Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Britain/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

GA Review

I've put this on hold as a Good Article for the time being even though it is a excellent discussion point. While there's a great deal good about it, I think there are a number of issues which stop it meeting the Good Article criteria currently. Some of these are down to the high-profile nature of the article's subject - all the more reason to get it up to GA standard. Areas where I feel the article doens't meet the WP:WIAGA criteria:

  • 1b - Structure. At present I don't think the structure helps the article flow. While the idea of dealign with strategy and tactics before a chronological account of major clashes is basically sound, I think it's a bit rough. Here are some suggestions which may be useful: I am not sure that four sections on both sides' strategy and tactics is necessarily the right way to go about it: perhaps merge each nation's strategy and tactics secions? Each section also seems to deal with the issues about intelligence, electronics and reconaissance; could the 'battle of the beams' section be merged into a strategy/tactics discussion? Should there be sections on the forces deployed, perhaps with the relevant technical comparison and the debate about jsut how many effective planes the Germans had?. The 'bomber command/coastal command contributions' and 'foreign contributions' sections could also be merged into this bit.
  • 1c - Style. My main concern here is that the article has a bit too much purple prose. E.g. Luftflotte 5 was 'unleashed'; the Stuka "simply too vulnerable"; Goering, the 'technically inept' Reichsmarshall makes 'fateful' decisions; Polish pilots' hatred of the Germans 'bordered on the fanatical'. These sorts of statements may be true but they either need to be sourced or toned down; the article still reads a bit like a tabloid. Fewer uses of 'Nazi' to refer to Germany would also be welcome.
  • 2c - citations. There is a great deal of potentially controversial material in the article and it needs to use more inline citations.

Anyway those are the main issues I can see. Any questions just ask! The Land 21:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll try to get the sections combined, and eliminate some of the more poetic phrases. I'll also try and get some more inline quotes in there, but I currently have access to only two of the sources so it would be nice if somebody else could help out as well Abel29a 23:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've restructured the article, hopefully for the better, to get a more logical flow of information. I've also added a number of cites, but the source selection for cites is narrow as it stands now. I've also tried to get rid of some of the overly proseic language.Abel29a 15:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to promote a) the article has been on hold for 7 days and I think the issues have been addressed quite well. I am sure there is room for further improvements but I think it is well within the criteria for Good article status. In a month or so you should in any case submit it for peer review with an eye to getting Featured article stuatus.Peter Rehse 10:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflation of Schwarme and Finger Four

Recent edits have sought to conflate the concepts of the "Schwarme" (Luftwaffe) and "Finger four"(RAF). While they have similarities in terms of paired fighters making up four machine sub-units it is my understanding that the actual formations were not identical/equivalent. There is a picture of spitfires in what I believe to be a finger four type formation here [Image:01097628 062.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:01097628_062.jpg] it is quite distinct from the Schwarme. --Sf 16:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Finger Four was the RAF term for the Luftwaffe Schwarm formation, which was later adopted in a modified form by RAF. But I might very well be mistaken. I'll remove the finger four label for now Abel29a 16:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That's my understanding, too, & it's certainly the impression Deighton leaves in Fighter. As for Allen's Battle of Britain, Beurling's Malta Spitfire, or Johnnie Johnson's book, I don't recall. Trekphiler 21:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a diagram of the RAF variation here [1] see page 55. It is attributed to Sailor Malan but no specific term is given for it. I must be mistaken in assuming this was the finger four - I'll go with the other explanations offered. --Sf 09:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(5) Phases of the Battle (5.4) Raids on British Cities os popularly known as "The Blitz", and since there's an article on the subject, there really should be a link there. Perhaps:

Main article: The Blitz
The Blitz is already linked to under the Luftwaffe Strategy section. Generally subjects are only wikilinked once per page.Mumby 11:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Altough that is the generally correct, Mumby, I think making a main article link in the Blitz section is appropiate, to allow interested users reading that section direct access to the Blitz article, without having to hunt through the Luftwaffe strategy section.Abel29a 15:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Caution needed with references

I don't think it is a great idea to have the article so dependant on Bungay's 'Most Dangerous Enemy' for its references. Bungay is primarily a management consultant and this was his first book, that is not to say that it is not an excellent history book, but I think it is in the interests of the article to use as wide a range of references as possible. I know this is time consuming (and expensive if you want to buy them all!), but I think it is worth keeping in mind.Mumby 11:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You have a point indeed - I only have access to his book and Len Deightons one (which I plan on adding references from as well), so I'm somewhat limited in sources. I hope somebody else can add more refs from other sources, to either support Bungays claims, or point out differences - but I figured I'd add the refs from the one source I used when making additions to the article, as a starting point for people wanting to check my additions.Abel29a 15:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Its not like there is a dearth of information - you have a huge bibliography list. Great if some of those could be incorporated as in-line references. When this article gets sent for peer review - the heavy reliance on one or two references will come up.Peter Rehse 10:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I think the main problem is that it is time consuming, but we will get there. Does anybody know if there are any books that are considered 'key texts' when it comes to the Battle of Britain? Should we focus on using them as in-line refs if possible? Mumby 11:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I note that material that I had taken the time to check and had referenced from another source has now been amended in a manner inconsistent with the original source and the reference has been removed. Not an encouraging sign really --Sf 11:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Ooops that was my bad.... I put the Price ref on the same line as the Bungay ref, seeing as they both supported the same claim, but on review I see it completely obscures the Price ref - I've split them in two again. In what way do you feel the current information is not consistent with the original source? I apologise if I've changed something there that I shouldnt have. Abel29a 12:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
See isn't wikipedia wonderful. Its a big article these things sometimes happen but are easily fixed.Peter Rehse 12:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully I've fixed it by re adding the Front line pilots line - Please check to make sure Sf. And yes, Wikipedia is wonderful :) Abel29a 12:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
{ Wilco ;-) unfortunately the copy of Price I checked is not my own so this may take some days :-(. When I do I will also check his take on the "finger four" description(see above). --Sf 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Bomber and Coastal Command contributions

A thought regarding the word "decimation:" This word means (literally) to kill every tenth one of. In this usage, it appears the condition being described may be more severe—say, closer to destruction, or devastation than decimation. I won't change this term here myself, as I'm not informed on the Battle of Britain, but I thought I'd speak up, as the word is sometimes misused. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fagiolonero (talk • contribs) 07:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Indeed the origin of the word is to kill 10% of a force, but today the word is often uses ( as in this case) to describe the destruction of a large proportion, much more than 10%. (Wiktionary: The destruction of any large proportion, as of people by pestilence or war.) That being said - there were a much higher than 10% causaltiy rate on some of these missions, so maybe destruction or similar is better. Abel29a 10:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Misleading

"German strategy was influenced by pre-war theories of strategic bombing, which stressed the weakness of air defence and the effects of terror bombing on public morale."

