Talk:Battle of Britain

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)

That depends - I wouldn't dare to disagree with Ismay - but obtaining air supremacy was only a means to an end, i.e, invading mainland Britain. For the reasons I mention above the invasion is likely to have failed, with both Britain and Germany suffering heavy losses, however that does not mean that Britain was likely to come to terms with Germany, if anything it was more likely to make them even more determined to fight on. If one is talking of Germany carrying on more intense and sustained air attacks with the Luftwaffe well the British could have just dispersed production earlier than they did. RAF Squadrons that fought in the Battle and needed rest were moved up to parts of Scotland as it was, as that was just beyond the range of bombers flying from France. BTW, it's no good obtaining air supremacy, once achieved it must be subsequently maintained, and that is not so easy. It is probably unwise to assume that the British would be unable to regain it again, once lost.

As I hinted at above, if circumstances had remained the same, with Britain (and the Empire) fighting alone, and Churchill in power, then the plan was to start building a bomber force with-which to bomb Germany, with no need to fight on the mainland at all. That is why Bomber Command was so geared up to heavy bombing with four engined bombers. And that is why Harris spoke later; "There are a lot of people who say that bombing can never win a war. Well, my answer to that is that it has never been tried yet, and we shall see ..." and that was the British plan if nothing else changed. Ismay was speaking as a soldier, and probably would have been correct twenty years earlier. But he was not Harris.

I'm not disagreeing with you Martin. But Ismay was probably wrong. And it depends if one considers that bombing the enemies' cities into ruins counts as serious 'belligerence'. I suspect that it does. Anyway, after 1940 provided Britain stayed at war that is what was always going to happen, whether the USSR or US entered the war or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

By 'air supremacy' I mean that the Germans had achieved their stated objective of,'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 that the RAF had been destroyed. Recovery from this position, with the Germans free to bomb airfields and aircraft manufacturing facilities at will, as suggested by Ismay, would be impossible.

The Royal Navy could well have continued to harass the Germans but could not have achieved much, especially with their home ports being subject to unrestricted bombing.

Bombers certainly did play a part in the eventual Allied victory but it required the combined Allied ground, air, and naval forces to succeed. Had the RAF been soundly defeated, attacks by Bomber Command, assuming bomber production had not been halted, would have been suicide missions achieving little.

I, and the sources that I have quoted, are not saying that Britain would have been invaded or defeated, or would have capitulated but that the European war could, at best, have ended in a stalemate with Britain remaining independent and Germany controlling all of continental Europe. With Hitler free to bomb London at will some sort of arrangement would have been come to. It would not be possible to assemble an Allied invasion force in Britain and Operation Overlord could never have taken place. Maybe Stalin would have eventually defeated Hitler and controlled Europe instead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"Britain remaining independent and Germany controlling all of continental Europe" Never going to happen. And once the Brits got the Bomb (& they would), you can give pretty good odds the Sovs (who would drive the Germans back as far as able) would get a pasting, if the Germans didn't see Cologne or Dresden turned into a radioactive parking lot, first. Your thesis is nonsense. Enough, already. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, I am not going to discuss my or your opinion on this subject here although I would be happy do so in user space. I will continue to collect what reliable secondary sources say about the subject. That must be what determines what goes in the article, not personal opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk)

"I am not going to discuss my or your opinion" Then you're screwed, if you think you're going to be able to make this change. You haven't made a single argument about why this view trumps what actually happened. You've made no argument I can see how it credibly might have gone the way you say it would. Until, unless, you do, I'm with MilborneOne: it's borderline vandalism. And you're already on the edge of beating a dead horse. This looks more & more like willful blindness all the time. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I said that I would not discuss personal opinions here, on this page, because Wikipedia content is decided by reliable sources not by editors' personal opinions; 'what actually happened' is decided by what sources say, not by what you and I think. Perhaps you should read this. I am happy, however, to discuss our personal opinions in user space.

If you want to argue that the sources that I have quoted are not reliable, or that they do not say what I claim that they say, that would be appropriate here. Also if you can find reliable sources that contradict what I want to say, or seriously criticise the sources that I have quoted then that too could be discussed here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The Royal Navy was never there to ' ... harass the Germans .. ' the main purpose of the Royal Navy throughout its history has been the protection of trade and the British merchant fleet, and the defence of British Territories, both at home and abroad, the Germans at the time had no sizeable merchant fleet to speak of - unlike Britain or Japan. So the RN was not in any way going to be used for attacking German territory, no-one in their right mind at the Admiralty was going to risk valuable warships for something so unimportant. In the event of Britain fighting on alone, the RN would have carried on in its traditional task of protecting the trade routes, e.g., to Canada and elsewhere.

As I wrote above, in these circumstances, the whole of British retaliatory effort would have been transferred to RAF Bomber Command - as indeed large parts of their effort subsequently was, and so whatever else happened if Britain remained at war Germany was going to get severely bombed, whether Germany liked it or not. THAT is one of the things the Battle of Britain decided. As I also wrote, Britain didn't need to win, just to survive. And as long as she survived, Germany was going to get the c**p bombed out of it. As Germany subsequently did. The first Lancasters entered service in 1942. You see, the British planned for a long war, the Nazis for a short one.

BTW, one of the reasons that Rolls-Royce had Packard build the Merlin in the US was because at the time of the Battle of Britain all the RAF's monoplane fighters were powered by the Merlin and all the Merlins were - at that time - built in one factory in Derby. Later, factories in Glasgow, Crewe and Trafford Park came on line and so despite the bombing there was never any shortage of Merlins. The production of Hurricanes - one of the two main fighters used in the Battle, was set up in Canada, to be built by Canadian Car and Foundry. So provided Britain held on, at least for a while, there would have been plenty of Hurricanes available, whether Britain was still being bombed or not. As for trained pilots, that was what the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan was set up for. And apart from one brief period during the Battle, the RAF and Commonwealth air forces were never short of pilots and aircrew. A long war, see. It is also no coincidence that the overseas production of the most important British aircraft were of types - the Lancaster - and later Lincoln, and Mosquito - all bombers - that all used the Merlin engine, as by then it was known that there would be no shortage of Merlin engines.

All these measures to continue the war under almost any circumstances were taken when Britain and her Empire were alone and not expecting any of the subsequent events such as Hitler invading the Soviet Union, or declaring war on the US, and so on. As I also wrote above, while Churchill remained Prime Minister there was never any chance that Britain would make peace with Germany. And short of a Coup d'état to remove him the continuation of the war was more or less inevitable.

