Talk:Battle of Britain

Canada again

I notice that an editor has moved Canada from being a belligerent proper to being in the incorporated air forces section. I tend to agree with this. I know that his has been discussed at some length before and that the Royal Canadian Air Force did send units to fight and I do not want in any way to belittle the contribution made by Canada to the BoB, but it does seem a little odd to list Canada as a belligerent nation in the BoB.

I have a suggestion, which is to leave things as they are but to add to the existing note that the Canadian pilots in the BoB were technically flying for the RCAF. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Although some Canadians also flew in the RAF (particularly Americans pretending to be Canadians) MilborneOne (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

In response to a recent edit and my revert, I have added a note explaining the situation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I had argued for Canada's inclusion as a belligerent proper because of the contribution of No. 1 Squadron RCAF. Other national units like 303, 242 or the Eagle Squadrons were RAF squadrons, while No. 1 was actually an RCAF squadron that was seconded to the RAF. There had been arguments that as an Article XV squadron No. 1 was just RCAF on paper and was really made up of RAF personnel (a fate of many Article XV squadrons, but in No. 1's case, not true), or that because they fought under RAF strategic control they were RAF. I continued to argue my point and finally it was agreed to include Canada as a belligerent because No. 1 Sqn was a unit from an independent air force, not from within the RAF. The greater point behind my bloody mindedness of course was the fact that the BoB was fought by people from many countries, and before then that fact had not been acknowledged. Now it has, which is laudable, and the fact that Canada was a small but still important exception to how other countries contributed, is still noted. However I should point out that your note is not correct, as not all Canadian pilots were technically in the RCAF; Some were in the RCAF and were members of No. 1 Sqn RCAF for certain, but there were RCAF pilots in RAF units, and Canadians who were in the RAF and had nothing to do with the RCAF. And most of those Canadians in the RAF were Canadian, not Americans pretending to be Canadian. OK, I'll get off my soapbox now lol. McMuff (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I do understand your point and have no desire whatsoever to downplay the contribution made to the BoB by other countries. The note that I added made it quite clear that No. 1 Sqn was technically a unit from an independent air force, however, it was under the complete operational control of the RAF. Listing Canada as a beligerent nation but not listing any of the other countries that proved significant support to the British in the BoB, because of what is essentially a technicality seems in my opinion to give Canada undue prominence. I believe that my compromise of listing Canada along with other supporting nations but including a note stating that a squadron was technically RCAF is fair. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This is an outrageous and utterly false re-write of history. The RCAF fielded the only independent, non-RAF, fighter squadron that participated in the BofB. This was discussed at length and the consensus as I recall it was to leave Canada as a separate independent belligerent where it belongs.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You are exaggerating somewhat. There was never a clear consensus and the situation regarding the RCAF squadrons is not that clear cut. Listing Canada as belligerent nation makes no sense. My note explains exactly what the situation was. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No clear consensus means that we leave it as it was.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing the change log, I see that the change to remove Canada as a belligerent was never stated as such, and that there has been considerable resistance to the change, but unfortunately I missed the original change because it was not stated. The edit was done in such a way as to circumvent the lengthy discussion recorded on this in archive 10, which is annoying to say the least.Damwiki1 (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

OK rather than edit war let us open this to a wider audience and have a RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The facts

In preparation for further discussion and an RfC if we cannot reach agreement here I suggest that we state the undisputed facts of No 1 squadron RCAF involvement on the BoB here. The summary below is taken from No. 401 Squadron RCAF

The unit began as a permanent peacetime unit which, augmented by personnel from No. 115 Squadron RAF, arrived at its first base in the UK, Middle Wallop, on 21 June 1940 ... until mid-August when it moved to RAF Northolt.

The squadron moved south again in February 1941 when it arrived at RAF Digby. It was here in 1 March that No 1 Squadron RCAF was re-numbered to No. 401 Squadron...until October 1941, t it then moved south to RAF Biggin Hill and remained in 11 Group carrying out offensive operations over Occupied Europe until January 1943.

Moving to RAF Catterick in early 1943, the squadron was involved in training and coastal patrols for four months before returning to 11 Group in late May, where the squadron reverted to Spitfire Mk IX's and became part of No. 126 Wing, No 83 Group, 2nd Tactical Air Force (2TAF). The unit resumed operational flying from RAF Redhill in June, and RAF Staplehurst in August and Biggin Hill on October.Operations prior to D-Day were flown from RAF Tangmere. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

RCAF Command structure during the BofB:

"On the formation of R.C.A.F. Overseas Headquarters, effective January 1st, 1940, Wing Commander F. V. Heakes, who had been serving as R.C.A.F. Liaison Officer for some years, assumed temporary command and with a small staff made the preliminary arrangements for the reception, accommodation, equipment and training of 110 Squadron, which disembarked on February 25th. On March 7th, 1940, Group Captain G. V. Walsh, M.B.E., arrived from Canada and took over command. He was subsequently appointed Air Commodore and served as Air Officer Commanding the R.C.A.F. in Great Britain through the momentous summer and early autumn of 1940, being succeeded on October 16th by Air Commodore L. F. Stevenson." (The RCAF Overseas, p.35). So while the RCAF's No.1 Sqn was under the operational control of 13 Group RAF, it was still nominally commanded by an RCAF air commodore, who in turn was taking orders directly from Ottawa.Damwiki1 (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Another quote, this one from Men, Arms and Government, p.255: "In all circumstances a Royal Canadian Air Force Officer Commanding has the right to communicate with his immediately superior officer of the Royal Canadian Air Force with regard to any matters which he may wish to bring to attention, notwithstanding that these may relate to matters wherein authority is exercisable by the Royal Air Force. . . . After emphasizing that the powers of the R.A.F. officer commanding a combined force were exercisable "within the limitations laid down in the Visiting Forces Acts", the letter went on: Royal Canadian Air Force units, formations and the personnel thereof, in the United Kingdom will come under the command of the Senior Officer of Royal Canadian Air Force Headquarters in Great Britain, except to the extent that, when "acting in combination with the Royal Air Force, they are, within the limitations set out above, under the command of the Officer Commanding the Combined Force. The relationship between Royal Canadian Air Force Headquarters in Great Britain and the Air Ministry will be one of close liaison, but not of subordination. . . . " Damwiki1 (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The article on RCAF 401 squadron incorrectly states that RCAF No.1 fighter squadron absorbed personnel from 115 RAF squadron, when, in fact, it absorbed personnel from 115 RCAF squadron. I have edited the article on 401 squadron accordingly.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

There is no doubt that Canadian forces played a very important role in the BoB. The question to be decided is whether the country Canada should be listed as a belligerent nation in the BoB when countries who supplied more pilots (but no aircraft) are not so listed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This issue raises the issue of whether we should show 'any' other countries as belligerents in this battle. The battle was exclusively commanded and controlled by the British at all levels, from overall strategy to individual sorties. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not trying to downplay the important role of other allied forces in this battle. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at some length. Canada fielded No.1 Fighter Squadron, which was a RCAF permanent force unit, previously based in Canada, and was equipped with it's Hurricane fighters while still based in Canada. The unit was then shipped overseas to the UK where it was the only non RAF fighter squadron in the Allied order of battle. The unit, as I have shown above, was nominally commanded by a senior RCAF Air Commodore, who, in turn, took his orders from Ottawa. Many non-UK Commonwealth personnel served in the BofB, many of whom were non-RAF but only Canada sent one of it's permanent force fighter squadrons to the UK, which in turn was under the nominal command of a senior RCAF officer and thus Canada was a co-belligerent.Damwiki1 (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You say 'nominally commanded by a senior RCAF Air Commodore who, in turn, took his orders from Ottawa'. Is there any evidence that the squadron ever acted independently from the British command structure or that Ottawa actually gave any operational orders? It was part of 11 Group for much of the time so would have been controlled by Park.

