Talk:Battle of Britain/Archive 12

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

Had it been lost and Britain been invaded or come to terms with Germany, the fate of Europe would have been sealed. The battle of Stalingrad merely decided which evil dictator would have been the ruler. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's debatable (I would be inclined to say BoB was a major turning point. What about Operation Barbarossa itself?), but we're not here to put forward our personal opinions to justify a line of argument: policy here is that for any such statement to appear in an article, it has to be supported by reliable published sources. Alfietucker (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, we should base what we write on reliable sources but what I have said above is confirmed by reliable sources, Bungay for a start; I will look for some more. Are there any good quality sources that dispute what I have said?


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


 * The outcome of Barbarossa merely determined who would rule Europe. For most free Europeans that was not much to chose between Stalin and Hitler. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not really appropriate to discuss Barbarossa in any detail here, but just to say your summary of its outcome is very partial indeed. To the best of my recollection, Barbarossa actually made the Normandy landings a feasible campaign by drawing and depleting a good percentage of the Nazi forces and their allies on the eastern front. Alfietucker (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not disputed but German success at the BoB would have made any liberation of Europe not just difficult but completely impossible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There are very few historians, if any, who accept that Britain could have been successfully invaded if the BofB had been "lost", mainly due to the overwhelming power of the RN and the essentially land based focus of the German war machine. But what do you mean by "lost" anyway ? I don`t think anyone is seriously suggesting that the Luftwaffe would have been able to bomb at will any part of the British Isles with no opposition. The most likely outcome of a "lost" BofB would be RAF fighters withdrawing to airfields NW of London. They could still intercept the German planes, they would make contact somewhat later but equally they would be at a higher altitude, the single most important factor in air to air engagements.--JustinSmith (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is fairly clear what 'lost' in this context is. The stated objective for the Germans was, 'The English air force must have been beaten down to such an extent morally and in fact that it can no longer muster any power of attack worth mentioning against the German crossing'. In other words complete German air supremacy over the south of England.  They had achieved this is a matter of days in every other country and they expected to do much the same in Britain.  Had the achieved this objective Britain would have had to come to some kind of terms with Germany, even if there had been no invasion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FORUM This entire discussion is useless for the improvement of the article.  Unless you are discussing sources and have some change to propose, this needs to end. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussing proposed changes or additions to this article, which is exactly what I am doing. To make it clearer, I am suggesting that we add a paragraph stating the dire consequences that a German victory would have had.  I have given on, very reliable, source (Bungay) and I ma sure that there are many others. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will add something, supported by a reliable source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent reversion
I have reverted a change by Mukogodo pending discussion. The text of the cited source says, 'If Hitler had won, all Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals would have come under Nazi rule...'. Could we discuss the best way to express this comment from an eminent historian of the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * With due respect, that is the view of one writer, Stephen Bungay, who not even a trained and/or professional historian. I would suggest, at best, attributing this claim to Bungay somewhere in the main article, but we should also check what is said about the matter by actual historians who have written about BoB. I won't claim encyclopaedic expertise in this area, but what about such historians as Richard Overy and James Holland to start with? Alfietucker (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is hard not to consider an author who cites around 900 references to primary sources in his book a historian. A specialist maybe, but a historian without doubt.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * I notice that Mukogodo has decided to edit war rather than discuss here, which is a pity, so I will revert again until he has discussed the subject here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, the statement "Had Britain lost the battle or capitulated either the Nazis or the Soviets would have dominated Europe, with the US being able to do little to change things." – or one that is qualified with some form of "likely" – needs to be attributed beyond just a citation. It is not a fact, but an opinion about a possible alternate history. If there was resounding support for the statement from many noted historians, then it might be reasonable to leave it unattributed. As things stand with only a single reference explicitly stating this, if it is in the article then it needs to be attributed regardless of any of our views as to the statement being accurate, or not.
 * My personal opinion is that it is both too broad and too specific to be appropriate. It contains two separate statements about alternate history: "either the Nazis or the Soviets would have dominated Europe" and "the US being able to do little to change things." Both statements can be challenged, and neither is a certainty. I'm not stating that either is unlikely, or even that I disagree with at least the first. The second, I would probably have stated as something to the effect of "with the US unwilling to pay the cost necessary to change things" (i.e. not "unable"). Ultimately, it was a very complex, world-wide situation in which nothing is certain at the level which is being stated. What is certain is that had Britain lost the battle or capitulated the war in Europe would have been much different.
 * Further, I question the need for this statement in the text. Its purpose appears to be to give weight to the importance of the BoB. I am not sure that a statement like this is necessary here. If something is desired, it would be possible to word a different statement that continues to give weight to the importance of the BoB, but that does not stray so far into the realm of guessing at possible outcomes. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cited speculation, by a historian or otherwise, is still speculation. Britain did not lose or capitulate, so what the U.S. might have done in such a case is moot. Moreover, loss of the battle does not causally lead to capitulation, so what the U.S. was already doing was, clearly, pretty useful. That would not have stopped short of capitulation. So, I suggest, take it out entirely.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am happy to discuss this with you but please remember that my opinion, or yours, is irrelevant. If you want the text changed then you should find a reliable source which says it is wrong. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you have this wrong. Sources are required for something to stay in, not for removal. Wikipedia would be ridiculous if what was required was that every claim by some person had to be explicitly countered by someone else for it not to be included in an article.
 * This is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary support from multiple sources. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Trek has it. The speculation should be removed unless we were to find many expert authors agreeing. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We do not need 'many experts'. We have one expert who has made a statement and no experts who disagree.  It is thus a properly sourced fact that can be added. If there are historians who have other opinions then these should be given due weight but I do not know of any.  The fact that you or any editor may disagree with expert opinion or call it 'speculation' is irrelevant, WP is based on what is said in reliable sources.Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is getting into the area of fiction, IMO (or what the professionals call "counterfactuals", evidently not liking the term "alternate history"). It's a pretty small step from this to wondering how the Germans would have done if they'd had D4s. They didn't, nor would they. And, cited or not, it's nothing but guesswork.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  16:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not fiction but putting the battle into perspective. Surely we should show what what a battle achieves, and to do that properly we need to consider what would have happened if the result had been different.  This is particularly important in the case of defensive victories, where the outcome is, on the face of it, 'nothing changes'.  In the case of offensive victories, such as Operation Overlord it is pretty clear what is achieved but in the case of defensive victories this is not always so clear.