So, if Germany had failed to knock Britain out of the war the result for the unfortunate German citizen would have turned out just about the same. Their towns and cities would have been in ruins no matter how much additional territory Hitler had managed to amass. Perhaps it would have encouraged more of them to settle in the new territories, but I doubt if even Hitler would have thought that fair exchange for a thousand years of culture destroyed.

And Germany twice during WW II tried to knock Britain and her Empire out of the war - the Battle itself, and the resulting Blitz - and failed. The third time - the Battle of the Atlantic also failed too. I should point out that these British victories were won by the British mostly by their own efforts - with useful help from the US in terms of additional shipbuilding, and taking over some of the burden in escorts and providing additional VLR Liberator aircraft to extend the air cover. But it was the British and Commonwealth who defeated the U-boat by a large margin - more submarines, mostly U-boats, were sunk by the British and Commonwealth naval and air forces than were sunk - German, Italian, or Japanese - by all the other Allied nations combined. So all three attempts at knocking Britain and her Empire out of the war failed without any essential outside assistance from the USSR or US. In other words, there is no reason to assume that Britain would not also have won the Battle of the Atlantic even if the USSR and US had not entered the war. But that's entering the realms of conjecture. The point is that if events had turned out differently, e.g., the USSR, and later US, not entering the war, then Britain and her Empire would have also done things differently. For one thing the convoys of aid to Russia would not have been needed.

A simple fact is that the only chance Nazi Germany ever had of beating the British Empire was if the British had made the same numerous mistakes that the by-then occupied countries had made. Whilst Britain made many mistakes in the preceding and then-current 1940 period - and would continue to make mistakes as the war continued, as would everyone else - few of them ever threatened national survival in the way that the mistakes the other countries had made, had. It should also perhaps be pointed out that at no point did Nazi Germany ever come as close to beating Britain as they came close to beating the Soviet Union in 1941-42.

So, in conclusion, by Britain winning the Battle of Britain the course of world events took a particular turn, one that ensured that Nazi Germany would either lose the war - which of course is what ultimately happened - or at the very least, whilst 'enjoying' her conquests, would endure prolonged and heavy bombing of her cities and towns - which of course, also happened, albeit on a smaller scale than been had originally intended.

BTW, I am not arguing with the various sources that may be used in the article, simply pointing out that the choices to be made were and are never as simple as historians like to believe. Often propaganda at the time is used to swerve opinion on likely outcomes when in fact others are quite possible. Often these other possibilities are - for obvious reasons - not widely known, sometimes even in the present day. But the likely course of action the British would have followed if the USSR and US had not entered the war was as I outline above. The British victory in the Battle of Britain would have ensured this. Even without this victory, it is very unlikely the Germans could have successfully stopped the war - by a successful invasion of Britain - if the British had decided to continue fighting. The task facing the Germans, of carrying out a successful seaborne invasion of mainland Britain, was probably beyond their capability. That sort of thing takes months or even years of planning. It is not the sort of thing to extemporize at the last minute. Certainly not when you have the biggest navy in the world to oppose you.

And although at times they might look like they are, especially when they are unprepared, the thing to remember is that when it comes to fighting, the British have a very long history of warfare, and despite the appearances they might give at times, they certainly aren't amateurs at it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.105 (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

2.24.215.105 I agree with much of what you say but can you supply any reliable sources to support it. That is how WP works, or at least how it is meant to work. I have a number of sources clearly supporting what I want to say (and there are no sources disagreeing) but many here seem to object to it for some reason.

I cannot see how, if the BoB had been lost, how Britain could have continued as a serious belligerent in the war. Had Hitler achieved his objective of air supremacy over Britain, the British would have been in no position to bomb Germany. Most likely would have been a political settlement. Whatever we might think now about the likely success of an invasion, at the time there was real fear of the prospect of a German invasion and, had the BoB have been lost, this would have increased to the point where there would have been pressure for some king of deal with Germany. This was what Hitler wanted and expected. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A 1947 Flight article on the Bristol Brabazon I mentioning its genesis in a 1940-41 Air Staff design study for a bomber capable of bombing Germany from Canada, here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.26 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be a totally unrealistic option and in any case it is your OR. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Closing discussion by sockpuppet of banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There was never any chance of an invasion, because Hitler had no intention of ever trying to invade the UK in 1940. (DieterAnders (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)) That is irrelevant.Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Not really irrelevant - Hitler had no interest in invading the UK, but even if he had won control of the skies he could not have proceeded with an invasion without control of the seas which he had no means of attaining. (DieterAnders (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC))

Churchill

I´m not sure if this has been asked before but shouldnt Chruchill be included in the infobox if Hermann Göring is? After all it was Churchill who gave the great speeches to raise the British public morale. Regards --Ransewiki (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think he should. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane v Bf109

This was the text :
The Luftwaffe's Messerschmitt Bf 109E and Bf 110C fought against the RAF's workhorse Hurricane Mk I and the less numerous Spitfire Mk I. The Bf 109E had a better climb rate and was 10–30 mph (16–48 km/h) faster than the Hurricane Mk I, depending on altitude..... In September 1940, the more powerful Mk IIa series 1 Hurricanes started entering service in small numbers.[43] This version was capable of a maximum speed of 342 mph (550 km/h), some 25–30 mph (40–48 km/h) more than the Mk I.
But surely this is wrong ? The Hurricane was at no stage as fast as the 109, yet the paragraph starts by saying the Mk1 was only 10 to 30mph slower and ends by saying the Mk11a Hurricane "was 25 to 30mph faster" than the Mk1 (thus implying it was now as fast as a 109) !
Furthermore the Rotol propellor is not mentioned, I was under the impression that was at least as significant (if not more so) than the Emergency Boost Overide ?
This needs clarifying surely.--JustinSmith (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I have modified the text, please feel free to improve the readability if possible !
I do think there`s a big problem with all the figures quoted for speeds of the Hurricane, so many seem contradictory. I have used the comparative tests by the RAF between a captured 109 and a Rotol Mk1 Hurricane (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-109.pdf) and the performance quoted in The Rolls Royce Heritage Trust book "Merlin In Perspective" (p135). On the subject of which, the latter book - which surely ought to know ! - quotes the power output for a Merlin III (p155) as fitted to a Mk1 Hurricane as 1310hp at 3000 rpm at 9000 ft at 12 lb/Sq in boost. And for a Merlin XX (p163) as fitted to a MkII Hurricane as 1485 hp at 3000 rpm at 6000 ft at 14lb/Sq in boost (low speed supercharge) and 1490 hp at 3000 rpm at 12500 ft at 16 lb / Sq in boost (high speed boost). So where do these figures of 1030hp for a Merlin III and 1185hp for a Merlin XX come from ? ! ? On the subject of which I still think it`s a poor decision to only have specs for one model of aircraft in the Wikipedia pages. It`s misleading, and that`s at best....--JustinSmith (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The comparative test of the Hurricane and Me109 was done without the Hurricane using emergency boost and so it's Merlin engine was limited to using 6.25lb lb boost and a maximum of 1030hp, or almost 300hp less than at 12lb boost. RAF tests showed that the Hurricane would gain roughly 30mph at altitudes of about 11000ft or lower while using emergency boost. Of course the climb rate would increase greatly as well; the use of emergency boost gave the Hurricane 1 a rough parity with the Me109e at altitudes under about 11000ft as the previously referenced performance figures for the Hurricane I with 12lb boost showed speeds of 305 and 325mph at 5000ft and 10,000ft. The power increase with emergency boost declined progressively with altitude, with no performance gains above about 18000ft (the Merlin III full throttle height). Thus the Hurricane I was greatly outperformed by the Me109e at high altitudes but the introduction of the Merlin XX gave the Hurricane II much better performance at altitudes above 20,000ft, and the Me109e had much less high altitide advantage over the Hurricane II.Damwiki1 (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