This is completely false. These seems to be suggesting that the Luftwaffe engaged in the bombing of British citizens intentionally. Although Goering did show an interest in the effects of terror bombing, this doctine was not employed by the Germans first (as the Wikipedia page suggests).

H. W. Koch wrote in "The Strategic Air Offensive against Germany: The Early Phase, May-September 1940" (The Historical Journal Vol. 34, No. 1) That Hitler prohibited attacks on the English people. Residential attacks were to be avoided; thus Fliegerkorps did not fly over South East England when it was cloudy or foggy, etc. Richard Overy is also consistant with this statement. In his book, Battle of Britain he states that the intention of the Germany Air Force was to destroy British ports, oil refinaries and munitions factories. M. Kirby and R. Capey wrote in their article, Area Bombing of Germany in World War II: An Operational Research Perspective (Journal of Operational Research Society, Vol. 48 No. 7) That terror bombing was advocated by Britsh Chief of Air Staff Hugh Trenchard; who actually had a list of targets by late 1939 including residential areas in mainland Germany.

Taybot 17:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with the above comments; what also needs to be remembered is that the Luftwaffe bomber arm was never intended to operate in a strategic role, as was designed as a purely tactical weapon in support of the Wehrmacht. Harryurz 21:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm gonna start reworking this bit now, hopefully you can all check and see if my edits are correct and add some more corrections as needed. Abel29a 12:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple of changes...

This article is very good, but I'd like to make a few edits to re-arrange some items for readability. To start with the paragraph near the top starting with "Luftwaffe attacks on Britain began..." is out of place and I don't think belongs in the discussion of the background. It's essentially trivia that doesn't have anything to do with the battle itself. I'm not sure if it belongs in the chronology section either, as that is focussed on the battle itself. Should this simply be removed? I'd also like to re-arrange the "aircraft" section slightly to add a discussion of the pre-battle German concepts of long-range escort. The Bf 110 is mentioned, but I don't think the article really gives a good idea of the primacy of this aircraft in their planning. Any comments? Maury 12:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the paragraph, it does feel a bit disjointed. I don't think the 'Aircraft' section should contain too much detail as we have an article dedicated to the BoB aircraft (Battle of Britain Aircraft), in fact I would like to see it slimmed down. We really need some info about the German aircraft in there. I think there is still a long way to go with this article, particular with regard to in-line references.Mumby 14:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph, which has been removed, was under the heading of background and gave the context that air raids on Britain commenced well before the period known as the Battle of Britain. A bit more background than a passing reference to the fall of France seems appropriate. .. dave souza, talk 21:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

References

I want to run this by you before I put in an hour or so of effort. I plan to turn all the references to Burgay, Deighton and Allen into in-line references. All the current information will be preserved but it should make the references section, and the entire article, more self consistent. At the moment we have a mixture of Harvard referencing and references using the cite template (Wikipedia:Citation templates). This makes way for future development of the article, particularly the reduction in dependency on the three sources I mentioned. Does anyone object before I put the effort in? I will give it 24hours or so before I start. Thanks.Mumby 15:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - getting all the references coherent would be nice, especially when pushing this for FA down the line. Abel29a 18:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, did it. Sorry I have clogged up the history page with so many edits, I made a few mistakes, then the server went down! I think it looks better now, certainly more in line with what you see in good featured articles for example. Once again, it highlights the over dependence on Bungay's book. It also made me realise how damn long this article is, perhaps we need to farm some stuff out into subpages. Any thoughts? Mumby 21:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

P.s. You will probably notice that I have kept the carriage returns in whenever I use the citation templates. I find that this makes it easier to read the wiki-markup and navigate through large sections of text when editing. That is just my preference though. It is also easier to write.Mumby 10:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion of references

As anybody who watches the page will have noticed, there has been some back and forth over which appraoch to take with references, notes, and bibliography in the article. There is quite a lot of it, if anybody is interested you can follow it on my talk page and Bzuks talk page. I would welcome anyone elses opinions and ideas. Regards, Mumby 22:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Let me state my concerns about the latest edit/reverts. They can be summed up as:

  1. The new edit is, as the editor has noted himself, led to "nothing but a mess." The original edit begun on 20 April 2007 followed a clear, easy-to-read combination of the MLA style guide (the world's most common bibliographical protocol) and the Harvard Citation guide which lists the reference in a concise (author date, page) style that is immediately linked to the full bibliographic record in the "references" section which is the standard for Wikipedia.
  2. The new reverts are very hard to read, with multiple "full" citations for simple page notes, a number of errors in citations (mainly typos), an inconsistent mix of at least two style guides and two date protocols (4 May 2007 and 2007-05-04).
  3. The use of a separate section for a bibliography implies that it is a "further reading" section whereas it includes mainly reference sources used in researching the article. The new edit also introduces a "Notes and References" and a "Bibliography" section wherein the original edit combined the two sections as one which is the standard for aviation articles.
  4. The use of Wikipedia editing templates is advocated but not mandated. In the Manual of Style is the note that "Wikipedia does not require writers to follow all or any of these rules" but in following the APA guide in one place and the MLA guide in another has led to the occasional dropping of the place of publication and moving the date of publication to the author's name ala ASA style. This cataloguing guide which although used extensively in Wikipedia, is not the only style guide that is accepted. Wikipedia does not insist on an editing protocol nor on the use of templates, instead, Wikipedia makes no real clear distinction other than these very general guidelines: Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view," advocating no single point of view, presenting each point of view accurately and providing context, citing verifiable, authoritative sources and that Wikipedia is free content anyone may edit and no individual controls any specific article.
  5. No consensus was reached on this talk page as to how to edit the references or notes, rather than a comment that changes were necessary and that an offer was made on 3 April to take on the "task" with one other comment on the same day made by an editor that it "Sounds good" to him/her. Two comments hardly reaches consensus status and the fact that the entire edit was immediately reverted may have led others to believe it was vandalism. There is a general rule that Wikipedia establishes, that is:
  • Act in good faith and assume good faith on the part of others. The original edits were begun on 20 April with no reversions and then a massive reversion recently occured with the comment: "rv. See article talk page and Bzuk's talk page." Subsequently, my concerns are now identified here, although I did try to explain the reasoning for the edits on Mumby's home talk page.

The following examples will illustrate the changes that were undertaken in reverting the original edits:

e.g. The original edit in standard Harvard Citation style (recommended for research and historical subjects) for citations:

  • Bungay 2000, p. 86.
  • Bungay 2000, p. 260.
  • Bungay 2000, p. 259.
  • Bungay 2000, p. 249.

The new edit has (APA [American Psycological Association] Style guide [often preferred in the fields of psychology and many other social sciences] derived from a Wikipedia template):

  • Bungay, Stephen (2000). The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. Aurum Press Ltd, 86. ISBN 1-854-10801-8.
  • Bungay, Stephen (2000). The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. Aurum Press *Ltd, 260. ISBN 1-854-10801-8.
  • Bungay, Stephen (2000). The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. Aurum Press Ltd, 259. ISBN 1-854-10801-8.
  • Bungay, Stephen (2000). The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. Aurum Press Ltd, 249. ISBN 1-854-10801-8.

The original edit (in proper MLA style) reads (the footnote or endnote is given with the full bibliographic record in MLA (Modern Language Association) style used for research and academic writing bibliographical entries):

References
  • Bungay 2000, p. 259. (example only)
  • Bungay 2000, p. 249. (example only)
  • Bishop, Patrick. Fighter Boys: The Battle of Britain, 1940. New York: Viking, 2003 (hardcover, ISBN 0-670-03230-1); Penguin Books, 2004 (paperback, ISBN 0-14-200466-9). As Fighter Boys: Saving Britain 1940. London: HarperPerennial, 2004 (paperback, ISBN 0-00-653204-7).
  • Brittain, Vera. England's Hour. London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005 (paperback, ISBN 0-8264-8031-4); Obscure Press (February 14, 2006 (paperback, ISBN 1-84664-834-3).
  • Bungay, Stephen. The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. London: Aurum Press, 2000 (hardcover, ISBN 1-85410-721-6); 2002 (paperback, ISBN 1-85410-801-8).

The new edit (in an adapted style)

Notes and references
  • Bungay, Stephen (2000). The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. Aurum Press Ltd, 259. ISBN 1-854-10801-8. (example only)
  • Bungay, Stephen (2000). The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. Aurum Press Ltd, 249. ISBN 1-854-10801-8. (example only)
Bibliography

(unapproved title- note the references are written in the correct MLA style whereas the notes and references were written in an APA style?)

On a background level, the editor, Mumby has indicated that he has been an editor of research articles in his field of study (nuclear physics); "I use a reference system that I am comfortable with, I don't mind if there is consensus to switch to another style, but I think it deserves to be discussed first...hopefully we can clean it up quickly without losing the useful edits made in the meantime!" (These edits were made by Bzuk on 20 April.)

Please note that I have no "dog in the hunt" and really appreciate Mumby's (and other editors') work on this article which has resulted in making it an authoritative and well-researched work, but I do believe that the present edit is basically convoluted and creates more problems than solutions. As for editing, I also have a background in editing from a career as a librarian for 33 years, and lately, as an author of aviation books and editor of a trade magazine for the aviation industry in Canada. I have, of late, edited approximately 400 Wikipedia articles, mainly concentrating on aviation-themed topics. IMHO this is a great example of how Wikipedia can create a collaborative environment that has brought together many diverse experts and I look forward to seeing how the Battle of Britain article can be improved even more. Bzuk 23:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Comment

Just to say that everyone here has been working in good faith, but it's very easy to be caught out by the rapid changes in Wikipedia coding, which seems to have outstripped the guidance at Wikipedia:Citing sources. One point that Bzuk doesn't seem to have highlighted is that using Template:Harvard citation no brackets in the inline text together with the new Template:Citation has the same feature as the older Harvard template we used in Charles Darwin, which makes the author names such as

  • ^ Browne 2002, p. 497.

into links which, when clicked, take you to the full details of the book being cited. It's also possible to make the page number into a link to the relevant page of an online book. All ingenious stuff, and the current Template:Citation is worth using for these features which seem to still be getting improvements. It's a bit tedious transferring the info from the older cite book template, but has advantages in the long term .. . dave souza, talk 08:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Another reply

Thanks for the input everyone, I take your comments onboard. I would just like to stress though that I wasn't trying to single handedly control the page, and I don't think NPOV really comes into it. Also, we seem to have a slightly different idea of what the 'original edit' was, I consider the original edit to be on April 4th, not April 20th. I agree that one reply can hardly be considered consensus, but I do think that checking on the talk page first is the right thing to do, it would certainly have saved a lot of user-talk page discussion in the past few days, after all "no individual controls any specific article". Finally a small correction: I am an author, not an editor, of nuclear physics articles, I have no formal editing experience or qualifications. Anyway, the important question is: What is the best way to proceed from here? Kind regards,Mumby 16:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The latest edit

Hi. Just to get some momentum going I have made some changes which may or may not be an improvement. I know that the References section is not formatted self consistently, but that can be adjusted later. The advantage of this format is that the numbered list of citations and the alphabetical list of full citations are seperate (my preference). Any thoughts? Mumby 22:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the method used in (the currently) 12th footnote, using the <ref>{{Harvnb |Bungay|2000| p=9}}.</ref> style, that automatically links to the Bungay book under the Bibliography section. If we transform the entire bibliography to the same format and use this kind of reference style throughout the article, that would be best in my opinion. Abel29a 12:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Title

Should the article not be titled The Battle of Britain, not Battle of Britain?