This arrangement is more of a secondment of a squadron to the RAF than action by an independent belligerent state. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No, that's completely untrue (and gross insult to the RCAF and Canada in general) and would be a violation of Canadian law. No.1 squadron served in the UK at the pleasure of the Cdn government and it could be withdrawn or commanded in anyway the Cdn Government saw fit; the fact that the Cdn government chose not to exercise it's right to operational control doesn't change the facts that it was an independent unit of a sovereign nation's airforce. The Cdn government went to great lengths to ensure that Cdn sqns would be independent units of the RCAF responsible only to Ottawa, with operational control delegated only so far as it was needed for coordinated action against the enemy. Your argument seems to be that no matter how many sqns Canada sent to the UK, they would never give Canada belligerent status because they operated within Dowding's Group system, and even if Canada fielded an entire Group, it would necessarily have to share squadrons with other Groups because of the need for rotation. However there is an interesting analogue to this situation; the Japanese air raids against Darwin in 1943: Raid on Darwin (2 May 1943). During these raids the RAF squadron was under RAAF operational control, but it would be absurd to suggest that the UK was not a belligerent in that campaign, just as it would be absurd to suggest that Canada was not a belligerent during the BofB.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have read your addition above, which in my opinion still refers to a kind of secondment, and still am not sure that this arrangement is sufficient to call Canada a belligerent nation in the BoB. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

See my reply especially regarding the RAF in Darwin.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

See also the North Western Area Campaign and re-read the last sentence of my entry in The Facts Section: "...The relationship between Royal Canadian Air Force Headquarters in Great Britain and the Air Ministry will be one of close liaison, but not of subordination. . . . ", which also describes the RAF's participation in the Darwin campaign while under RAAF operational control.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the North Western Area Campaign but I still would refer to this as a secondment rather than action by an independent force. I guess it all depends on the definition of 'belligerent'. You make a good argument and, although I am not completely convinced, I am not going to take this any further though as I think the effect of the British victory (see section below) is more important. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Subsection merge

Fighter formations needs to go under Tactics somehow. Anybody have any ideas how to accomplish this? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like you could just move it as it is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Invasion vs negotiation

The current 'Background' concentrates on a possible invasion and the likelihood of its success. Equally import and probably more likely, had things gone against Britain, was the the possibility of a negotiated end to hostilities. This would have had equally bad (or possibly even worse) consequences for the world as a successful invasion would have. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If Britain and her empire had negotiated a peace with Germany in 1940 then the Second World War would have ended there-and-then. Simple as that. Hitler and Nazi Germany would have won. That was what Britain and her empire were fighting against. And they did it out of choice, because it was the right and noble thing to do. It literally saved Western civilization.

BTW, it only became a world war when Britain and France entered in 1939, as they both had worldwide empires that effectively meant that other parts of the globe were simultaneously also at war with Germany once Britain and France had declared war. They also had large navies that roamed the world's oceans. Hence large parts of the world were then at war with Germany. So Hitler may have still gone on to invade the Soviet Union but it would not have been a de facto 'world' war. Same with Japan, who's empire only extended as far as the far east. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Care to add something about that to the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Stalingrad vs BoB

In my opinion, and that of many historians, the Battle of Britain was the major turning point of WWII.

Had it been lost and Britain been invaded or come to terms with Germany, the fate of Europe would have been sealed. The battle of Stalingrad merely decided which evil dictator would have been the ruler. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That's debatable (I would be inclined to say BoB was a major turning point. What about Operation Barbarossa itself?), but we're not here to put forward our personal opinions to justify a line of argument: policy here is that for any such statement to appear in an article, it has to be supported by reliable published sources. Alfietucker (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, we should base what we write on reliable sources but what I have said above is confirmed by reliable sources, Bungay for a start; I will look for some more. Are there any good quality sources that dispute what I have said?

There are sources that say that the invasion would never have happened even if in Hitler had won the BoB but, with German aircraft free to attack southern England at will, Britain would have had to have done some kind of deal with Germany. Even if this was only a non-aggression pact that would have been 'game over' for Europe. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The outcome of Barbarossa merely determined who would rule Europe. For most free Europeans that was not much to chose between Stalin and Hitler. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not really appropriate to discuss Barbarossa in any detail here, but just to say your summary of its outcome is very partial indeed. To the best of my recollection, Barbarossa actually made the Normandy landings a feasible campaign by drawing and depleting a good percentage of the Nazi forces and their allies on the eastern front. Alfietucker (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not disputed but German success at the BoB would have made any liberation of Europe not just difficult but completely impossible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There are very few historians, if any, who accept that Britain could have been successfully invaded if the BofB had been "lost", mainly due to the overwhelming power of the RN and the essentially land based focus of the German war machine. But what do you mean by "lost" anyway ? I don`t think anyone is seriously suggesting that the Luftwaffe would have been able to bomb at will any part of the British Isles with no opposition. The most likely outcome of a "lost" BofB would be RAF fighters withdrawing to airfields NW of London. They could still intercept the German planes, they would make contact somewhat later but equally they would be at a higher altitude, the single most important factor in air to air engagements.--JustinSmith (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It is fairly clear what 'lost' in this context is. The stated objective for the Germans was, 'The English air force must have been beaten down to such an extent morally and in fact that it can no longer muster any power of attack worth mentioning against the German crossing'. In other words complete German air supremacy over the south of England. They had achieved this is a matter of days in every other country and they expected to do much the same in Britain. Had the achieved this objective Britain would have had to come to some kind of terms with Germany, even if there had been no invasion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FORUM This entire discussion is useless for the improvement of the article. Unless you are discussing sources and have some change to propose, this needs to end. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This page is for discussing proposed changes or additions to this article, which is exactly what I am doing. To make it clearer, I am suggesting that we add a paragraph stating the dire consequences that a German victory would have had. I have given on, very reliable, source (Bungay) and I ma sure that there are many others. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I will add something, supported by a reliable source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent reversion

I have reverted a change by Mukogodo pending discussion. The text of the cited source says, 'If Hitler had won, all Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals would have come under Nazi rule...'. Could we discuss the best way to express this comment from an eminent historian of the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

With due respect, that is the view of one writer, Stephen Bungay, who not even a trained and/or professional historian. I would suggest, at best, attributing this claim to Bungay somewhere in the main article, but we should also check what is said about the matter by actual historians who have written about BoB. I won't claim encyclopaedic expertise in this area, but what about such historians as Richard Overy and James Holland to start with? Alfietucker (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It is hard not to consider an author who cites around 900 references to primary sources in his book a historian. A specialist maybe, but a historian without doubt.