But the Hurricane pilot wouldn`t / couldn`t have emergency boost on all the time would / could he ? ! ?
My copy of the Merlin In Perspective states unequivocally that the Hurricane was significantly slower then the 109, which you`d expect because it weighed significantly more then the 109 and had thicker wings (higher drag). --JustinSmith (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither aircraft would be running full throttle or overboost at all times, but the Luftwaffe pilot would be more constrained in using full power because he would be further from his bases in France and had to carefully monitor his fuel consumption. The use of overboost was so prevalent in Fighter Command that Dowding sent out a memo warning against excessive use. The Me109e was 30-40mph faster than the Hurricane I at each's aircraft's full throttle height, but at low altitudes the Hurricane I using overboost (as I showed above) had significantly more horsepower than the Me109e and was nearly even in speed, climb rate and could outturn the Me109e as well. Stating that the Me109e was 30-40mph faster than the Hurricane I is misleading to the reader unless it is also stated that the Me109e lost it's advantage at lower altitudes. Under 12,000ft or so, the Me109 was probably at an overall performance disadvantage to the Hurricane 1 thatt used overboost. The figures on page 136 of Merlin in Perspective clearly show that the Hurricane (and Spitfire) were not using overboost as the figures for the Hurricane were created during a special overload trial but the performance at mean weight was closer to the actual combat weight of a Hurricane.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Canada

There has never been any clear consensus to include Canada as a belligerent nation and I suggest that it is removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If no one objects I will remove Canada from the list of Belligerent nations. What is the rational for including Italy? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sure there was a discussion on this and as Canada supplied Hurricane squadrons to help in the fight it was decided to add them. Other countries supplied manpower but not independent units. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, RCAF units operated under British control, as the Poles did, so they don't deserve a separate mention, for the same reason. (And, IIRC, the Polish question has been extensively hashed out.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Understood. MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There was consensus to keep Canada as a belligerent nation, as the RCAF supplied a complete RCAF fighter squadron, unlike any other non-UK belligerent. The RCAF extended operational control of No. 1 squadron to the RAF as a courtesy and the RCAF in Britain was commanded by a senior RCAF officer.Damwiki1 (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I invite editors to review the previous discussion

I am aware of the previous discussion and did not see any clear consensus to keep Canada; there ware arguments on both sides. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I have just looked at the previous discussion and there were only two clearly expressed views, yours and mine. That does not constitute a consensus. As we have two editors just above supporting the removal of Canada there is now a consensus to do that. If I have misunderstood the views expressed above please let me know, otherwise I will restore my edit. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

No, there must be consensus to remove Canada, and there is not now nor has there been in two previous discussions, where in fact, you agreed that there was no consensus to remove Canada. User Milboure one has disputed the removal and his subsequent agreement is based upon Trekphiler's incorrect summation. Canada's participation was fundamentally different from the Poles, as Canada fielded an independent squadron, commanded by RCAF officers while RCAF personnel in the UK were commanded by a senior RCAF officer. RCAF No.1 Squadron was only under RAF FC operational control as a courtesy to the RAF. The Poles were not members of a separate national AF and were enrolled directly into the RAF, and were paid directly by the UK. A very similar situation, to that faced by the RCAF, existed for the RAF when they participated in the defence of Darwin in 1943, and it would be absurd to deny the UK participant status because the RAF squadrons flew under RAAF operational control, (again as a courtesy to the RAAF). The fact is that excluding Canada would be anti-historical because the historical record is very clear that Canada participated by fielding an independent squadron of a independent airforce. This situation was identical to operations were Commonwealth land and naval units operated under nominal UK control - this does not deny them national belligerent status in the relevant articles. I will repost a summation of the RCAF's command structure during the BoB:

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. 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. . . . "

The last paragraph is equally applicable to any Commonwealth Dominion unit, nominally under and Dominion's command, which is why Commonwealth Dominions are always given belligerent status when they fielded units into the relevant battle. You cannot willy-nilly decide to overturn the legal and military framework that existed between the Commonwealth Dominions because you feel like it. You would have to prove that Canada was not an independent country fielding an independent airforce. The burden of proof is upon you to remove Canada, and to do that you have to prove that Canada didn't field a unit of a sovereign AF into the battle.Damwiki1 (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you substantiate your statement, 'Commonwealth Dominions are always given belligerent status when they fielded units into the relevant battle'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

In general, any well researched and edited wikipedia article that uses flag icons will include Dominion flags, when that Dominion participated at the unit level in a campaign or battle. If the Dominion's flag is omitted it is an omission on the part of the editors except in a few rare cases where a dominion unit was present but didn't participate in the battle. In any event, it is a historical fact that the RCAF fielded a fighter squadron that participated in the battle - and you would have to prove otherwise to omit Canada as a belligerent. Damwiki1 (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you cannot substantiate your claim that 'Commonwealth Dominions are always given belligerent status when they fielded units into the relevant battle'.