You would think so, but check out any other article on any battle, e.g. Battle of Berlin or Battle of Waterloo to name just two. I don't think you will find any battle article starting with 'The'. The same goes for universities, for example: I normally thnk of them as "The university of...", but you won't find 'The' in the title here on Wikipedia. As for the reason, I don't know for sure! Perhaps it is just not considered encyclopeadic?Mumby 21:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Alphabeticising title or name entries (such as "The Beatles", "The King of England", "The Battle of Waterloo" etc.) under "the" is universally considered VERY bad practice - whether in phone books, book indices, library catalogues, computer databases (at least professionally designed ones) - and, of course, encyclopedias. Think for a minute about it and you can probably see why!!

If you can't see it - be assured that other people can, and that's why it's just not done that way.

Soundofmusicals 12:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Has this page lost its semi-protection? Anyone know why that happened? Mumby 21:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It has indeed - it was only semi-protected for a month, I guess that time has transpired. Maybe time to request another? The vandalism is getting annoying again.Abel29a 23:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Definitely agree. The last two days have been awful. I'll add the tag.Mumby 08:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have asked for protection Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.Mumby 08:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Goody - protected until June, thats a relief.... Abel29a 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Some back and forth about the format of the protection tag. I much prefer the small tag recently set by Unschool. Ohers want the expiry date to be visible. The actual expiry date is controlled by Administrators. Myself, I want the ugly tag to go away. The current one will expire again soon and then the page will be clean again. If people actually want indefinite semi-protection (as they seem to), then future request should be for indefinite protection and then we can use the small tag which doesn't spoil the look of the article. Colonel Warden 09:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see both arguments and I would prefer a cleaner "look" as well but the older version is much more obvious and may have the added benefit of deterring the vandals lurking about. IMHOBzuk 12:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
My experience is that it's hard for legitimate editors to make changes to this article. The vandals stand no chance :) Colonel Warden 12:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Time Frame

At the risk of stiring up a hornets nest, I will ask the question: was the Battle of Britain really fought until May '41. Officially at least Hitler had abandoned any attempt to invade Britain on 17th Sept. '40 (AJP Taylor, 1974,p74.) Hitler ordered his directive 21 on 18 December 1940 for preparations to carry out Operation Barbarossa thus ending the Battle. As after that the Blitz became revenge. Hitler did not intend to resume the Battle until Russia had been defeated. Doesn't this mean that to all intents and purposes that the battle was over the minute he called off the invasion, or at the very latest when he ordered directive 21? In my humble opinion it should be changed to 18 Dec as it became official - the germans had given up.

Dapi89 17:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is discussed in the opening paragraph, but I would tend to agree that most people would not consider the battle to last into 1941. So yes, I agree that we should list a earlier end date - as to excactly when I', not sure, but the directive of December does seem to be the final abandonment on Seelöwe by the Germans. We could even list the September date as the end of the "official" battle, altough there were major air clashes after this date. Abel29a 19:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

suggest we amend it to Dec '40....just in the info box.Dapi89 16:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How about using the October date listed in the intro, but with a footnote briefly describing the various views? If correct, I believe the view of British historians should way heavy. Abel29a 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Agree this a good idea (and better for the article.)Dapi89 18:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added in some info to get the ball rolling. Is it okay? It could, perhaps'be better. I avoided the intro's ref. to the German historians as i didnt want to cover 'old ground' but I've just added in the extra info.Dapi89 17:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Churchill's history should be definitive since it was he that established the term, Battle of Britain. I will cite accordingly. Colonel Warden 09:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This is a very weak argument. Your saying that 'because Churchill coined the Phrase' he decides the start and end date? Churchill was a politician not an Air Marshall. Air Marshall Sir Robert Saundby and A J P Taylor are in a far better position to cite the end of the battle. Saundby himself served during the war.Dapi89 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Saundby was a bomber man and appears to have played no part in the Battle of Britain himself. Churchill not only defined the battle as PM but outranked Saundby as Minister of Defence. Churchill took a direct interest in the battle and was with Keith Park for its climax on 15 September in the operations room of 11 Group. Churchill also outranks Saundby as a historian, having won the Nobel prize for his history. Colonel Warden 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


As for AJP Taylor, he wrote the introduction for Deighton's fine work. Deighton stops his account of the fighting on 15th September. AJP Taylor supports this when he writes, "The Battle of Britain was a fairly small affair. Hitler called off Sea-lion on 17 September and there was never any attempt to repeat it." (Fighter, Len Deighton, 1977) Colonel Warden 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not the case, you are misrepresenting the quote. The quote above does not reflect Taylor's opinion that the battle ended with on the 15th. He merley states Hitler called off the the invasion on the 17th. You make it sound like that was the date it was called off permantantly. Hitler had not decided to abandon it completely. On 13th October he put it back until the spring of 1941. It was not until directive 21 ( Dec 1940) in which he laid out preparations for Barbarossa that the plan was completely cancelled. The September 15th was a major victory, but by no means the end of the battle of Britain.Dapi89 13:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

For yet another reputable historian: "The Battle began sporadically in early August and continued until mid-September during which time Hitler finally recognised that air superiority of the kind required could not be achieved and posponed the invasion indefinitely." (The Air War 1939-1945, R.J.Overy, 1980) Colonel Warden 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again, see above.Dapi89 13:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