The question is whether there are any historians who specifically contradict what Bungay says. If there are, we must take their views into account.

Note though that the question is not whether the German invasion would have taken place or could have succeeded (there is plenty of doubt about that), or whether the RAF could have withdrawn from the South of England and continued to fight for a while (Bungay considers that possibility), or whether the British government could have moved from London, but whether the British could have prevented Hitler from consolidating his hold on Europe and remained a base from which the Allies could have launched the Liberation of Europe if the Germans had achieved their objective in the BoB, and whether Britain would have chosen to do that in those circumstances.

I do not think attributing the source in the article is the right way to go, the source is shown in the reference, but I would be willing to compromise in the wording, 'very likely' for example. If it had not been for the rather aggressive edit summary I probably would have left it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Re. your last point, your proposed "very likely" seems milder than the edit ", it is likely that" you reverted. And I can't say, where I come from, that the edit summary "repaired a hypothetical reported as fact" left by the other editor is particularly aggressive. :-)

My point really is that the first paragraph of "Aftermath" is based entirely on Bungay; he may well be right in most or all of his assertions, but I for one would welcome citations from other historians (point taken about primary sources - sorry for the pedantic line I took, but I found Bungay's singularity and your description of him as "an eminent historian" a touch provocative!), reference to whose works may create something a little more nuanced. Alfietucker (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

So would you be happy to say, 'it is very likely that...'?

I have asked for other opinions and sources on this subject just above but not had much response so I added something based on a source that I had to hand. If someone wants to add something, or modify what is written, based on another reliable source that addresses this specific subject that would be fine? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry not to have replied earlier. I see that the other editor has since reinstated "it is likely that", which seems fine/NPOV to me. And yes, if pertinent material backed with a reliable source is added, then in principle that doesn't seem a problem. Alfietucker (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the only source anyone has found on this subject states 'If Hitler had won, all Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals would have come under Nazi rule...' It does not say '...was likely to have have come under Nazi rule...'. It is not up to us to challenge what a hight quality secondary source says, so, unless we can find a source which contradicts this statement we should stick to what the source says.

I notice that Mukogodo has decided to edit war rather than discuss here, which is a pity, so I will revert again until he has discussed the subject here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

At a minimum, the statement "Had Britain lost the battle or capitulated either the Nazis or the Soviets would have dominated Europe, with the US being able to do little to change things." – or one that is qualified with some form of "likely" – needs to be attributed beyond just a citation. It is not a fact, but an opinion about a possible alternate history. If there was resounding support for the statement from many noted historians, then it might be reasonable to leave it unattributed. As things stand with only a single reference explicitly stating this, if it is in the article then it needs to be attributed regardless of any of our views as to the statement being accurate, or not.

My personal opinion is that it is both too broad and too specific to be appropriate. It contains two separate statements about alternate history: "either the Nazis or the Soviets would have dominated Europe" and "the US being able to do little to change things." Both statements can be challenged, and neither is a certainty. I'm not stating that either is unlikely, or even that I disagree with at least the first. The second, I would probably have stated as something to the effect of "with the US unwilling to pay the cost necessary to change things" (i.e. not "unable"). Ultimately, it was a very complex, world-wide situation in which nothing is certain at the level which is being stated. What is certain is that had Britain lost the battle or capitulated the war in Europe would have been much different.

Further, I question the need for this statement in the text. Its purpose appears to be to give weight to the importance of the BoB. I am not sure that a statement like this is necessary here. If something is desired, it would be possible to word a different statement that continues to give weight to the importance of the BoB, but that does not stray so far into the realm of guessing at possible outcomes. — Makyen (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Cited speculation, by a historian or otherwise, is still speculation. Britain did not lose or capitulate, so what the U.S. might have done in such a case is moot. Moreover, loss of the battle does not causally lead to capitulation, so what the U.S. was already doing was, clearly, pretty useful. That would not have stopped short of capitulation. So, I suggest, take it out entirely. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss this with you but please remember that my opinion, or yours, is irrelevant. If you want the text changed then you should find a reliable source which says it is wrong. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you have this wrong. Sources are required for something to stay in, not for removal. Wikipedia would be ridiculous if what was required was that every claim by some person had to be explicitly countered by someone else for it not to be included in an article.

This is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary support from multiple sources. — Makyen (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Trek has it. The speculation should be removed unless we were to find many expert authors agreeing. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

We do not need 'many experts'. We have one expert who has made a statement and no experts who disagree. It is thus a properly sourced fact that can be added. If there are historians who have other opinions then these should be given due weight but I do not know of any. The fact that you or any editor may disagree with expert opinion or call it 'speculation' is irrelevant, WP is based on what is said in reliable sources.Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That is getting into the area of fiction, IMO (or what the professionals call "counterfactuals", evidently not liking the term "alternate history"). It's a pretty small step from this to wondering how the Germans would have done if they'd had D4s. They didn't, nor would they. And, cited or not, it's nothing but guesswork. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not fiction but putting the battle into perspective. Surely we should show what what a battle achieves, and to do that properly we need to consider what would have happened if the result had been different. This is particularly important in the case of defensive victories, where the outcome is, on the face of it, 'nothing changes'. In the case of offensive victories, such as Operation Overlord it is pretty clear what is achieved but in the case of defensive victories this is not always so clear.

The fact also remains that many historians who have written about the BoB have discussed what the outcome, at various levels, might have been had the Germans succeeded in their objective and I do not see why we should be any different. It is an integral part of the subject of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If the remark was limited to the aftermath of the battle alone, I might agree. Adding "or capitluation" to make the point puts it beyond the pale. Defeat in this battle did not equal capitulation. That being true, it makes no difference what might have happened had Britain lost the war, & puts this well outside the effect of (for instance) what might have happened had Monty pursued more vigorously after Second Alamein. It nears the level of speculation about what might have happened had Winston listened to the Greeks & sent no aid: Italy's being knocked out of the war in '41, perhaps? That, unquestionably, is counterfactual territory. So, by proposing capitulation, is this. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not the same as asking what would have happened if a person had made a different decision, this is the question of what would have happened if the Germans had achieved their stated objective of air supremacy over the South of England. There was a real climate of fear in Europe (and of disinterest in the US) and had the battle been lost there was no plausible outcome which would have resulted in Britain remaining a significant force against the Nazis.

Capitulation was not the only possible outcome or even the worst; there were those in the UK who would have joined forces with Hitler. More likely though was a deal in which Britain just kept out of things, like the US were doing.

I must say again though that this is not my analysis but that of a historian who has written a comprehensive study of the battle and the political situation at the time. There is plenty of doubt about an actual invasion but no one has presented a source which contradicts Bungays's analysis of the ultimate outcome had the Germans succeeded. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have focused on the single opinion with which you appear to agree. You state above that many historians have speculated (written) as to what the outcome would have been had "the Germans succeeded in their objective". Presenting only one such speculation is inappropriate.