It is not disputed that RCAF fielded a fighter squadron that participated in the battle but it was not an independent force it operated under RAF control at all times. THis is not, in my opinion and that of two other editors, enough to include Canada and a belligerent in the BoB. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Pray show me an article where a Dominion participated in a battle at the unit level but is not given belligerent status. The RCAF was an independent AF of a sovereign nation that declared war on Germany and Italy and pursued. The RCAF gave RAF FC operational control because it would have been grossly inefficient to set up a parallel command and control structure, just as the RAF extended operational control to the RAAF when the RAF operated from Australia. However the RCAF did not grant the RAF the right to exercise control within the Squadron which puts No.1 Squadron in a unique position, in that the RAF did not exercise internal discipline within the squadron, just as RAF squadrons in Australia retained their RAF internal command structure. Another analogy is where Dominion (and other nation) naval units operated under RN (or vice versa) operational control - they are still given belligerent status; a squadron is broadly equivalent to a naval destroyer.Damwiki1 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Would someone else please comment here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've shown that No.1 Squadron was commanded by RCAF Air Commodore GV Walsh, and that he informed No.11 Group that the RCAF was not an RAF unit, and that this placed constraints on 11 Group's control of the squadron. There is no dispute that Canada was an independent country, and there's no dispute that the RCAF was an independent air force. Your original argument in Archive 11 was that RCAF No.1 Squadron absorbed personnel from RAF 115 squadron and I showed that it, in fact, absorbed personnel from 115 RCAF squadron. Again, No.1 Squadron was an RCAF squadron, commanded by an RCAF officer, who in turn, was commanded by an RCAF Air Commodore, who in turn reported directly to Ottawa. This places the RCAF in the UK on the same level as the RAF. The RCAF did permit operational control to take advantage of Dowding's group and GCI system, but again, it was common practise throughout WW2 for Dominion forces to operate under other Dominion's (and the UK was a Dominion) operational command. For example, the RAF in Australia operated under RAAF operational control and British Army units in Crete and Normandy operated under operational control of a New Zealand general and of the Canadian First Army, respectively. Throughout this discussion (3 times now) I've provided numerous references to substantive historical works, while you've provided nothing except your opinion. You need to provide solid references to back up your argument; since you've provided none, I assume that you have none, and therefore have no case at all. It's time you let this matter drop and support the inclusion of Canada as a Belligerent in this article.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Consequences of Britain losing

I still think that we should say something about what historians consider would have been the consequences had Germany established air superiority over Britain. Please note that I am talking about, what historians say, not what we here think. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Is that a dead horse I see before me? Alas, Horatio... Spenser Hawk ^{whassup, Ichabod?} 15:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I fully appreciate that you do not want to say anything about this but several quality reliable secondary sources do have something to say on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

We have to bear in mind who and what Wikipedia is for. As an instance of its potential value; in recent years, secondary school students in England have been asked to consider the significance of the Battle of Britain and of Operation Dynamo – separately and together – and the potential for catastrophe had the outcome been failure by Britain. The Wikipedia articles should be a good introduction to the subject/s, and teachers can point out that the information and opinions offered are derived from authoritative sources whose inevitable differences must be borne in mind. I’m sure that other individuals and educational bodies are also helped in this way. Please pardon me if I am felt to be stating the obvious, but I do find some of the unproductive arguments we get into to be hindrance rather than help.--Mabzilla (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of WP's aims. I'm also conscious of the need to avoid speculation, sourced or otherwise, masquerading as historiography. That's what this is. That's all this is, & the notional "consequences" flow from circumstances that are, at the very best, improbable. More to the point, this has been already (fairly exhaustively) hashed out, yet Martin Hogbin refuses to let it die. If teachers want to discuss the implications, there are plenty of sources on the page to begin that with. This has begun to degenerate into another variety of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy debate. This content doesn't belong on a serious page on the Battle. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not think there is much point in us continuing to argue with one another about this, I am hoping to get input from other editors. When you refer to 'thrashed out' above, it was mainly a discussion between the two of us. Whatever your opinion on the matter, what we say in Wikipedia is based on what sources say on the subject not on what you or I think. I have given several high quality reliable secondary sources which all give the same opinion on the consequences of German success in the BoB, which is that in that event Britain would have been unable to play any further significant role in the war, with Europe falling into the hands of Hitler and Stalin.

This is not remotely like the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theories, which are contrary to mainstream historical opinion. I have looked at many sources on the BoB and they seem to fall into two categories: those that support what I have given above, most clearly expressed by Bungay, and those who say nothing on the subject. I have not found any reputable sources which challenge this view. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Mabzilla, It is normal to give the opinions of historians on the significance of events and I agree that it would be useful to do so here. I would be happy to use language like 'Historians consider...' but I do not see any reason to weaken that statement as there are no historians expressing contradictory opinions. Just to be clear, I do not want to add speculation about whether there would have been a successful German invasion of Britain. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

In no way like the Pearl Harbor conspiracy debate? Really? It's pure speculation on the possible effect of an outcome that did not happen and had almost no chance of actually happening. I'd call that a fringe theory, just like the Pear Harbor conspiracy. It's also being pushed by a clear minority, in this case, all of one editor, namely you. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not follow you. What are you referring to when you say that it had 'had almost no chance of actually happening'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you just ignored everything I've written on this subject? The "consequences" depend on German victory in the Battle of Britain, which was, at the very best, unlikely. Since Germany did not win, any remarks about such consequences are nothing but sourced speculation. Sourced speculation is still only speculation. Put it here if you want to speculate, not here. On WP, it is inappropriate. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

On what basis do you say that German victory in the Battle of Britain was unlikely? many historians do not accept that view. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

From our own Operation Sea Lion# Chances of success, it notes military experts stating invading Britain required not just air superiority, but also naval superiority, and that Germany could not achieve naval superiority via air superiority. With air superiority alone, Germany could land the initial invasion wave, but could not keep it supplied in the face of repeated British naval intervention after that. So, maybe winning the BoB would just have emboldened Germany into a disaster.

That means there are conflicting views on the consequences of BoB. That means, if we state anything specific about consequences, per WP:BALANCE, we must state the conflicting specifics. Given that they're all speculation anyway, I don't see having that in the article gives anything useful to the reader.

I might be convinced otherwise if some specific text were presented that manages to succinctly capture all this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

And that's captured it better than I did. :( It's not only about victory in the Battle, it's about said victory leading inevitably (or irrevocably) to a broader success, which is nonsense. German success with Sealion is widely acknowledge to have been impossible. Suggesting victory in the Battle, of itself, changes that is not just speculation: it's fiction. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

In perhaps a less explicit way, this is stated in the Aftermath section. That veers into speculative fiction in the paragraph which starts "Dr. Andrew Gordon, who lectures at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, and a former lecturer Professor Gary Sheffield, have suggested the existence of the Royal Navy was enough to prevent the Germans from invading;[203] even had the Luftwaffe won the air battle, the Germans had limited means with which to combat the Royal Navy, which would have intervened to prevent a landing". Should we delete that paragraph? If similar informed speculation discusses alternative scenarios, should these be shown as well? As always, good sources needed. . . . dave souza, talk 09:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A D Monroe III, my point is about the consequences German success in Britain and not about a possible invasion. By 'German success' I mean that Hitler had achieved his principal objective for the battle, which was that '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'. This what we would call today air supremacy. The Luftwaffe had annihilated the air forces of other European countries in a matter of days and it seemed no sure thing that it would not do the same to the RAF.