To consider September 15 as the date of the end of the Battle of Britain disregards the third phase of the Battle, 7 September-31 October 1940 wherein major raids were still staged on 18 September, and more ambitious ones on 27 and 30 September 1940. After that point, German daylight bomber attacks on English cities dwindled, although night bombing of the cities continued until spring of 1941. Luftwaffe fighter raids continued unabated through October and into November, with German fighter and fighter-bomber sweeps again targeting airfields and aircraft factories. A bit of background on "Battle of Britain Day" now recognised as 15 September, the date when the last massive daylight raids against English cities took place. The victory claims made on this day are now contested but at the time, the RAF had been declared the winner of the aerial combat by a resounding margin, leading to a "bolstering of spirits." None of the RAF fighter pilots believed that the end of hostilities was marked by any climatic engagement, rather the fighting merely waned and gradually ended. The 31 October is the generally accepted date of the end of significant action and although Battle of Britain Day is still celebrated, it was an entirely arbitrary date matched to a "victory" that now seems to be under dispute. German sources also do not consider the end until May 1941 when the bomber units in France were withdrawn in preparation for the attack on Russia. I strongly support Dapi89 and other editors' contention that 31 October 1940 is the end of the Battle of Britain. IMHO Bzuk 15:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC).
Dapi89 only cites one weak source and you don't cite any. Unsupported sweeping claims such as 'generally accepted' and 'majority of historians' should not be used to override authoritative citations such as that from Churchill himself. And these claims seem to be quite wrong. Here's yet another reputable source which directly contradicts them: "In Britain the period of the battle is normally defined as being from mid-June to mid-September 1940." (Malcolm Smith, The Oxford Companion to the Second World War, 1995) Colonel Warden 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
My own view, FWIW, is that the Battle of Britain overlapped with the Blitz, which was a separate campaign. The former was about gaining air superiority for Sealion and this ended when that was postponed. The Blitz was about the terror-bombing of London and this did not finally end until the V1s and V2s stopped falling. One campaign segues into the other but the break between them seems clear: 15 September - Battle of Britain day. Colonel Warden 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi.No no, absolutely not. The fact that Saundby was a 'bomber man' is irrelevant, and he was in service during 1940 during the Battle of Britain with Bomber Command, and as a senior officer would have been far better able to judge the situation. Military men who served at the time are always in a better position to judge the precise detail. Your biggest Faux pas is that you say Churchill won the Nobel Prize for History, it was infact....Literature. So as far I can see Churchill, as a politician and winner of the Literature prize, does not outrank an Air Marshall and one of the most Recognised Historians in the world. I would also say that you cannot rely on the few works churchill did produce pertaining to the Battle of Britain, as they are not written from a neutral point of view, I have read these books. He builds the 15 Septemeber to be the 'be all and end all' of the battle of Britain, Historians (like A J P Taylor) and Air Marshall's (Saundby) alike will tell you otherwise. He uses his own words, and very few official sources and he tends to generalise with dates. The Blitz WAS definitely apart of the Battle of Britain, not a different campaign that is wrong, it is in fact indisputable. Directive 21 is order that ended the battle officially, and that came on 18 Dec 1940. The Germans attempted to destroy Britains industry and will to fight up until the end of the year hoping they would come to terms at least. My source isn't weak. I used A J P Taylor as you have done. If this historian's sources are so weak, then why do you use him to support your claims? I could quote thirty sources of good standing that share the date of 31 October. Bzuk did try to explain to you the accepted phases of the Battle. Your sources do not take into account the Blitz, therefore they are refering to the airfield battles, which in fact ended on the 7 SEPTEMBER. From this date on the targets were the cities. If you take this into consideration, in fact the 15 Septemeber was a part of the Blitz, the 'day blitz' if you will! To suggest it isn't the same campaign as the Battle of Britain when you say the 15th Sept was its climax is an inherent contradiction.Dapi89 09:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

New Picture?

The Hurricane picture is not a Mark I therefore did not participate in the Battle of Britain I have used another as this is not technically correct.Dapi89 16:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Perhaps its time to protect this page again. It has only been unprotected for two days and its been vandalised by four different people already.Dapi89 21:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The article has now been semi-protected indefinitely-See below

Battle of Britain "semi-protection". Page was semi-protected until 18 June because of vandalism. Four users have vandalised the page multiple times in the last two days.Dapi89 21:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected indefinitely; as 2 months didn't do the trick. MastCell Talk 22:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Decisive British Victory?

I see this is is labeled as a decisive British victory, but as far as I know, the BoB ended in a tactical stalemate, and only in the long term a strategic British victory. None of the opposing airforces was destroyed or put out of action when the BoB ended. And to call this decisive is rather awkward, what was so decisively won by the British? They managed to halt the invasion by Germany? AFAIK the Germans had absolutely no plan or means for an invasion, they had no amphibic vessels but a handful of converted civilian Rheinschiff ships. In addition to that, they were looking at the British navy, which was much larger than the German one. The only thing the British had to win was for themselves to grow some balls to continue the war, the whole air war was aimed at letting the British give up. Anyway, maybe a decisive strategic victory is appropriate, but tactically there was certainly no victory for either side.

Agree if I change the outcome to Tactical Stalemate & (Decisive) Strategic British Victory?

Wiki1609 18:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Before you do make a change, please identify some reference sources that validate the claim of stalemate or strategic victory. Not that I am disagreeing, but this is more of a major edit and requires much more than a call for consensus; you will have to prove the case for a change in designation. FWIW Bzuk 04:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC).

A battle of attrition is not a tactical stalemate. As a Luftwaffe general, Werner Kreipe, said, it was "a turning point in the history of the Second World War. The German Air Force...was bled almost to death and suffered losses which could never again be made good throughout the course of the war." As for your 'grow some balls' comment, I'll remind you to be civil, and that plenty of Wikipedia editors have relatives who fought in WWII, and that those relatives had a lot more 'balls' than you obviously credit them with. Geoff B 14:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This battle was undoubtably won, and by the RAF, to suggest otherwise really is folly. You will not find a single credible source that says otherwise. Albert Kesselring also acknowledged this, it was so obviously a British Victory and it was decisive. Without it the Russians would not have recieved crucial help in 1941-42 and there would have been no 'launchpad' from which to liberate Europe. The Wehrmacht would have been able to concentrate its entire strength in the East, and could well have won the war. The Germans most definitely had plans to invade Britain and would have done so but for this defeat, see Operation Sealion and Operation Sealion Order of BattleDapi89 21:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC).

I cant seem to recall where I actually read about this being called a stalemate, so I hope I run across it again sometime. And I must remind you that the aircraft lost by Germany could have easily been replaced if not for German mismanagement and failing to mobilize industry. Sorry about the 'grow some balls', I just couldnt find some quick words to express the British almost gave up but did not in the end. I wonder how that could hurt any veterans feelings as it was a political and diplomatic decision though. And please see the WW2 article discussion that showed the Western Front after the French defeat had no particular importance for the war in the East. Europe was liberated because the Soviets held out, as the British were supposed to be taken out after the Soviets. And I seriously doubt there was any possibility of the Germans landing in Britain, as they had no amphibic material except for converted civilian ships. My grandfather has seen these ships, they were Rhineships fitted with propellers to give them some extra speed, but it really shows the Germans had 0 preperation. Most likely because Hitler never wanted war with the British and made several peace offerings Churchill declined.
I think I'm right when I say BoB was a stalemate in 1940 and could only 'evolve' into a British victory when the Germans got stuck in Russia and the Americans with their industrial potential entered the war. When the BoB ended noone could claim victory, Britain was still in the same position as before only the German attempt to win by terrorising the population failed. Wiki1609 15:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, a clear, supportable statement is necessary. "I think I'm right"does not rise to the level of an authoritative, undisputable submission and cannot be the basis of making a major editorial change to an article. IMHO Bzuk 17:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

Ifs and buts don't count, we have to work on facts. The Germans didnt put their economy on a full war footing until December 1941 in which Milch initiated recovery . The Luftwaffe actually began Barbarossa with fewer bombers than at the start of the Battle of Britain (see History of the Luftwaffe during World War II - I have re-written this article in the past few months) therefore losses were not made good in the aftermath of the Battle of Britain. Had the Germans established air-superiority then the task of the Royal Navy would have been critical. Without aircover the Brits would have spent most of their time evading air attack. Despite what the article says regarding armoured piercing bombs, the Luftwaffe's 300 plus Stukas, 1,000 odd medium bombers could have inflicted enormous damage to warships, and they didn't nesseccerily have to be sunk to be removed from the battle, knocking out the turrets would be enough. The RAFs survival was paramount to Britains survival, and the Luftwaffe went all out to destroy it - and was defeated. Also the Germans probably would have, for lack of combat-ships, landed on a narrow front, this enabling the Luftwaffe to concentrate its superior strength over the landing zone. I disagree that the Western front was not as significant to the Eastern front and this was not the view of the Soviets. The Russians were imploring the Brits and Americans to land in Europe in 1942, 1943 and 1944 - citing that the pressure on the USSR needed to be relieved. I would also say Europe was not 'liberated' because the Soviets held out, they were a dictatorship and enslaved Eastern Europe after the war. The American bomber offensive over Europe did wonders to relieve the Russians, denying huge sums of munitions and armaments of all kinds from reaching the German front in Russia. The seeds of defeat for Hitler were sown in 1940- in the west.Dapi89 17:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I wont edit cause I cant find where I read it anymore. It was something I hastily looked into but I hear this often on my university, thats why I assumed it was in most books, my Penguin History of WW2 says only very shortly it was a German failure/defeat. Dapi89 youre wrong however, German industry did not reach full potential until 1944 and thats why they did not rebuild the losses of 1940, which theoretically they could replenish faster than the British. It was not that the RAF took down more than the Germans COULD rebuild, they just didnt. The RAF was vital, but only to avert an invasion that the Germans never wanted to do unless they dealt with the Russians first. Germany lost in Russia, that is the opinion of most historians. Britain would have been conquered if the Russians lost. If the British lost, Germany still had to deal with 1/2 of their most difficult enemies (the other 1/2 being France). And the American bomber offensive has also been agreed on by almost all historians to have been a failure, and in hindsight accomplished nothing but stiffening German resistance and destroying a lot of beautiful cities. Wiki1609 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Ich glaube das "Rhein Schiff" ist besser als "Barge" ubersetzt. It's a while since I read my history of the politics of the time. But did not the RAF's performance do much to offset the negative reports of the US Ambassador to London, Joe Kennedy. And did not the RAF victory help Roosevelt in his continued, and in some domestic US sectors highly unpopular, material support of the British. And is it not arguable that without this continued support Britain could not have continued to actively pursue hostilities in Western Europe? Merely questions --Sf 23:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm affraid im not wrong. I was fully aware the Germans reached industrial capacity equal to the US and Russians in 1944 - this has no bearing on the battle of Britain. I hadnt mentioned this in my earlier reply because is was also a moot point, the Germans didnt have the pilots to take advantage of this by 1944, and the Anglo-American Bomber offensive did enormous damage to the Romanian oil fields - thus forcing the Jagdwaffe to ration its fuel from that point on. The Western Allies were responsible for the destruction of the Luftwaffe. Historians in No way argue that the Allied Bomber offensive failed - this is a totally flawed arguement and plainly false. There are hundreds of sources that I have alone, of specialised quality rather than university textbooks that clearly agree that the damage inflicted on German industry was enormous. Your very much incorrect to state that the Germans could replace thier losses faster than the British, this was not the case during the most of the war. The British were outproducing Germany until 1944, but due to the US-Soviet involvement and the aforementioned lack of pilots it was an irrelevant industrial feat. From the battle of Britain until Dec '41 the figures of production were twice that of Germany. Germany started the Russian campaign with inadequate numbers of aircraft and had trouble maintainin its numbers on every front from the autumn of 1942 onward. Also just flicking through my library, their are sources that say the the bomber offensives from 1943-1945 destroyed several thousand German aircraft on the production lines. The Germans were forced to spread out production, making it impossible for the Allies to completely halt production, but in turn also made assembly time-consuming and inefficient. But to avoid getting off the point even further, the Luftwaffe was defeated during the Battle of Britain, they failed in their objective because of RAF resistance period. What happened afterwards, i.e "if Germany defeated the USSR" "if the Germans did that" is all speculation - you should only take into account the facts thats what these articles are about.Dapi89 13:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Skimming Deighton's Fighter, the tone of the ending may be a bit simplistic and bombastic. Effectively it was a huge victory that Britain survived in the face of an overawing threat, and it's perhaps worth noting that Kennedy's dire reports were offset by 'Wild Bill' Donovan's report that Britain would survive and should be supported, contradicting the reports of a very annoyed Kennedy who resigned in October then, in an about-turn, supported Roosevelt in the elections. For Hitler it was a gamble on quick victory that hadn't had his close interest and hadn't paid off, and he turned his attention to hopes of a quick victory against the Soviet Union. However for the Luftwaffe it was a severe blow to morale, with particular effect on Goering. He'd announced taking personal charge of the battle for Britain in September, but now the commanders denied there had been such a battle. Discontent enabled Milch to displace Udet, resulting in the Bf 109 being kept in full production at the expense of the superior FW 190 and Me 262. Thus simply surviving despite errors on both sides gave the advantage to the UK, and readied the US for war, though they might have tried to avoid coming into it if Hitler hadn't declared war. The points about the bomber campaigns are fair, they obviously had effect which was considerable though far less than expected. Deighton suggests the most effective raid was the 25 August attack on Berlin that diverted German attention from the airfields onto bombing London. With the benefit of hindsight, a decisive moment. ... dave souza, talk 21:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Anglo-American bomber offensive didnt accomplish what they wanted to achieve, they meant to destroy German industry which they could not and therefore the operation an sich failed. If you call this offensive a success how can you call the BoB a German defeat, while they ultimately were about the same thing and had the same results? The German bombings of Britain were meant to destroy industry and demoralize the British etc. so they would surrender but didnt work, the allied bomber offensive was the same yet you support claims that it was a victory. I think historians like that need to look at these battles seperate, or else every German attempt will end as a defeat cause they ultimately lost. Compare it with Kursk, it was a stalemate on the tactical/operational level too, but strategically a Soviet victory. I dont get why this is so hard to understand and even why historians tend to look at everything in a sense of 'the Germans lost the BoB cause it allowed for Dday and then the Germans lost in 1945".

Or am I wrong thinking that when A and B fight a battle, the attack of A fails and A is stuck somewhere with half results = stalemate. Cause the fact that A didnt achieve his goals doesnt mean B has won anything. For me theres simply no outcome until one perishes. Wiki1609 14:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, debating points aside, the Battle of Britain was not a battle of attrition, the loser did not have to be decimated to consider being defeated. In summary, you did not provide authoritative supporting arguments or corroboration, so the discourse is essentially over. FWIW Bzuk 15:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC).

For goodness sake Wiki1609! Your perception of History is very distorted! The Luftwaffe failed in its task and Allies didn't. Absolute proof of this lies in the fact the Germans lost the war. You dont lose wars achieving stalemates. Calling the Citadel a stalemate is ludicrous. It was the turning point, German offensive power on the Eastern front was spent after that. I can't say much more because I will just be repeating earlier replies. But I can tell you there is no Historian that regards the Battle of Britian as anything other than a Brit victory. There is no historian that would call the Allied bomber offensives from 1942-45 a failure. You must start reading specialist books on this topic. I would suggest reading Albert Speer (Hitlers armaments minister) memoirs, Inside the Third reich. It will demonstrate to you the sheer damage done to German industry. There are other titles to describe the decimation of the Luftwaffe at the hands of the Western Allies from 1943-45, too many to name.

My own opinion is not that the BoB directly lead to the defeat of Germany. The Luftwaffe remained formidable until mid 1943. It was a combination of failures in the East and the entry of the US which forced the Luftwaffe to become "spread thin". In previous campaigns it could concentrate its entire strength for a campaign. After the Start of Barbarossa that changed and gradually the strength and quality of training worsened. This lead to the decline of the Luftwaffe.

Regardless of whether you had provided the source or not, there is countless hundreds that could be provided to disagree. The "Penguin" books are not of a good calibre.Dapi89 16:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As a non-historian, my perception is that, as the article states, the aim of the Luftwaffe was split between achieving overwhelming air superiority so that Seelöwe could proceed without RAF intervention, and Goering's dream of causing a collapse of morale and surrender, as pre-war theories had predicted. It achieved neither. The later Allied bomber campaign may have hoped for the same effect and was similarly disappointed in that, but was initially aimed at "taking the war to the enemy", very important in morale terms and in getting US support, and also in reducing German production to assist the war effort elsewhere, including eventual invasions. It succeeded. ... dave souza, talk 19:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


User Wiki1609 I understand your view and agree with your point ; many of the theory built after the war was based on considering one essential thing that Germany is the other face of Satin and no credit to it should be given. This attitude still have some residual effect till our present time ! BoB indeed was not decisive Victory for any body ! How can such extreme title appear in Encyclopedia !
you will not reach common ground with Dapi89 and his colleague ! BoB started as you said after Churchill determination to go to war with Germany and refused Hitler virtue of peace !

please read in Battle of Dunkirk my comments at discussion page and I also read somewhere - Germany after finishing poland campaign agreed on Peace terms but these offer refused on October 1939 by both France and England - I am not saying Churchill and France were right or wrong refusing that ! this is not the place for that discussion but it is honest to mention that here.
However the British Fought bravely in BoB and indeed they had huge losses and causalities but less than the German Sides. I can surely say that without the US supplies and support Britain wouldn't servive in BoB in such extent !
For example complete Aircraft and Aircraft anti Guns ; Raw material ; Oil ; Spare parts etc
were sent over the Atlantic under the cash and carry law raised by FDR one month after Hitler runover Poland in 1939.
In fact in Sept 1940 FDR passed appeal - BYPASSED congressional opposition - to an appeal from Churchill
for 50 destroyers are added to Britain Fleet from USA.

Artillery and Ammunition were hugely exported to Britain ; this is even shown in American newsreal and many Documentry Films with no doubt about it ; Perhaps this is why Hitler repeatedly in his speeches hinted to that "Mr. Churchill try to convince the British people that Royal Air Force alone - and no others - was in a position to wage war in this way" -SPEECH OF MAY 4, 1941 - BERLIN,front of REICHSTAG. The German assault was concentrated on strategic targets like ammunitions factory and oil fields , military targets etc ! ; I have read somewhere that one of Hitler's mistakes during the war that he ordered attack to Military Industry and didn't order attack for Military bases itself - as it was a mess by that time and chance to cause damage was mostly applicable however he didn't - and it was day light attack for the first 3.5 months in the Battle of Britain; until Churchill - by attaching at night- forced Hitler to switch to night attach where more civilian killed ; "confirmed by David Irving " and this was mentioned in Hitler Speeches as well [2] .

As a fact Hitler managed to hide his hostile intention toward the Soviet Union - at the beginning of War - and that's why he saw the BoB will be extended for uncertain period and will not give him the glorious benefits and take him away from his real interest ! so he switched to what he really wants Eastern Front. User Wiki1906 I agree with the example you gave about the Allied bombing Germany didn't achieve decisive victory " was true .
It is confirmed by Albert Speer in His Book Inside the Third Rich -PHOENIX P381 " and it cause on the contrary raising up the moral of German people and the production increased! simply the people started to work more and produce more once the bombing starts.
Albert Speer mentioned also that the negative effect of the Area bombing was to redirect the production toward certain product to stop the Area bombing. Our heaviest expense was in fact the elaborate defensive measures. In the Reich and in the Western Theatre of War the barrels of 10,000 anti aircraft guns were pointed toward the sky ! the same guns could have well been employed in Russia against tanks ...

Another simple example I would like to say which required Fair and in using logic to the situation of BoB If RAF achieved Decisive Victory and Luftwaffe suffered to Death! why on earth Germany's next Step after that is to conduct the most massive operation in WWII and perhaps the world by Invading Soviet Russia ? this is not a condition of decisively defeated Air force (Luftwaffe) they should in this case become stagnat for a while !
Finally I would like to summarize ; Germany and Hitler had no real desire or seriously plan to fully invade England and even landed Soldiers on her soil like they did in Poland,France and Russia ! [perhaps keep it merely paralyzed or wounded - as for example user Wiki1906 said they don't have enough fleet and navy for that !! ; not even single Aircraft career ! - perhaps one not fully finished - - other sources can be found in Battle Of Dunkirk
- Discussion Page - which I mentioned some sources that Germany/Hitler at Dunkirk was looking at peace treaty with England ! and the way that RAF fought bravely and strongly during the BoB and stand fast to the German assault would perhaps delayed Hitler plans to Attack Russia or bleed some of his resources which he needed to catch up by expanding the German industry.--Hiens 12:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, entertaining speculation. I commend to your attention The Man in the High Castle, or perhaps you'd prefer SS-GB. Τhe U.S. assistance was contingent on a realistic hope of the UK surviving, and despite Kennedy, the BoB demonstrated just that. Victory in the air war meant that invasion was clearly impractical, regardless of whether the indecisive Hitler ever meant it or not. Oh, and it was hardly "Churchill determination to go to war with Germany and refused Hitler virtue of peace !" – Chamberlain went to war with Germany, and both Hitler's failure to honour agreements with Chamberlain and the outcome of the battle made sure that there was no option of some sort of armistice deal. .. dave souza, talk 18:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, it's false to assume that "Hitler didn't want the war with Britain". Hitler didn't want the war with Poland, either - in his speeches he clearly declared, that he first wanted to defeat France, and wanted to ally with Poland. Nevertheless Hitler attacked Poland. Similarly, he considered war with Britain inevitable and was fully prepared to it. It doesn't matter whether he wanted it or not. He was ready to go to ar with Britain. Szopen 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User Dave souza: Without the US assistance the imminent defeat of RAF was inevitable or at least the final result would be greatly changed. - no shame to accept that as British ; in fact it is a shame to deny it - I found a lot of sources about how the US participate in replenishing the British arsenal and supplies with Raw materials and Weapons
I never realized they supplied as well full operational Fighters Aircraft through marine bridge ! that was even clear in the US newsreel and documentary Films ! and that's why I referred to Hitler Speech to Reichstag where he mentioned that !
however ignoring your Sarcasm comment and confide my self to professional rules of any Encyclopedia I would point to some agreement to part of your comments !specifically when you said "the result (Victory) of BoB meant that invasion was clearly impractical this is true and BoB showed the solid and long lasting struggle by the RAF and its allies. ; however I might rephrase your sentence as the result of BoB meant that the invasion was clearly impractical or could exhausting the Wehrmacht to perform any other campaign or it will last longer than the NAZI leaders had calculated ! and eventually abandoned .
User Szopen : I agree Hitler Speeches are not sources to rely on alone (solely) by itself ; it might enforce a theory or analysis and relevant in particular cases. specially if you disregard the propaganda parts in it. In the battle of Dunkirk I mentioned a source about Admiral Raeder stating that non of the Wehrmacht divisions (including Hitler) were prepared/interested for Sealion except NAVY ! this oppose your statement that Hitler were ready to go to war with Britain. in addition to that another sources - Axis and Allied eye witness - Heins Guderian in Panzer Leader & Von Manstien "The Lost Victory " - of Halting the troops at Dunkirk - for 10 days- would clearly show a fact that Hitler "didn't prefer or not fully Militarism ready or had more priority in his mind to be engaged in a war with Britain. --Hiens 10:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Britain/Archive_3&oldid=1033940314"