Presenting it in the article the way that it has been, without explicitly attributing it as the conclusion/speculation of one person, presents it as an established fact. This gives the opinion undue weight in the article. If you want to have the statement in the article then it must explicitly attribute the extraordinary claim to the person making the claim. It then also includes the issue as to the person being sufficiently notable such that their opinion should be mentioned. The A better solution would be to state that the opinions of sources, as to what would have happened had the outcome of the BoB been different, varies from X to Y (with multiple citations/attribution for the range). — Makyen (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing extraordinary about this claim, it is the only plausible outcome.

Regarding undue weight, you are quite right, we must give appropriate weight to all reputable historians who have expressed an opinion on this matter. I have cited the opinion of a historian who has done so. As far as I know there are no sources which contradict this opinion. If you know of any please present them. At the moment this is the opinion of a reliable source vs the opinion of some editors here. That is a no-contest, WP policy clearly states that reliable sources are what counts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. I am glad that you agree that having it in the article, as written, is WP:UNDUE. As the person who wishes to add it into, or retain it in, the article, it is your responsibility to do so in a manner that does not create a situation contrary to policy, including giving undue weight either to the opinion of any single source or for the issue to take up more room in the article than would be due weight to the item being covered.

Your stating "it is the only plausible outcome" makes it clear you are biased on this issue and are letting your personal opinion guide the content you desire in the article. If this source's opinion of the possible alternate outcome was not something which you also believed, you would not be arguing so strenuously to include it in the article stated as a fact when it is certainly not a fact.

So far, our opinion is that, as it has been worded, it is better to leave it out of the article. As I have stated, my belief is that the minimum necessary is that it be stated as opinion (or the conclusion of a specific individual), and directly attributed, not just in a citation, but in the text of the article.

BTW: Your argument that we are attempting to put our opinions in the article is unfounded and appears to be an attempt to use an ad hominem argument. While I have not re-read the entire thread, I do not recall anyone arguing that their opinion should be placed in the article. As I recall, most of the arguments have been for the removal of this text and/or either modifying it or including a range of opinion from other WP:RS. — Makyen (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

All I want to do is add a statement made by a reliable source, my opinion and that of other editors is irrelevant. WP:UNDUE is quite clear on this and states (my emphasis):

'Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.'

So far there is one source that supports the statement that I wish to add and no sources that challenge it. If someone canproduce a source that gives a different opinion then we we must give each source due weight but, at the present there are no sources giving a different viewpoint, only editors opinions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Trekphiler's comment at 23:12, 27 May 2014. Counterfactual speculation does not improve a reader's understanding of the subject. IxK85 (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Just have a look at any history book?? [I guess you have]. All history articles are full of speculation and analysis, that is what history is about. The importance of all events in history is defined by what happened compared with what would have happened had the event not occurred. What is essential from the point of view of WP is that such speculation and analysis is fully supported by a reliable secondary source. In this case I have such a source so the analysis should be added to the article. There are no sources which contradict the statement that I wish to add, so we do not need to include a contrary opinion. Editors' objections here seem to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT rather than any WP policy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"the only plausible outcome"? Since it didn't happen, clearly it isn't. Even allowing Britain is defeated in the Battle proper, that by no means assures Germany of the ability to retain air superiority even over Southern Britain, let alone the entire Home Islands area. And there is credible evidence Britain could have pulled Fighter Command back to Scotland and kept fighting. The only way Britain qua Britain would stop is by invasion, & nobody in his right mind believes Seelöwe was going to succeed. Moreover, even allowing invasion, what guarantee is there HMG wouldn't simply move to Bermuda & continue as Gov't in Exile? (No, it wouldn't be Canada, despite much nonsense written suggesting it.) What you have is a single POV of a single historiographer, which you seem enamored with. That, IMO, fails the "generally accepted theory" test. Even if it wasn't fantastic on its face, & it is. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this just all your opinion or do you have any sources to back up your assertions? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

A J P Taylor, quoted below, says, ' "The Battle of Britain had a more profound effect. It put Great Britain back in the war'. This says the same thing as Bungay only the other way round - had Britain lost the battle, they would have been out of the war, and the US would have kept out (of the European theatre at least).

Your suggestion that Britain could have continued air defence from Scotland takes no account of the progress of the battle. The main risk to the British was not airfields being put out of action but loss of aircraft and crew. Had the British net loss rate exceeded that of the Germans (which luckily was not the case) the battle would have been lost wherever the aircraft were based.

As for the British government prosecuting a war from abroad (anywhere) when the country had been overrun by the Germans, they would have been no more successful that the Polish or French governments were in similar circumstances. Of course this takes no account of the political situation in Britain, far more likely would have been a change in government to one more keen to do a deal with Hitler (who was very keen to do a deal with Britain).

All the above is not my speculation but the considered opinions of two sources. If you want to challenge it you need to find at least one source that says that, had the Germans achieved air supremacy over the South of England, Britain could still have remained a significant force in the war and been a base from which Allied forces could have later launched the liberation of Europe. Please note that WP policy needs a source, not just editors' opinions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK the belief that either the Nazis or the Soviets would have ended up dominating Europe is Stephan Bungay's opinion, albeit a reasonable one to have; reading page 393 there are no other sources cited to back up the theory, so I think it will be far better to state that this is Bungay's opinion (therefore open to debate, as this entire section shows). If another historian presents a different or completely contrary POV it would then be possible to present it, clearly stating that opinions vary as to what may have happened had Britain capitulated. As it was the sentence was completely out of place in the context of the introductory statement, and the narrative that followed. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 23:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for a positive suggestion. I have twice said that I am very willing to work with other editors to find something to say about this subject, based of reliable sources rather than editors' opinions.

As well as Bungay, A J P Taylor makes the comment 'Suddenly the British showed that they were still in the war and still fighting'. In other word had the BoB been lost, Britain would have been out of the war and not fighting. He also says, ' Thanks to [the BoB], Great Britain was still taken seriously as a combatant Great Power, particularly in the United States'. It is hardly wild speculation to say that without Britain or the US the war in Europe was all over apart from the shouting.

it is also important not to keep referring to British capitulation. If the Germans had achieved their objective there were many possible options, from invasion, through non-aggression or neutrality, to cooperation with Hitler. The point Bungay makes is that none of these would have been good for the freedom of Europe.

Bungay may be the historian who spells out most clearly what the result of a German victory would have been but it is hardly a contentious subject (amongst reliable sources), right from Churchill's '..so few' speech historians have agreed that the consequences German success would have been dire. Although later historians may have questioned the likely success of an invasion no one has predicted a good outcome had Britain lost.

Regarding the placement of the agreed text, am open to suggestions, maybe a separate section, whatever you think. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

"Had the British net loss rate exceeded that of the Germans (which luckily was not the case)" You've just blown up your own argument. You do realize that, don't you?