There is indeed considerable disagreement amongst historians as to exactly what might have happened if the Germans had won. German ground forces had swept across Europe as far as The Channel and appeared to many to be an unstoppable force. At the time nobody knew what the outcome of Hitler's planned invasion might have been but all agree that there was an atmosphere of fear in the UK that would have increased significantly if Germany had been able to bomb London and cities and ports in the south at will. He had already rapidly moved across Europe as far as the Channel.

I can find no disagreement amongst historians, however, about what could not have happened had the Germans won the BoB. It is generally agreed that Britain could not have played any major role in the rest of the war after losing the BoB. Britain could not have continued it active belligerence against Germany and could not have been the safe starting point for the Allied liberation of Europe.

This is not my view but that, to a greater or lesser degree, of all 7 sources quoted just above. No one has produced any sources saying that, after losing the BoB, Britain could have remained a significant belligerent in the war or could have still been a base for Operation Overlord. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Dave, I'm not so troubled by that. (I agree, sourcing is a good thing.) That kind of narrow, immediate claim for a consequence, or potential consequence, I'd call reasonable. It's going farther than that I have trouble with. Is it true Britain would not have been a threat to Germany had the Battle been lost? IDK. I doubt the truth of that, since it presupposes Britain would not rebuild, or that Germany would (could) continue to suppress RAF to a comparable degree, or could successfully invade, all of which I find extremely unlikely. And speculating on German success based on an improbable outcome is something for an AH site, not WP. (I'd say, even there, this would get slammed--& should.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion, which you are fully entitled to, but Wikipedia is not based on the personal opinions of editors but on what is said in reliable sources. How would you summarise the 7 sources that I have quoted above? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"How would you summarise the 7 sources that I have quoted above?" As I have repeatedly said, sourced speculation is still speculation. You seem to be the only one interested in adding it, & the only one unable to grasp that concept. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see any way to summarize these disjointed speculations.

First, they don't all agree; what they say ranges from Hitler would have won the whole war, to the USSR would have won, to the US would be ineffective, to Britain would have made peace (seriously?), to merely saying how "symbolic" the victory was.

Second, (where most of the editors here focus on) very little or nothing is given in these sources for the "how" of these various outcomes. While I believe things looked quite different to those involved at the time, none of this seems plausible now. Without invading Britain, what could Germany have done with air supremacy over southern England? Germany had no strategic bombers, so while they could have rained misery on southern England, Great Britain would have fought on, and held out until the US arrived in force. The US would have aid Britain via Africa and the Med for a couple years, but that's what happened anyway. Without something reliable on the "how", there's no substance for us to include, making these irrelevant.

Without any actual text for a proposed change, and none apparently possible, I think we're done here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that you can dismiss seven reliable sources in a paragraph of your own personal opinion. We need to include something based on these sources, because that is how Wikipedia works. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

WP does not work by including all sources. Sources does not equal relevant. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

And just when I thought A D Monroe III had definitively summed things up, the dead horse comes to life again... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it was just a postmortem twitch. I'm backing away. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Need I say I didn't mean you? ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we could do with wider input on this. It seems to me that some editors are allowing their personal opinions to override what reliable sources say on a suject of obvious relevance to the article. I will propose some wording. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Bring in all the "wider view" you want. Since you seem to have an axe to grind over this, maybe you'll listen when the entire Milhist community tells you it's garbage, but I doubt it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

As a member of said community, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this. On one hand, I think over-speculation should definitely be avoided, since "alternative history" really does belong elsewhere. I don't want to rehash this argument, to be sure. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree that over-speculation is a bad thing and should not be in WP but let me just put a point to you. It is right and proper for an article on a military campaign to give some idea of the wider significance of the result. In the case of an offensive campaign such as Operation Overlord, for example, the significance of the success of the campaign is clear; Europe was liberated. Hidden in that statement, though, is some consideration, not normally regarded as counterfactual speculation, as to what the situation might have been had the Allies failed. We have to ask ourselves whether Europe might have gained its freedom from Hitler and Stalin without the Normandy landings. In this particular case that is an easy question to answer. There is no conceivable way that Europe could have been freed from the iron grip of Hitler and Stalin without success in Overlord, at least for several years, when a new operation could have been mounted. Obvious though it may be in this case, it is always necessary to 'speculate' over what the situation might have been had the results of any campaign been different.

In the case of success in a defensive campaign (of failure of an offensive one if you prefer) the actual consequences of the result can be much less dramatic. The actual result of German failure in the BoB was, 'nothing happened'. To put this into a proper historical perspective we do have to consider what would most likely have happened had Hitler succeeded.

When I say 'we', I mean of course reliable sources, not we we personally think. There is improper speculation here, just above, by a couple of editors. What I want to add is a summary of what quality sources (of which I have quoted 7 above) say on the subject. As it is, there are sources which do say that the war in Europe would be effectively all over had the BoB been lost by the British, and there are sources which make less strong statements but there are no sources which actually contradict the argument that Britain would have not been able to remain an effective Belligerent in the war had the BoB have been lost. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

To be sure, you make some valid points, but I am not sure if we can see this "what if" on other battle articles, no matter how well it's sourced. What if Hitler invaded Poland early? What if there was no Pearl Harbor? There is some degree of speculation sometimes, but that's typically on things that did happen (did the Balkan Campaign delay Barbarossa?) I think it's fair to put in wording like, "The Battle effectively dashed German hopes of invading Britain," as well as it's sourced properly, but I think going beyond that is a little shaky. Just my third opinion, feel free to ignore me. User:GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"Yes I agree that over-speculation is a bad thing and should not be in WP" Then why do you keep pushing this junk? It depends on purely speculative examination of events that are unlikely or impossible. You seem to consider that, in a way unclear to me, not to be "over-speculation"--but only in this case. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Well 7 historians (and there are no doubt many more) consider it important enough to comment on. I do not see why we should not follow their example here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

GeneralizationsAreBad, you mention other battle articles. Many of the most important battles of WWII have whole sections on their significance. See Battle_of_Stalingrad#Significance, Operation_Barbarossa#Historical_significance, Battle_of_Midway#Impact, Guadalcanal_Campaign#Significance Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that they have sections on their significance. I guess my point is that these sections deal with what did happen, not what could have happened. For example, Operation Barbarossa's section states:

Operation Barbarossa was the largest and one of the swiftest military operations in human history; more men, tanks, guns and aircraft were committed than had ever been deployed before in a single offensive. A total of 75 percent of the entire German military participated in it. The invasion opened up the Eastern Front of World War II, the largest theater of war during that conflict, and it witnessed titanic clashes of unprecedented violence and destruction for four years that resulted in the deaths of more than 26 million people. More people died fighting on the Eastern Front than in all other fighting across the globe during World War II.

