvantage.  The Maltese are not new to threat being a small island and they managed to keep out the Arabs when they were attacking countries along the |Mediterranean.The Maltese are a peace loving people and will give you the clothes off of their backs if you asked them but they are also a very determined (stubborn?} race .Remember  also that the Knights Templar were also living there during the Crusades.\n     Was the awarding of the George Cross justified?  Yes it certainly was.....I dont think there are a more courageous and brave people considering the size of the island.\n\nExcuse me.   We are  NOT Maltesers ....they are chocolate coated honeycomb sweets....we are MALTESE
290072
Wikipedia has some information - pay attention to the part about Napoleon wanting to gird for war with Britain.\n\nThe second link has a few other links that may also be helpful.
532182
http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/battle_hastings_1066/1066.html\n\nTry this link
1126194
the UK and France fought for many years.
836744
They advised him not to take over Sudetland, Chechoslovakia and other conquests, but he over ruled them and won.  Significant actions that he blew was the order the encirclement of Russian troops at Kharkov in 1941 when Moscow was there for the taking, the advance on Stalingrad (i don't need to detail that blunder), the 'last stand' order in many battles when a shorter line of defence was a better strategy, the decision to stop bombardment of radar and RAF airfields in 1940....instead switching to attacks on London/Coventry (just when he had RAF on its knees), decision to stop tanks long enough to allow BEF to escape with most of their men to Britain, decision to withhold Panzer reserves prior to Normandy (expecting an invasion at Pas de Calais), and i'm sure there are others.  The Germans most likely would've won the war...but who knows for sure?
612042
Battle of Hastings\n\nGreat Fire of London\n\nGuy Fawkes
22753
In my opinion unfortunately yes.  Not that it isn't worth note but it was just overshadowed by the Normandy invasion.
765068
http://www.theenolagay.com/event.html\n\nThis Bomber ended the war, so its the best.