What you've got is speculation on a case that did not happen, nor was it likely to. Ergo, it is moot, no matter how many sources you want to quote. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Another source

A more nuanced commentary:
"Hitler was not seriously troubled by this setback. Sea Lion was a botched plan, rushed up in a hurry and without importance in German strategy. Hitler's mind was already set upon the invasion of Russia and he did not fear that the British, though unsubdued, could do him any real harm. The British on the other hand were invigorated. They believed they had won a great victory or rather that the pilots of Fighter Command had won a great victory for them. And so they had. The British were a maritime people. They had learnt in previous wars that their task was to survive, and victory in the Battle of Britain enabled them to do so. To some extent their confidence was misplaced. Great Britain came nearer to defeat in the prolonged Battle of the Atlantic against U-Boats than they did in the Battle of Britain. But psychologically the Battle of Britain was more decisive." ...... [discussion of bombing campaigns].. "The Battle of Britain had a more profound effect. It put Great Britain back in the war. After the fall of France it seemed that Great Britain could make no stroke against Germany except such marginal acts as the attack on the French fleet at Oran. Hitler himself, to adapt MacArthur's phrase, was content when he left Great Britain to 'wither on the vine'. Suddenly the British showed that they were still in the war and still fighting. The Battle of Britain, though a defensive battle, was at any rate a battle. Thanks to it, Great Britain was still taken seriously as a combatant Great Power, particularly in the United States. As an uncovenanted blessing, Italy gave the British further opportunities for victory in the winter of 1940. These victories may have been irrelevant to the defeat of Germany, but they showed that the British were in action all the same." – A. J. P. Taylor in foreword to Len Deighton's Fighter, pp. 16–17.
Perhaps this shows a way to showing the impact at the time rather than counterfactual speculation? . Anyway, it's clearly another view: surely there are other and better sources on this aspect? . . dave souza, talk 11:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

At last someone with another source rather than just their opinion. I do not think that Taylor in anyway contradicts what Bungay says, he just does not expand on, 'Suddenly the British showed that they were still in the war and still fighting'. I would, however, be happy to work with you and others on something that shows the full impact the battle had on WWII.

The problem is that in a battle in which the attackers win, for example Operation Overlord, there are usually material and territorial gains gains of some kind that are actual facts that can be reported. It is quite obvious what the situation would have been had the attack failed; those gains would not have been made. The BoB, on the other hand, was won by the defenders so the outcome, in material terms, was essentially 'nothing happened'. Such a battle, though, can be equally decisive in the final outcome of a war but to see this it is necessary to explain what the result would have been had the attackers succeeded, even this this might be described as 'counterfactual'. It is perfectly normal to do this in history books, as the two sources we have show, so I do not see why an encyclopedia article should not do the same. The more sources we can find that comment on this specific point the better. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Now we have two sources 'speculating'

Can we now add something to the article based on the two sources we now have and any others that we can find? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Another source 'speculating'

The book 'The Battle of Britain' by James Holland says [original italics]] on page 604:

'[The Battle of Britain] was a key - if not the key - turning point of the war because it meant that instead of the conflict being a European war which one day would escalate into a clash between Germany and Russia, it became a global conflict in which the Third Reich was unlikely to ever emerge victorious.' Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

So what are we going to say about the consequences of German success?

I was rather hoping that we could discuss what we should say on the above subject based on what reliable sources say about it. This is surely better than edit warring based on editors' personal opinions Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

For reference here are some quotes of what sources say on the subject:

I have added some more quotes that I got from my local library. There there are still 'no sources' which criticise Bungay or challenge what he says. These sources are not cherry picked in any way they are just the ones that they had. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Bungay, - The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain.

'If Hitler had won, all Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals would have come under Nazi rule...'.

'America could have done little, even if she had wanted to. '

'On the other hand, as is probably more likely, things may have ended up in a Soviet victory.' 'The whole of Europe, lacking any western presence on the battlefield, would have been occupied by the Soviets'.

A. J. P. Taylor in foreword to Len Deighton's Fighter, pp. 16–17.

'Suddenly the British showed that they were still in the war and still fighting'.

' Thanks to [the BoB], Great Britain was still taken seriously as a combatant Great Power, particularly in the United States'.

Err what about Mers-el-Kébir ? That proved Britain was serious in its intention to fight, and the power of its navy as well.--JustinSmith (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The quote says [my emphasis], 'Great Britain was still taken seriously as a combatant Great Power'. Britain could have fought on but the Germans winning the BoB would have have confirmed the generally held view in the US that the war in Europe, in which they did not want to get involved, was all over except for the shouting. But once again, it not what you or I think that matters. To make your point you need to find a reliable source that says Great Britain would still have been taken seriously as a combatant Great Power by the US if the Germans had won the BoB. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

James Holland' - The Battle of Britain' page 604

'[The Battle of Britain] was a key - if not the key - turning point of the war because it meant that instead of the conflict being a European war which one day would escalate into a clash between Germany and Russia, it became a global conflict in which the Third Reich was unlikely to ever emerge victorious.'

All hell let loose - Max Hastings

This quote does not support or oppose what I want to say but I mention it because I might help make clear what I do not want to say. 17:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

'[Churchill] did not say how Britain might advance from defeating the Luftwaffe to overcoming the Nazi empire, because he did not know'.

I do not want to say that Britain's victory at the BoB won the war in Europe for the Allies. Only that German victory would have ensured that it would have been lost. That is not the same thing. 17:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Fighter - Deighton

This quote shows that invasion or capitulation were not the only outcomes that would have ended the war in Europe. Hitler wanted and expected to do a deal with Britain. That would have been 'game over' for Europe. 17:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

'...Hitler decided on a quick war against the USSR. After this, he said, Britain will make peace'.

'All of them [The Germans] from Hitler downwards assumed that Great Britain would make peace once France was defeated...'

Wars that changed the world - Charles messenger

This makes much the same point as Deighton. Hitler wanted a deal. If the BoB had been lost Churchill would most likely have gone, leaving a leader more sympathetic to the Germans and with less will to fight. 17:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

'Britain was now alone, but Hitler's hope that it would seek terms was firmly rebuffed by Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

'Battle of Britain' - Patrick Bishop

This is a book that I was recently given. It was not specially selected by me. It says:

'The Battle of Britain had immense strategic and symbolic importance. In victory Britain lived on in freedom to provide a base for the heavy bomber offensive against Germany and, eventually, a launch pad for the Allied invasion of Europe.'

It also quotes Churchill's liaison officer, General Hastings Ismay, as saying:

'Personally I always felt that if we won the Battle of Britain the Germans would not invade, and that if we lost they would have no need to invade... the Luftwaffe could have proceeded to wipe out, in their own time and without significant hindrance, first our air stations, then our aircraft factories, then perhaps our other munitions factories, then our ports, and so on. The point would have been reached, perhaps quite soon, when we would have been bereft of all serious means of opposition. We could have continued the war from Canada-I hope that we would have done so. But the physical occupation of Britain would have presented [to the Germans] no serious difficulties.'

In other words, if the Germans had won the BoB, it was all over for Britain. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text

What it is now? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you give a reason why the opinions of three reliable sources should be excluded from the article? No one has yet provided a single source that claims that Britain could have remained a significant force in the war had Hitler achieved his objective in the BoB.

Is it that you missed the fact that a attributed statement is already in the article text?

In general, there has been less resistance to having the opinions of notable historians in the article when attributed to them and stated as opinions. The primary resistance has been to your continued arguments/proposed text which puts these opinions in the article as facts, not as opinions about counter-factual possibilities.

There is, of course, also the issue of how much text in the article should be devoted to these speculations. In my opinion, there should not be that much additional text used for them. If there is, it will rapidly reach the point where it is providing WP:UNDUE weight to these opinions relative to the the rest of the article content.

As a side issue: You have, on a number of occasions, miss-characterized the statements of other editors as them arguing to put their own opinions in the article when they have not been arguing for such. In fact, the arguments made by others have almost entirely been to keep opinions out of the article. Your use of fictitious ad hominem arguments just increases the resistance to your position. — Makyen (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

All I have asked is that editors opposing the addition of sourced material support their positions with reliable sources. So far, none has done so. The use of reliable sources to determine the content of WP (for opinions and facts) is one of its fundamental principles and I can see no reason to change that for this article.

You seem to misunderstand WP:UNDUE]] it says [my emphasis]: 'Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic'. So far, all the sources presented support the view that I wish to add. All I wanted to add was one sentence, based closely on the view of a modern specialist historian of the subject.

In the reporting of historical events there is no clear distinction between factual events and opinions and between factual events and counterfactual events. Everything we write is based on the reports of other people, whether they are true or not we cannot tell, all we can do is decide what sources we consider reliable and report them as the facts. We do not generally say 'historians believe' before every statement we make.

To make sense of every battle it is necessary to put it in perspective by stating what would have been the case had the battle not occurred or had the result been different. In some cases this is obvious, as I have already said, if Operation Overlord had failed, the consequences would be quite clear; the Allied liberation of Europe would have halted. If the Germans had succeeded in their objectives in the BoB , on the other hand, it is not nearly so clear what the consequences would have been. We must therefore state the views of reliable sources on the subject in order to put the battle into perspective. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

To answer your original question: Yes, I had missed the fact that the statement that I wanted to add has been included, but in a completely undermined and inaccurate form. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

♠"Can you give a reason why the opinions of three reliable sources should be excluded from the article?" Have you not read a single word I've written so far? This is you pushing a POV & claiming "sources" as your defense. It's a fail.

Sorry, but reference to sources not a defence, it is how WP works. So far neither you nor anyone else has cited any sources at all that either contradict or criticise the sources that I have cited. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

♠As far as "reliable sources for opinion" goes, I don't need any. I'm not the one wanting this junk in. You are.

Wrong again, what is said in reliable sources is not junk it is proper content. Until you can produce a source to support to support what you say that remains just your opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

♠And you've evidently missed the point of Undue; your own bolded passage says, "significant". This isn't; it's pure speculation.

It is the opinion of reliable secondary sources on the subject. That is the only opinion allowed in WP. Your opinion, or mine, are irrelevant. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

♠"In the reporting of historical events there is no clear distinction between factual events and opinions and between factual events and counterfactual events." Garbage. Herodotus is long dead. If there was no distinction, the professionals wouldn't call it "counterfactual". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have explained exactly what I mean by this above. Now a question for you. Why do you call what I want to add 'junk'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's ahistoric speculation you want to dress up as fact. Don't try selling me the "I don't like it", either. I'm obviously not the only one who thinks so.

"neither you nor anyone else has cited any sources at all that either contradict or criticise the sources that I have cited" It's not about the quality of the sources, it's about the quality of the content. Sourced garbage is still garbage. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter who likes this and who does not or what you think is garbage, all that matters is what reliable sources say. That is a fundamental principle of WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any proposed text. My general feeling is that we should tell the reader that the BoB was a turning point, but we should not cross over into speculation, especially hyperbolic statements which ignore the USSR's primary role in quashing the Nazi threat. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

No one is trying to downplay the role of the Russians in defeating the Nazis but the simple facts are that if Germany had achieved their objective of air supremacy over the South of England, Britain would have been out of the war. As there were no other significant combatants left in Europe it would have fallen into the hands of Hitler and Stalin. This is the clearly stated view of two historians with a third making a supporting comment. There are no sources which deny these facts or which criticise the sources making them so it can hardly be called speculation. I am very happy to discuss with anyone the best wording to use to express the views stated in the three sources that I have quoted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

♠"if Germany had achieved their objective of air supremacy over the South of England, Britain would have been out of the war" Nonsense. Germany needed to effectively sever Britain's supply lines for that to happen, & that was never achieved, air superiority or no (Briatin's 1943 panic notwithstanding). Moreover, you presuppose the fall of England proper means HMG quits, which, with Winston as PM, is by no means given. And that is beyond believing the U.S. would fail to provide aid, which is far from certain, what with FDR's known sympathies. Finally, once Japan attacks Pearl Harbor (& so far, I've seen nothing to suggest that wouldn't happen anyhow), the U.S. is going to be made a belligerent by Hitler in any event. So...

♠That's the thing about "counterfactuals": it ain't never as simple as it looks prima facie. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it but it has no place in Wikipedia, which is based on what is said in reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither has yours, & you're the one with the burden of proof, not me. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A war isn't won until the other side admits defeat and gives up. That did not happen. So AFA Hitler was concerned, whether he liked it or nor, until Britain was either knocked out or made peace with Germany, Hitler and the Axis hadn't won WW II. As I outlined above, if either of these had occurred, defeat, or just as effectively, surrender of Britain and her Empire by suing for peace, then that would have been World War II over-and-finished, there and then. Simple.

The Britons are an island race and at the time Britain was the world's foremost maritime power, and winning the Battle of Britain meant that for many Britons, although the Battle of the Atlantic was worrying, it was known to be something that they could probably cope with, being a battle fought on the high seas - this they were familiar with - Nelson, Collingwood, Hood, Anson, Drake, etc. After the Battle of Britain few would have doubted that they would win eventually, or perhaps just as important, that they would not actually lose.

For Germany the effect of losing the battle was unfortunate, as decisions made by the British Empire in 1940-41 as a result of winning the battle led directly to the ruins of Hamburg, Cologne, and Dresden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that if Germany had acieved its objective in the BoB 'that would have been World War II over-and-finished, there and then' at least as far as Europe was concerned. What you or I or other editors think though is not important, what does matter is what reliable sources say. In that respect I have found three sources that say what you have just said and no one has found any which disagree or challenge those sources. On that basis it should go in the article.

I recently went to a local library to find some more sources and still found none that disagree with what you said. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Quite so. I must admit to failing to see how anyone can dispute the previous paras. It ought to be fairly obvious. The "at least as far as Europe was concerned" isn't quite right. The war only became a 'World War' with the entrance of France and Britain - as I mentioned in another section. Once Britain and her Empire made peace it (WW II) would have ended, and any subsequent war by Japan or anyone else wouldn't have been a 'World War' as they didn't have territories and dominions simultaneously at war all over the globe. If Britain had either surrendered or made peace in 1940 then any subsequent war would have been a new war, and not WW II. The only thing that qualified both the Great War of 1914-18 and the 1939-45 conflicts as 'World Wars' was the inclusion of Britain and France, and to a lesser extent, Germany in 1914-18, as these all had overseas territories that joined the war more or less simultaneously, meaning that large parts of the globe were involved. The war in China that was being fought between China and Japan was, without wishing to sound unkind or harsh to those concerned, 'only' a local war, and if Japan had started a new war in the Far East then that would still have been relatively local, compared to WW II as it was in 1940.

So although many people may not like the fact, the point is that Britain and her Empire were actually rather crucial in WW II. It was only because of them that WW II didn't end in 1940 with an Axis victory. Because that was probably the only point in the war in which Germany, and later Italy, could have actually won. So, with hindsight, it was THE decisive point in WW II. Once the Soviet Union, and later the US, entered on Britain's side, then Germany and Italy, and later Japan, no longer had any hope of a negotiated peace, or surrender, of ALL their enemies. After the Fall of France in 1940 and until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, there was 'only' the British Empire to beat. And after winning the Battle of Britain the British, whilst knowing that things were probably not going to be look good for some time, at least knew that if they weren't actually winning, they weren't actually going to lose either. They might do badly in North Africa and other places for a while, but that was hardly crucial to national survival, and it's that what counts. The same sort of thing had been tried before, by Napoleon, and it didn't scare the British in 1940 the way it had the other countries.

After the Battle, the only credible way the Axis had of beating the British was the Battle of the Atlantic, and, as I wrote previously, that the British knew - or were fairly confidant - they could cope with. Sure, things might look a bit grim for a while, but as long as Hitler didn't invade, or starve them out, they knew they could cope. And that's why they decided on bombing Germany, as at the time they didn't know what was going to subsequently happen as regards fighting Nazi Germany. So whatever happened, after 1940 Germany was going to get heavily bombed by the RAF come-what-may, as at the time that was the only way of fighting back on German soil and taking the war to Germany itself.

BTW, I have used the term 'British' in the preceding paras as despite what some people today might think or might wish, most people from places such as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, India, and the rest of the British Empire, would have proudly regarded themselves in 1940 as British too. And that goes for most people of any colour or race in the empire as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

2.24.216.123, can I suggest that you automatically sign and date your messages by typing four tildes at the end thus: '~~~~' or, better still, register; you do not have to use your real name.

You seem to have a lot of knowledge on this subject and I agree with most of what you say but everything written in Wikipedia should be supported by a reliable source. Do you know of any good sources which support what you say?

What I want to say is not so strong as your comments above. All I want to say is that if the Germans had achieved their objective of air supremacy over the South of England, the war in Europe (at least) would have been over. This point is made quite clearly by several sources and should be in the article. If Hitler had not invaded, Britain would have had to come to some kind if deal with Hitler. Hitler desperately wanted this and there were plenty in Britain who wanted peace, or worse still who would have cooperated with the Germans in order to keep the Empire. The war with Russia was irrelevant, all that would have decided was which parts of Europe were run by Stalin and which by Hitler; not much of a choice.

Despite two good sources making the point that I want to, several others making supporting comments, and no sources contradicting what I to say, I am still having difficulty adding a reliably sourced fact to the article. Please let me know what sources you have that comment on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

♠"no sources contradicting what I to say" You can have all the sources you want. Your argument, which fact you fail consistently to grasp (willfully or nor, IDK), falls down on one crucial word: "if". Since Germany did not achieve air superiority (& I suggest dominance, not mere local superiority was at a minimum required, since Sealion was an obvious fiasco waiting to happen), nothing else you say passes the test for being anything but speculation. Sourced speculation is still only speculation. What part of that don't you understand? Moreover, air superiority of itself was not going to guarantee German success in the war, since it would not, of itself, bring Britain to defeat. That being true, it makes no difference if Germany won the Battle: she needed to defeat Britain, & victory in the air, alone, would not do that. What part of that don't you understand?

♠For these reasons, I continue to oppose your inclusion of speculative nonsense masquerading as fact. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please reread my proposed addition, ther is nothing counterfactual about it it does not mention any 'ifs' it states the result of that fact that Britain won the BoB. If you want to discuss the military logic of the situation I am perfectly willing to do that but this is not the right place, I suggest either your talk page or mine. This page is for discussing how to improve the article based only on what is said in reliable sources. That is core WP policy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I see your point - this originally replying to Martin, however Trekphiler added a comment while I was writing it - however what I was also trying to point out was that provided Britain didn't lose the Battle of the Atlantic, and chose to keep fighting, then whether the USSR or the US entered the war or not, Germany was going to get bombed by the RAF if nothing else. This was more or less what was assumed at the time as the only way of taking the war to Germany, and is the reason that Germany was so heavily bombed, as it was decided upon at a point when Britain and the Empire were fighting alone in 1940-41.

Provided Churchill stayed in power there was never going to be any peace deal with Nazi Germany so by whatever means possible the war was going to continue no matter what. If that meant giving up parts of the Empire or not being able to buy supplies and materiel from the then-neutral US - in the absence of Lend-Lease - then that was what would have happened. Britain's lack of dollars only affected purchase of supplies in the US, the pound was still the international currency of the time, and if necessary the Bank of England could have printed as many as it liked. The rest of the Empire was also at war so the printing of banknotes for use internally within the Empire would not have mattered, as most of these countries were on war economies, where the assets to back the currency were to some extent irrelevant. This would have forced a change of strategy to that which was eventually carried out, due to inability to buy/obtain American tanks, aircraft, etc., and it would have prevented any landings on the continent, and so Operation Overlord would never have happened. But that doesn't mean Britain had no choice, nor that Britain was going to lose the war. Britain only had to not lose. That was not a good outlook for the Occupied Countries, but is nevertheless a fact.

What I am trying to say is that if the USSR and later US had not come into the war on the UK's side, Britain and the Empire would otherwise have fought the war differently, and alone - almost certainly by bombing Germany - all the while Churchill remained Prime Minister, Britain wasn't going to give up. This may have led to Britain losing control of parts of the Middle East, or other areas, perhaps all of the colonies in the Far East, but that is not the same as Britain being invaded or starved into submission. And it was only the latter two that would have led to the British admitting defeat.

After enduring The Blitz in 1940-41 there was no way the British public would have countenanced any removal of Churchill and his coalition government, no matter what Lord Halifax and his supporters would have liked to believe. That was never going to happen, there would have been an uproar, and quite likely marches on Parliament, legal or not. I wouldn't say that Churchill was that popular as a politician, but he did personify the British determination to fight on no matter what. To put it bluntly, the British public were seriously pissed-off with Germany and the Germans and would quite willingly have followed Churchill to hell and back, or at least as far towards hell as was necessary, in order to beat Nazi Germany. This is not a popular thought now, but is nonetheless true of the majority of the population at the time. It was the second war in most adult's lifetime that the Germans had started, and many Britons had had enough.

So thinking that Britain was dependent on the support of the USSR or the US is wrong, simply because in the absence of any such support the UK would have just arranged things differently, and adopted a different strategy, as after 1940 it was apparent that Britain wasn't likely to be defeated any time soon, as Germany had already tried its best attempt at that and failed. The only other realistic hope of beating Britain after that was the Battle of the Atlantic, and if it had looked like the UK losing that then again strategy or tactics could have been changed. For one thing, not having to import tons of vehicles and supplies from North America would have reduced shipping requirements drastically - at the time (or shortly thereafter) these were only really needed for fighting in the Middle East. They were very welcome of course, but they weren't essential to the immediate defence of Britain itself, the Navy and Air Force did that, at least until such time as the Germans actually landed on British soil. Abandoning distant parts of the empire would also have released shipping and warships for use closer to home. And if the US had refused to supply oil and aviation spirit then Britain would have changed over to getting it solely from Aruba and Abadan. The only really essential import the UK needed from the US was the Packard-Merlin and they had been initially bought and paid for up front. Even they became less vital as production of the Merlin was also set up in Australia by the CAC. Production of Lancasters and Mosquitoes was started in Canada, and also production of Mosquitoes in Australia. Production of the Lancaster in Australia was considered but not implemented. These were all bombers, so whatever happened Germany was going to be bombed. You see, everyone today thinks that the war could only ever have been fought the one way, the way it subsequently was. Not so.

BTW, it was also in 1940, when Britain and the Empire were fighting alone, that the MAUD Committee was initiated. If the US hadn't come into the war then parts of the subsequent Tube Alloys project would have been transferred to Canada away from any risk of German bombing. And Britain was quite capable of developing a bomb without outside help, as this they did in the early 1950s. You see, if circumstances had been different, then different projects would have had more resources allocated to them. This also of course applied to Germany, which is why Operation Gunnerside was taken so seriously by the UK, and why all the heavy water in France had been removed to the UK in 1940 on the SS Broompark.

In the context of the Battle of Britain article these items mentioned above are only of peripheral interest however they do I hope explain that Britain and her Empire had numerous alternatives open to them if events after the Battle had turned out differently. The only really vital battle for the British afterwards was the Battle of the Atlantic, in the event of absence of US help, to bring supplies in from Canada and other parts of the empire. For the Occupied Countries and Europe as a whole of course, the 1944 Operation Overlord was of some(!) importance. But from a purely selfish British and Empire POV, it was only necessary for them not to lose. And after the Battle of Britain most Britons thought they probably would not. Don't get me wrong in thinking that the involvement of the USSR and US wasn't welcomed by Britain at the time, it most certainly was. But that's not the same as saying that Britain was finished without them. That is simply not true. It's just that Britain and the Empire would have fought a different war, and it would have gone on a lot longer. But the British had planned for a long war anyway. Germany however, didn't.

Although I may seem it, I'm not being anti-German in all this BTW, merely stating the prevailing British view of Germany and the Germans at the time, when they were at war. Hopefully we all get on a lot better now.

I should also point out that these views stated in the preceding paras are not the views of the USSR or of the US, who saw things somewhat differently. These preceding paras are however - more or less - how the British viewed the overall situation at the time.

I used to have an account but stopped editing Wikipedia articles due to having to argue with people who didn't seem to know much about the subjects. I am (I like to think) fairly widely read on various historical matters but that was years ago and I cannot remember most of the books to give references, but they were all reputable ones mostly written by people who were there at the time, and not just British ones, but US and German, etc., ones as well. My additions to the talk pages are merely intended to explain some aspects that many contributors seem unaware of, at least from a British POV. There is also the point that history itself is not worth much, as people believe what they want to believe, one man's history is another man's propaganda - one only has to watch some of the current 'history' programmes on television to see this - so the reader can take what I have outlined above any way they wish. But don't let me put you off editing, you seem to be doing fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The most likely outcome if Sea Lion had been commenced is that the German invasion fleets would have been annihilated, with the British losing a considerable number of warships to air and U-boat attack. It is likely that the German forces that landed successfully would have been halted at the various Stop Lines, and that ultimately the landings would have failed. So although the Battle of Britain was very important, without wishing to minimise it's importance, it wasn't as vital as many people like to think. But it was very important to win it, as it stopped Germany even trying to invade.

If the British had taken Sea Lion seriously they would have brought troops and their arms back from the Middle East, as they would have been more useful than relying on the Home Guard, which many people seem to think would have been all there was between the UK being overrun by any invasion force. The Royal Navy also had around 200 destroyers, and many more of these, and other larger warships, would have been brought home to deal with any invasion fleet if it had been thought necessary. They weren't. At the same time, the Kriegsmarine had just ten remaining destroyers after Narvik. So air cover, or no air cover, any German invasion fleet was going to get very severely dealt-with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

2.24.216.123, I cannot work out if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me now. My point is that if the Germans had achieved their objective of air supremacy over the South of England it would be the end of Britain as a serious belligerent in the war. That is exactly the view expressed by General Hastings Ismay above.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I was hoping to have a civil discussion with other editors on how to represent the views of reliable sources on the effect that a British victory in the BoB had on the course of the war. All I have had so far is people telling me that I cannot add the opinion of reliable secondary sources to the article, it seems because some editors do not agree with it.

Either WP is to be an encyclopedia based on what reliable sources say or it is to be one based on something else. WP policy is quite clear on which view should prevail here so if no one is prepared to discuss this subject in a way that does not refer to the opinion of reputable historians as counterfactual junk the only option is to get wider community input in the form of an RfC, which I was hoping to avoid. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text

Based on the three quoted sources and taking into account objection to 'counterfactual' statements I now propose the following wording for the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

British success in the Battle of Britain in preventing German air supremacy over Southern England enabled her to remain an effective belligerent in the war and prevented domination of Europe by the Nazis or the Soviets. It also gave new impetus the US to become involved in the European theatre and retained an Allied base in Europe from which the subsequent Liberation of Europe could take place.

I don't think any of the statements after 'preventing German air supremacy over southern England' can be safely said to be direct consequences of Britain retaining air supremacy. The '[retention of] an Allied base in Europe' for example, is a result of Britain avoiding a German invasion and occupation, rather than being a result of success in the air.--IxK85 (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not the opinion of two of the historians quoted above. Note that I referred to the Germans gaining air supremacy, which is not the same as Britain not having it. Do you know of any sources which suggest alternative outcomes in the event of German air supremacy over the South of England? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You (& your sources, by appearances) are making a leap between loss of air superiority & loss of control of Britain that IMO is vastly overstated. Neither IMO is it warranted based on any but those two sources. At best, that makes it improbable, & a fringe theory. At worst, it's pure fiction. Or do you mean to have SS-GB & Macksey's Invasion as sources, too? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The cited sources are reputable historians not fiction writers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The sources now seem to stack up quite strongly now in favour of my suggested text so, unless anyone can provide some sources which contradict the statement I propose to add it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)