All of this is factual -- it's not as if it read, "Had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany could have won the war."

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

GeneralizationsAreBad has captured the difference. If this was a statement, "Had Germany won the Battle of Britain, her war against the Soviet Union would have gone better.", I would have no trouble with it. (It's factually supportable.) Going beyond that & saying it would, necessarily, irrevocably, have enabled Germany to defeat Britain is not factually supportable: German victory depends, in this instance, on continual suppression of RAF (improbable at the very least) or on success of Seelöwe (impossible absent intervention by Warehouse 15). Yet that's exactly what is being proposed, here. And that is speculation of the highest order, if not outright fiction. As said repeatedly already, sourced speculation is still speculation. Why Martin Hogbin refuses to acknowledge or accept that, I don't understand. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I have explained all that just above. In all cases to explain the significance of a battle it is necessary to compare what actually happened with what might have happened. In the case of Barbarosa the result at the top of the article is given as 'Failure of the Axis to defeat the Soviet Union'. It is therefore fairly obvious that had the Germans succeeded the result would have been 'The Axis defeated the Soviet Union'. It is the difference between these two radically different outcomes (one factual and the other counter-factual), that indicates the enormous significance of what actually did happened.

In the case of the BoB it is not so immediately obvious what would have been the final outcome had the German objectives been achieved and it is not up to us to speculate. However, many historians in quality reliable sources have considered the significance of German failure and put their opinions in print, based on their opinions of what would have been the results of German success. The result of the battle is considered by sources and of enormous significance and the reason given for this is that, if the Germans had achieved their objectives, Europe would have fallen into the hands of Hitler or Stalin. That result is not in anyway dependent on the success of Seelöwe as many of the sources explain.

GeneralizationsAreBad, let me start by asking you this question. Is there any reason why this article, about what many consider to be The most significant] battle of WW2, should not have a 'Significance' section in this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it should have a significance section, but said section should address what did happen (postponement of Seelowe, eventual scaling-back of air offensive, etc.) A lot of that is already addressed. The closest Barbarossa actually gets to saying what "might" have happened is where it discusses Generalplan Ost (German colonization plans) and the rest. I think there is nothing wrong with emphasizing the importance of the battle for its own sake, regardless of what might have been the consequences. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

So we agree that there should be a 'Significance section in this article, the question is what should it say?

In the case of Barbarosa the ultimate German objective was to bring the Soviet Union under total German control, as Germany had done by invading other European countries. Therefore, when the article gives 'Failure of the Axis to defeat the Soviet Union' as the outcome, this has no significance at all until the (counterfactual) result of German success is considered. In most battles of WW2 the Axis failed to defeat the Soviet Union but that is of no significance whatever because in most battles of WW2 there was no possibility that the Axis might have defeated the soviet union. The facts have no significance whatever until the (counterfactual) alternatives are considered.

Luckily though, we do not need to argue about the significance of the BoB ourselves because what is written in WP is not based on your opinion or mine but on what reliable sources say on the subject. I have quoted above what 7 quality sources say about the significance of the BoB and you are welcome to add any other sources that you can find. How would you summarise their views on the significance of the BoB? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I have just noticed that Hitler's objective for the BoB was, 'The objective of this operation is to eliminate the English home country as a base for the continuation of the war against Germany ...'. It is therefore true, by definition, that had the Germans achieved their objective, the use of the English home country as a base for the continuation of the war against Germany would have been eliminated. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

"'Hitler's objective for the BoB was ...to eliminate the English home country as a base for the continuation of the war against Germany ...'" Since Luftwaffe was incapable of achieving that, even had Germany won the Battle, the notional "consequences" are moot, quite aside anything flowing from said notional victory (in particular, Sealion).

What part of "speculation" do you not understand? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand 'speculation' very well. It is something we should leave to reliable sources and not do ourselves. Hitler's stated objective is an opinion that we should take account of in WP; yours (or mine) is not. There seems to be a consensus forming that we should have a 'significance' section, in line with other highly significant WW2 battle articles. Do you agree?

The question is what should that section contain. I agree that over-speculation is not good and the section should not contain the speculation of editors here but, as I have explained above, it is impossible to understand the significance of any battle without some understanding of what the effect on the war would have been had the result of the battle been different. The section should state what the German overall objective was and give the considered opinion of historians who have studied the battle.

Would you be happy if we made things clear by explicitly giving Hitler's ultimate objective? For example we could start by saying: 'Had Hitler achieved his objective of eliminating the English home country as a base for the continuation of the war against Germany ...'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

♠Clearly, you don't understand "speculation" or you wouldn't be making such strenuous efforts at promoting the addition of it. It's not about editors speculating, either: speculation by historiographers is still speculation. Anything that purports to say Germany might have won the war given victory here is nothing but speculation & has no place on the page, no matter how many sources are saying it, since it was never going to happen. And if I have to, I will dig up two sources for every one of yours to say how impossible Seelöwe was, to prove that point.

♠If you want a "significance" section that talks about how Luftwaffe losses impacted its performance in Barbarossa, I have no problem with that. If you want it to say what Hitler's objectives were, & how they weren't met & had no chance of being met, & why, fine. If you can connect losses to performance in North Africa or in Reich defense, fine. If you mean to claim it leads in any fashion to German victory in the war, forget about it. And your proposed language, "Had Hitler achieved his objective", presupposes achievement, which is a non-starter. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that you do not like the way that Wikipedia works but what reliable sources say does matter and whether you or I agree with them does not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You're the one pushing a fringy theory. As I've repeatedly said, sourced speculation is still speculation. I don't give a damn how many sources say it: if they're theorizing on German victory in the war based on a notional victory in the Battle of Britain, it's an AH, not reality, because there was no damn chance of Germany achieving the notional goal. 7 sources or 7000 saying they might have doesn't make it any more likely or any more than speculation. What part of that don't you get? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Objectives and significance

At the moment, the objectives of the Luftwaffe attack are outlined in the lead, but tucked away under Background. It would be clearer if they were in a section or subsection titled Objectives. Similarly, Aftermath could be focussed more clearly by titling it (or a section) Significance and, following the current first two paragraphs, summarising the defeat of the German objectives. The paragraphs of "what if?" speculation about the Navy preventing any possible invasion even if the battle were lost, or the impossibility of crushing the RAF, should be trimmed and shown in that context. . . dave souza, talk 11:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with reducing 'what if' speculation by editors here as you suggest.