 * The fact also remains that many historians who have written about the BoB have discussed what the outcome, at various levels, might have been had the Germans succeeded in their objective and I do not see why we should be any different. It is an integral part of the subject of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If the remark was limited to the aftermath of the battle alone, I might agree. Adding "or capitluation" to make the point puts it beyond the pale. Defeat in this battle did not equal capitulation. That being true, it makes no difference what might have happened had Britain lost the war, & puts this well outside the effect of (for instance) what might have happened had Monty pursued more vigorously after Second Alamein. It nears the level of speculation about what might have happened had Winston listened to the Greeks & sent no aid: Italy's being knocked out of the war in '41, perhaps? That, unquestionably, is counterfactual territory. So, by proposing capitulation, is this.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not the same as asking what would have happened if a person had made a different decision, this is the question of what would have happened if the Germans had achieved their stated objective of air supremacy over the South of England. There was a real climate of fear in Europe (and of disinterest in the US) and had the battle been lost there was no plausible outcome which would have resulted in Britain remaining a significant force against the Nazis.


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


 * I must say again though that this is not my analysis but that of a historian who has written a comprehensive study of the battle and the political situation at the time. There is plenty of doubt about an actual invasion but no one has presented a source which contradicts Bungays's analysis of the ultimate outcome had the Germans succeeded. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You appear to have focused on the single opinion with which you appear to agree. You state above that many historians have speculated (written) as to what the outcome would have been had "the Germans succeeded in their objective". Presenting only one such speculation is inappropriate.
 * Presenting it in the article the way that it has been, without explicitly attributing it as the conclusion/speculation of one person, presents it as an established fact. This gives the opinion undue weight in the article. If you want to have the statement in the article then it must explicitly attribute the extraordinary claim to the person making the claim. It then also includes the issue as to the person being sufficiently notable such that their opinion should be mentioned. The A better solution would be to state that the opinions of sources, as to what would have happened had the outcome of the BoB been different, varies from X to Y (with multiple citations/attribution for the range). &mdash; Makyen (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing extraordinary about this claim, it is the only plausible outcome.


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


 * I agree with Trekphiler's comment at 23:12, 27 May 2014. Counterfactual speculation does not improve a reader's understanding of the subject. IxK85 (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just have a look at any history book? ? [I guess you have]. All history articles are full of speculation and analysis, that is what history is about.  The importance of all events in history is defined by what happened compared with what would have happened had the event not occurred. What is essential from the point of view of WP is that such speculation and analysis is fully supported by a reliable secondary source.  In this case I have such a source so the analysis should be added to the article.  There are no sources which contradict the statement that I wish to add, so we do not need to include a contrary opinion.  Editors' objections here seem to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT rather than any WP policy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "the only plausible outcome"? Since it didn't happen, clearly it isn't. Even allowing Britain is defeated in the Battle proper, that by no means assures Germany of the ability to retain air superiority even over Southern Britain, let alone the entire Home Islands area. And there is credible evidence Britain could have pulled Fighter Command back to Scotland and kept fighting. The only way Britain qua Britain would stop is by invasion, & nobody in his right mind believes Seelöwe was going to succeed. Moreover, even allowing invasion, what guarantee is there HMG wouldn't simply move to Bermuda & continue as Gov't in Exile? (No, it wouldn't be Canada, despite much nonsense written suggesting it.) What you have is a single POV of a single historiographer, which you seem enamored with. That, IMO, fails the "generally accepted theory" test. Even if it wasn't fantastic on its face, & it is.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  16:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this just all your opinion or do you have any sources to back up your assertions? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


 * Regarding the placement of the agreed text, am open to suggestions, maybe a separate section, whatever you think. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Had the British net loss rate exceeded that of the Germans (which luckily was not the case)" You've just blown up your own argument. You do realize that, don't you?
 * What you've got is speculation on a case that did not happen, nor was it likely to. Ergo, it is moot, no matter how many sources you want to quote.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"British success in the Battle of Britain in preventing German air supremacy over Southern England enabled her to remain an effective belligerent in the war and prevented domination of Europe by the Nazis or the Soviets. It also gave new impetus the US to become involved in the European theatre and retained an Allied base in Europe from which the subsequent Liberation of Europe could take place."
 * I don't think any of the statements after 'preventing German air supremacy over southern England' can be safely said to be direct consequences of Britain retaining air supremacy. The '[retention of] an Allied base in Europe' for example, is a result of Britain avoiding a German invasion and occupation, rather than being a result of success in the air.--IxK85 (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not the opinion of two of the historians quoted above. Note that I referred to the Germans gaining air supremacy, which is not the same as Britain not having it.  Do you know of any sources which suggest alternative outcomes in the event of German air supremacy over the South of England? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You (& your sources, by appearances) are making a leap between loss of air superiority & loss of control of Britain that IMO is vastly overstated. Neither IMO is it warranted based on any but those two sources. At best, that makes it improbable, & a fringe theory. At worst, it's pure fiction. Or do you mean to have SS-GB & Macksey's Invasion as sources, too?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The cited sources are reputable historians not fiction writers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Not sure you can, you still need to gain a consensus on this page and I cant see any support for your change. MilborneOne (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Opposition seems to be based purely on personal opinion. It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that its content should be based on reliable sources.  Are there any sources at all that dispute what I want to add? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesnt matter the addition has been challenged it is up to you to gain consensus and to convince others not the other way around. MilborneOne (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not how I understand things. It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that content should be based on what is said in reliable sources not on the opinions of editors.  You can try, if you like, to get a consensus to change that principle but until that, no opinion here, by any number of editors can overrule what reliable sources say about the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You cant change the article unless you get consensus whatever you think, you can have a shed full of reliable sources but that still doesnt give it a free pass as it has to be balanced against other policies, guidelines and essays hence the need for consensus. Bottom line is if you do add it against consensus then it can be considered to be disruptive behaviour and I am sure we dont want to go down that path. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Which other policies, guidelines and essays are you suggesting prevent the addition of relevant well-sourced material to this article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont need to as you have not got consensus to add it, the rest is just circular argument which doesnt change the fact that the change is not supported, I am only here to warn you that adding material without consensus could be seen as disruptive. Suggest it is probably time to drop this, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So, let me get this straight, you, as an administrator and Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate, are threatening to sanction me if I add a very well sourced couple of sentences, which are not contradicted by any source and which are not contrary to any WP policy or guideline and have never been added or reverted before, to this article. Is that correct? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggest you read Consensus which is a policy. MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I imagine you are referring to, 'In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit'. Not that that says, '...commonly results in retaining the version...', it does not state as a matter of policy that new material can never be added without consensus.


 * On the other hand the same policy document says just above, 'Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale'. That is perfectly clear in that it says 'cannot override'. It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that content is based on what is said in reliable sources, not what editors think.  The relevant policy is quite clear. It says:


 * In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. .


 * If the reason that editors objected to what I want to add was that the sources did not say what I claimed or that other sources disagreed then we would need to discuss it but that is not the case. The objection being raised here is that some editors think what I want to say is incorrect.  That is not a valid objection and never has been.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Commando 1
There's a flash game here that parodies the events of the Battle of Britain. Could be a pop culture reference. 204.234.74.238 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we are not going to plug your game in this article. It has no connection with the Battle of Britain. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:52, 30 January 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)