Many other WW2 battle articles do have a section just called 'Significance' is which the significance to the overall progress of WW2 of the results the battle made clear. As this, at least, one of the most significant battles of WW" we should have such a section. The point that I have made above is that the significance of the result of any battle can only ever be determined by comparing what did happen with what would have happened had the result of the battle been different. Just the factual outcome of a battle cannot possibly tell us how significant it was.

In the case of the BoB the overall German objective (to remove Britain from the war) was clearly spelled out so we can easily compare what did happen (when Hitler failed to achieve his main objective) with what would have happened had he done so. We also have several reliable sources that comment on this very subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"I agree with reducing 'what if' speculation" Do you really? Then why do you endorse a more sweeping speculation on German victory in the war, which was impossible? Nay, not endorse, positively push for?

A "significance" section which only talked about how poorly Luftwaffe did, & how far from achieving the stated objective it was, would be a worthwhile addition. One that starts, "Had Germany achieved her goals, she'd have won the war" is nonsense. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Trekphiler, what you think is impossible in completely irrelevant as is my personal opinion. What matters is what reliable sources say in the subject.

It is true, by definition, that had Germany achieved her objective 'to eliminate the English home country as a base for the continuation of the war against Germany ..' then England (Britain) could not have been used as a base for the continuation of the war against Germany. I do not see how you can argue with that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

" I do not see how you can argue with that." Because achieving it was impossible, for a start, & because victory in the Battle of Britain, even if it happened, was not going to achieve it. How do you not get that? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not get it because it is just your personal opinion. Find some sources that say what you claim.

There is little point in us two continuing to argue here. I am going to suggest an RfC. There seems to be a consensus to have a 'Significance' section. The disagreement is about what it should say. I propose that the RfC should say:

'There is a consensus to have a "Significance" section. Should the proposed section be a summary of what is said reliable sources about the significance of the Battle of Britain?' Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have very little inclination wasting my time proving something no credible historiographer believes to somebody so demonstrably closed-minded. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• General Hastings Ismay: "Personally I always felt if we won the Battle of Britain, the Germans would not invade, and that if we lost it, they would have no need to invade. .... the Luftwaffe could have proceeded to wipe out, in their own time and without any 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 means of serious 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 real difficulties." Patrick Bishop's Battle of Britain, p. 329 (ellipsis in the book). Citing Baron Hastings Lionel Ismay (1960). Memoirs. Viking Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) pp. 81–82, Modern historians may assess the possibilities differently, but at the least this should be shown as a historical view. . . . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ismay posits an anti-historical situation, in that he assumes that defeat = RAF/RCAF simply disappearing. We know that RAF FC had plans to pull back from the coastal bases if losses became unbearable and we know that the weather after October was such that strategic bombing could not destroy UK fighter production during the fall and winter of 1940/41; all of this is easily referenced. RAF FC would recover unless the Germans invade. RAF defeat in the BofB would mean that the depleted RAF/RCAF pulls back beyond Luftwaffe fighter range and consequently the Luftwaffe is able to dominate the Channel. The only way Germany can immediately exploit this victory is if they undertake Operation Sealion and pit the Luftwaffe and depleted German navy against the RN and the remnants of RAF FC and the largely intact RAF BC. Published Wargame studies in the 1970s (which Ismay could not know about - see references) showed that Germany was highly unlikely to prevail in such an invasion attempt, indeed as was shown during the Battle for Crete. Therefore a "significance" section cannot discuss the total defeat of the UK since that could not be achieved by aerial means alone and this is easily demonstrated through numerous historical works.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Historically, Ismay's fears lacked the benefit of hindsight, and modern whatiffery. Does that take into account the likelihood of the U.S. ending what little support it was giving, and the availability of drop tanks to extend the range of German fighters? These were real concerns, and fears at the time left open the possibility of an armistice rather than total defeat. What I'm saying is that we should show these earlier concerns as well as the more recent revaluation. . dave souza, talk 21:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

♠And that, in essence, is what I've been saying all along. It is the consensus of historiographers (not including, apparently, the seven fiction writers we're to rely on for this special section). It is the consensus among AHrs, too, who've bothered to study this more deeply than anyone involved in this debate (myself included)--& make no mistake, if it was remotely possible, in an AH setting, it would be acknowledged. (This is a listing of the number of AH threads, at a single site, on the possibility; Sealion's notional success has become notorious {or should I say infamous?}). Such nonsense should not be perpetrated here.

♠As for whether Ismay foresaw or not, I suggest it makes no difference. The posit of RAF defeat fails if Luftwaffe can't achieve air superiority, & that was functionally impossible if FC withdrew north: the 109s did not have the range to engage them much north of 11 Group, while RAF could continue to intercept over home ground. German victory is, at best, improbable in those conditions. Since it appears the "sources" have overlooked that (or chosen to ignore it)... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

An armistice is indeed what many sources consider would be the most likely result of Germany winning the BoB an it is exactly what Hitler wanted. An armistice , of course, means that Britain would have stopped fighting Germany and played further no part WW2 in other words Hitler would have achieved his ultimate objective 'to eliminate the English home country as a base for the continuation of the war against Germany ..'. The armistice terms would undoubtedly have prevented Britain from allowing foreign, in particular US, forces on its territory. In other words 'game over' for Europe. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

♠ What part of "withdrawing north & continuing to fight" do you consider to equate to "armistice"? Exactly? More to the point, what part do you suppose Churchill and the British would have considered the equal part? I'm not seeing any. (Then again, you think speculation is fact.)

♠An aside on Crete: the German success there proves nothing, contrary to what's implied by the Churchill remark; Luftwaffe did not have the weapons to sink RN heavies, while RN was perfectly able to wipe out any invasion convoys. (Which makes any claims victory in the air alone would lead to "armistice" fairly preposterous.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:54, 1 July & 01:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a 'Significance' section

I am not going to call open an RfC yet because, according to WP policy, there is no need for one. No one has objected to the addition of a 'Significance' section. As to what should be in it that is also quite clear, it should be what reliable sources say on the subject. There is no need for an RfC on that it is one of the fundamental principles of WP.

I will add the section and start work of a summary of what sources say in the subject. If there is edit warring, not based on what the sources say, then I will propose an RfC, with the question,

Should the "Significance" section of this article be based on what is said reliable sources about the significance of the Battle of Britain?

This really should not be necessary because basing what we write on reliable sources is such a basic principle of WP that there can really be no argument but, if necessary, I will start an RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Section

I have added a significance section, besed very closely in what is said in several reliable sources. If anyone wishes to challenge it by suggestingthat the cited sources are specially chosen please feel free to find other sources so that wording can be discussed here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This well referenced section has been deleted based on one editor's personal opinion. Please can we have a proper discussion of the subject based on what reliable sources say on the subjectMartin Hogbin (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Speech

The introduction to this article is far too long. We don't need Churchill's entire speech in the lede. (CatJasmine (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC))

I think we do need it, as it gives insight into the mindset of the UK at the time, and it adds colour to the article due to the power of Churchill's oratory. As we have a discussion underway about it, I will revert your edit so the page is at it's existing state prior to your edits, pending the outcome of this discussion, as per wikipedia policy Damwiki1 (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC).

The battle was not that important in World War II - Operation Barbarossa was what stopped the Axis advance. Any other British leader would have made a similar speech to the one Churchill gave on that day. Anyway readers can just click on the link. (CatJasmine (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC))

I beg to differ regarding the importance of the battle, since the defeat of the UK would have removed the last major Axis opponent, the USSR being neutral as the time, and would have completely isolated the USSR. Churchill's speeches and this speech in particular were credited with a stiffening of UK and Commonwealth morale. The speech adds colour to the article and draws the reader into it. If it evokes strong emotions, then so much the better as this speech was intended to do that. Churchill was widely regarded as one of the best UK orators and it is unlikely that any other leader, in consideration for PM could have given such a stirring speech.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This page isn't, as such, about the wider war. The quote adds almost nothing to understanding the battle proper, & it's linked to anyhow. I'd be inclined to include the final line, given popular familiarity with it, & given the contrast with Winston's speech & the actual treatment of Dowding. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As several sources clearly say, had the battle been lost and Germany gained air supremacy over the UK it would have been 'game over' in Europe. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It would not have been "all over" in Europe because the entire British Empire - apart from Ireland - had declared war on Germany. At the very least the quotation needs to be shortened, only the last line is really relevant. If the UK had been invaded in 1940 then the Royal Navy would have continued the war from Canada. This was the main reason why Spain did not formally join the Axis, even though Franco was very much in favour of invading Gibraltar and Morocco. (CatJasmine (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC))

Have you a source for this theory? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Churchill, Hitler, Goring, Keitel, Franco, Canaris, Donitz, Galland and von Rundstedt all said that if the UK was overrun then the Battle of the Atlantic would continue from Canada. It was the main reason Spain did not join the war in 1940. (CatJasmine (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC))

You opinion is interesting and I would be happy to discuss it with you in user space but articles are based on what is said in reliable sources not on our personal opinions. Do you have any reliable sources that state that Britain could have remained an effective belligerent after being overrun? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Are we really going to get into the debate over the nonsensical "victory in the Battle of Britain equals German victory in the war" theory again? Really? German air supremacy was improbable in any event. Even if it was achieved, the ability of Germany to invade successfully, a necessary prerequisite for victory, was nil. Moreover, it's extremely probable, even in the absurdly unlikely event of German invasion, HMG would simply relocate to the Bahamas or Bermuda (not Canada; that's a myth), in the same way Polish & French (& other) gov'ts in exile did. And none of that is about the quote... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No, there is no debate to be had. We say what sources say, and they say what I have said above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"No, there is no debate to be had." Correct, because not a single credible source says German victory in the Battle equals German victory in the war. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess you missed the section Talk:Battle_of_Britain#So_what_are_we_going_to_say_about_the_consequences_of_German_success.3F. Here are some quotes:
'If Hitler had won, all Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals would have come under Nazi rule...',
'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'.
'All of them [The Germans] from Hitler downwards assumed that Great Britain would make peace once France was defeated...'
'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.'

If you disagree, or think that I have cherry picked sources, please find some sources which state an opposing view. I would be very happy to work with you in a 'Consequenses' section to give a fair and balanced view of what sources say on the subject. Please do remember though that our own personal opinions count for nothing in WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There was no chance of an invasion of the UK in 1940, and Hitler did not even want to invade. Even if the Germans had won air superiority they could not have invaded due to the vast superiority of the Royal Navy over the Kriegsmarine. It is more likely that Hitler would have offered to evacuate northern France in June 1940 and end the fighting in the West, if Churchill agreed to stop bombing Germany. (CatJasmine (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC))

This is not a page for discussing our personal opinions or pet theories on the subject it is a place where we discuss how to improve the article based on what is said in reliable sources. Please can we restrict our conversations here to what reliable sources say. If you want to talk about the subject in general I would be happy to do so on my or your talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hitler admitted on 14 August 1940 that he was almost certainly not going to try to invade the UK. He also said the reason the Battle of Britain happened was because the RAF had started bombing Germany in May. Many major players in the events from Adolf Galland to Gerd von Rundstedt said Hitler had no intention of even attempting an invasion. (CatJasmine (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC))

I have linked the phrase reliable sources to the relevant section of WP policy so that you can read the policy. It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that whatever we say in the article must be verifiable from a reliable sources. I would be happy to discuss your personal assertions on my talk page but they are not relevant here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This has been argued & settled. Why do you insist on reopening it? Because you failed to have this nonsense included last time? Your sources, by all appearances, are saying what would happen if the Germans won the war. Winning this battle does not equal that. Show me where your sources say it does: not "might", not "could", but "does". Show me any source saying that. I daresay there isn't one. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing was ever settled. The sources all refer specifically to the Battle of Britain. If you want more details I can give them to you so that you can confirm this yourself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

To put one quote into context Bungay says, 'If Britain had given up in 1940 [the whole book was about the BoB], the war could have had one of two possibe outcomes: Nazi or Soviet domination of Europe. ... If Hitler had won [the fight between Germany and Russia], all Europe from the Atlantic to th Urals would have come under Nazi rule'. He then goes on to refer to the other possibilty, European domination by Stalin. Maybe a little better, maybe not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately the real outcome of the war was that the UK and France destroyed themselves and lost their empires. It wasn't Germany that was occupying half the world in 1940. If the UK had been invaded then Churchill was to continue the war from Canada. (CatJasmine (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC))