Talk:Battle of Britain/Archive 15

Murray cite

 * , can you please actually insert the source physically next to Tirpitz in mainspace? Saves confusion. Cheers Dave. Regards, Simon Irondome (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Have done, the referencing allows more specific links so have put in a couple replacing a link to the whole Murray webpage. Have also modified the Tirpitz bio link to lead to the section discussing Tirpitz's "risk theory", shame there's not an article about that theory.  Regards, . dave souza, talk 12:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

German Objective
I removed the following from the introduction
 * The objective of the Nazi German forces was to increase pressure on Britain to agree to a negotiated peace settlement.

The objective was quite unclear, probably involved invasion. A section discussing the conflicting views on the objective might be worthwhile, but not as a simple statement by what sounds like neo-facists.

(BTW. A section on the consequences of failure would also be a good thing, IMHO. It would present different points of view.  Unlike many, I am not a deletionist.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.70.102 (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead summarises the article, and the section discussing objectives is at Battle of Britain. While that's clear that invasion wasn't an initial objective, and indeed it was always aimed at getting a peace deal, I've tightened the sentence concerned to read "The primary objective of the Nazi German forces was to force Britain to agree to a negotiated peace settlement.". . . dave souza, talk 11:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hitler had no intention of doing anything about Britain. (217.42.27.131 (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC))
 * You may have psychic powers to divine Hitler's intentions, but on Wikipedia reliable sources are required. . . dave souza, talk 11:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hitler admitted to his generals on 14 August 1940 that he would not attempt an invasion of the UK. The reason the Battle of Britain happened is because the RAF had already bombed German cities since May. (217.42.27.131 (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC))

It wasn't a turning point
The UK could have accepted Hitler's offers to end the war in October 1939 or July 1940. (217.42.104.15 (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC))

No need for long quote
It's far too long and people can just click on the link that's already there to read the speech. (5.81.222.75 (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC))


 * No, it's not too long and it helps set the stage for the pending battle. It also gives the reader an understanding of the basis for Churchill's war policy and his government's policy of resistance to Nazi Germany at any cost. This speech galvanized UK and Commonwealth public opinion towards total war and influenced USA public opinion as well and it elevates the tone of the article with it's masterful oratory.Damwiki1 (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The battle was irrelevant to the outcome of the war as Hitler never intended to attempt an invasion of the UK. (5.81.222.75 (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC))
 * Incorrect and off-topic. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a very important speech (perhaps the most important one in WWII), but I don't see how it's lede-worthy, as it does not summarize the rest of the article. Having just the first two sentences to explain the source of name of the battle and article fits. But for the rest, I'd move it out of the lede, perhaps into its own section that included sourced analysis of the impact of the speech (maybe it could even be it's own article if enough of such is found). But a long un-analyzed quote a primary source isn't encyclopedic. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The speech is already linked. At the very least it should be moved from the introduction. Hitler admitted on 14 August 1940 that he did not intend to invade the UK. He had offered to end the war in July. The real turning point was Barbarossa. (5.81.222.75 (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC))


 * It doesn't have to summarize the rest of the article as it is at the bottom of the lede but it does serve as part of the introduction. The speech anticipates the coming battle and as such draws the reader downward into the rest of the article just where one screen height ends and so it is very important part of lede. Churchill's speech puts the battle into context and gives the reader a sense of what people were thinking and feeling prior and during the battle. There are numerous sources that will support the importance of the speech to UK and Commonwealth morale. The oratory and the emotions it provoked are something which many readers cannot now understand and this is one of the reasons that it draws constant attempts to remove it, and it is one of the strongest reasons that it should remain. So far everyone agrees that it should stay, but we disagree on where and the best course is to leave it as is.Damwiki1 (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The battle served no purpose as the British only declared war on Germany to preserve their empire. Hitler never had any chance of defeating the entire British Commonwealth and Empire, so the quote should be removed. If the UK had been invaded the Royal Navy would have continued the war from Canada. (Hoomus1 (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC))

I started this talk section so that we could come to a decision over this edit. Arbitrarily removing the speech is not how that process works.A D Monroe III, this is basically a discussion between you and me as the other edits are off topic.Damwiki1 (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Removing the quote is per BRD. The quote was added, it was removed, and there is this discussion.  Adding it back can be seen as EW, especially when done repeatedly.  (Yes, the discussion was started before its first removal, which is a little more polite than needed, but that doesn't mean BRD doesn't apply.)
 * I admit the IP here is not being helpful in this discussion. That doesn't invalidate the issue, however.
 * It's been implied that this was settled before. I haven't located the discussion.  Can a link be provided?
 * --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The speech was in the article long before the removal which led to me opening this discussion. The previous discussion can be found in Archive 13. The speech discussion is at the very bottom of the page and it was terminated because it was initiated by a banned user who was found to be using multiple sock puppets. The banned user's arguments are very similar to the IP user who removed the speech and caused me to initiate this discussion.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

RAF Aircraft losses
Hello,

Does somebody have any sources on the RAF losses at hand? I used the Hans Ring number do fill a citation, but don't know how accurate they are. However, one statement puzzles me:


 * "In the same period, RAF Fighter Command aircraft losses number 1,087, including 53 twin-engined fighters. To the RAF figure should be added 376 Bomber Command and 148 Coastal Command aircraft conducting bombing, mining, and reconnaissance operations in defence of the country. "

I removed the first citiation and added the  tag, the cited webpage was dead, and seem obscure to me. However, does Stephen Bungay dont't list the total losses of the RAF at all? If so, we could replace my addition on the infobox and also fix those lines here. Tanks! Muhambi (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Coherence?
The beginning says: "German historians do not accept this subdivision and regard it as a campaign lasting from July 1940 to June 1941"; the note says: "German historians usually place the beginning of the battle in May 1940 and end it mid-August 1941". So, which one is it? Yes, I understand there are conflicting opinions, but this does not justify claiming two different opinions as a majority in the same text. --85.253.64.90 (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Missing / wanted: Liverpool
Liverpool says During the Second World War, the critical strategic importance of Liverpool was recognised by both Hitler and Churchill, with the city suffering a blitz second only to London's. (footnote: http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/exhibitions/blitz/blitz.asp ) [...] Germans made 80 air-raids on Merseyside, killing 2,500 people and causing damage to almost half the homes in the metropolitan area.  Is there a native speaker who has time & motivation to bring sth. about it into the article ? --Neun-x (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Did the battle really have any significance?
If the UK had been successfully invaded the Royal Navy would have continued the war from Canada. (217.42.27.218 (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC))
 * WP:NOTAFORUM ( Hohum  @ ) 17:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Even though Churchill said rather contradictory things in other famous speeches, the quote from him in the lead adequately addresses this question, including: "Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war" (my emphasis). So in my view the article does not need to be improved in its coverage of this.


 * Just to forum a little, the question and its premise is like asking if the Guadalcanal Campaign had any significance -- if the Japanese had been victorious and had driven all Allied forces from the island and had killed or captured 60,000 allied personnel and had inflicted heavy losses in ships, planes and pilots on the U.S. Navy in the process and had reinforced Guadalcanal as a strong outer base in defence of their Pacific empire, would that have been significant, since the USA would have just continued the war from Hawaii? Well obviously it would still have been significant, yes. And any successful invasion of the UK would have been far more significant, given the difference in scale. MPS1992 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Japan never had any chance of winning World War II as the US had an infinitely larger industrial and economic capacity. Germany never had any chance of winning the war as the British would have continued the war from Canada. Field Marshal Keitel realised this at the very beginning, which is why he told Hitler not to bother attacking the UK and instead focus on North Africa. (217.42.27.218 (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC))

Convertible bombers??
Battle_of_Britain states ″From 1923 the Deutsche Luft Hansa airline developed freight aeroplanes convertible into bombers″. What are the example models? Were they truly planned to be bombers from the start or was it an eventual makeshift conversion? Military aircraft requires completely different structural strength. An effective conversion has to be intention. Original author or those informed please supply more information. Thank you. 冷雾 (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Aircraft design has developed since the 1930s, the source is Bishop p. 25 as already cited, and states "It also deliberately developed designs for commercial aircraft that could be easily convertible into bombers, such as the Junkers Ju 52". Looking at that page I've added an example with the revised sentence "Following a 1923 memorandum, the Deutsche Luft Hansa airline developed freight aeroplanes convertible into bombers, including the Junkers Ju 52." Check that article for its use as an airliner, freighter, bomber and troop carrier. If you're interested in the topic, another reference is  which discusses both the Ju 52 and the Dornier Do 17. . . dave souza, talk 07:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC) + the preceding page discusses the Heinkel He 70. Another less intentional example is the Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor. . . dave souza, talk 07:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Under the Treaty of Versailles Germany was forbidden from having bombers, indeed it was forbidden to have an offensive air force, and to get round this the German Nazi government ordered aircraft for Deutsche Luft Hansa such as the Ju 52/3m, Ju 86, He 111, and Do 17 ostensibly as 'airliners' or 'mail planes', but which designs could be readily converted for bomber use, as indeed they eventually were.


 * Dave's points are absolutely correct. I have just reworded a sentence slightly to avoid too close phrasing to the original source. Just a minor thing, but the reword attempts to bring out the clandestine nature of the dual design strategy, viz " the Deutsche Luft Hansa airline developed designs which were claimed to be for passengers and freight which could in fact be readily adapted into bombers, including the Junkers Ju 52.." Irondome (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It is worth remembering that most of Nazi Germany's (illegal) re-armament programme in the 1930's was carried out in secret, and as a result the threat of Nazism was not as widely known amongst the British and French publics, what knowledge there was in the UK of the re-armament was confined to reports from people who had recently returned from Germany. This lack of knowledge was one of the reasons that appeasement was seen as being reasonable by so many, as to them Germany was not seen as such a threat. This lack of knowledge within the UK was one of the reasons that when war finally seemed imminent the Air Ministry arranged for Sidney Cotton to over-fly parts of Germany taking as many pictures as he could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.106 (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"Controversy" section
I've reverted a fairly extensive addition by an IP that discusses (with references) how much credit the RAF should really have received in preventing an invasion versus the Royal Navy. While we all know that there was a certain amount of hagiography associated with the Battle of Britain, I'd be interested in the views of other editors concerning how much weight might be given to alternative views in the article. I'm skeptical that the RN would have been effective without air cover if the RAF was as weak as posited (and there is a certain amount of "what if" in play), and I'd like to see how much this minority view has been discussed in sources.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * More than anything, the addition gave so much sheer weight to the opinion of a single writer, that it came off as promotional. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That was my feeling, that it was undue weight.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, the addition gave undue weight to one writer and came across as promoting one view. David J Johnson (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree, sufficient body of research has been presented across books, journals, academic thesis and conferences that at the lowest level, a debate does exist. It is misleading to not alert the readership that such research exists. I do not believe it presented one view point but the timeline of research that has taken place into controversy or different points of view on the effectiveness of the battle and role of Royal Navy. Strangely some of this debate has been put on an individuals Wikipedia page [Allen]. I would suggest that a section is retained and perhaps a new page, outlining the debate over the battle added. The addition was a few paragraphs with approximately 7 references to various sources. The body of literature on this is growing and worthy of alerting readers to. Seapowerthinker (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * @ Seapowerthinker, perhaps you should try airpowerthinking in this context? The Royal Navy can't have contributed much to the air battles, indeed its actions in the Channel were damaging to the RAF, and it wasn't a major factor in the bombing campaign. There is a great deal of whatiffery about Operation Sea Lion, but general agreement that seaborne invasion was never practical, and as appropriately outlined in the #Invasion plans section of this article, the RN was indeed a factor in that. The recent speculation seems based on the idea that Seelöwe was all that mattered, a rather unbalanced view and not the focus of this article.  . . dave souza, talk 21:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The idea is not debate the Battle or elements of it but alter the readership to controversy that surrounds the populist account of events. As I have indicated, atleast putting in a few lines or hyperlink to a new page about the ever increasing literature at least alerts the readership to that the debate exists. Right now that debate has been placed under on Wing Cmdr Allen's page which, although he is part of the narrative of the debate, he is not the 'the' debate. The choice exists to move that debate onto the BoB page or create a new page. The page currently leads the readership to believe the Battle of Britain aerial combat led to the ending of the threat of invasion. This is a narrow view which avoids many other factors of land,sea,air and civilian forces and it should be atleast acknowledged. Adding the content from theses, journal papers and conferences alerts the reader all to these factors. Elements of the controversy's should be reduced on Wing Cmdr Allen and increased on both the BoB and OP Sea lion pages. Failing this compromise a new page should be set up to cover the debate.Seapowerthinker (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Having looked through the article, this essentially uncontroversial point about the impracticality of invasion was well covered except in the lead. I've therefore edited the lead to cover points which are fully sourced in the body text. . . dave souza, talk 07:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that completely reflects the addition of the controversy section or that we have it on Allen's page. Would it be better there to add a line about a BoB debate etc and create a wholly new page? Seapowerthinker (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Heavy losses in the Netherlands
The paragraph about the losses in the Netherlands belongs to the article Battle_of_the_Netherlands and have had no influence on the outcome of the BoB. Therefore, I consider it unnecessary and redundant for the scope of this article. Or is there any particular reason why the Dutchman needs to have that significant remark in the article? What about Belgium, Luxembourg and France? Hauntingwolf (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There's significance for the Battle of Britain, but the coverage should be more general as there were also significant losses in other areas such as Scandinavia and France: under #Small scale raids there's mention that "Following Germany's rapid territorial gains in the Battle of France, the Luftwaffe had to reorganise its forces, set up bases along the coast, and rebuild after heavy losses.", but no detail. It would make sense to cover all these points briefly in an opening paragraph added to #Regrouping of Luftwaffe in Luftflotten. .. dave souza, talk 16:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * While the losses are significant for the invasion of France and the lower countries, it did not played a significant role for the outcome of the BoB. I'm okay with a brief note merged in other sections, but not with an entire lauded paragraph devoted to the Dutchman.


 * In general, whoever have added those paragraphs, not only had miscalculated the losses (per linked source: 64 fighters + 83 bombers + 8 sea + 21 recon and 276 transport + 1 other = 453 aircrafts not 525 as claimed), but also had some serious pov issues: "In total on that day, 512 planes went down, another never challenged world record" - to name just one of the few. The Dutch lost according to the same source, more than 100 airplane in defence, yet we only read about how effective the anti-air was. However, it seems while scour through the article's history, that the addition came from HarveyCarter, a banned sockpuppet: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Britain&diff=next&oldid=682289825 Hauntingwolf (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Soviet Union
A redundant section aswell, as the directive No 16. and 17 are already well put in the Background section, "German aims and directives". Why Hitler's Mein Kampf is worth the mention is beyond me.Hauntingwolf (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Soviet Union subsection is part of the Background subsection on German aims and directives, expanding on the outline under that hierarchical heading. See the index list for clarification. It could arguably be merged into that outline, but makes valid points about Hitler's aims being more focussed on the Soviet Union than on attacking the UK. The significance of Hitler's Mein Kampf is well set out in Bungay, and makes the important point about his consistent priorities. So, there's a case for merging the points in, but not simply deleting them. . dave souza, talk 15:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not assess the quality of Bungay's work, I'm sure they are fine. But, to keep the section merely because of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is a bit suspect, and regarding Britain as a "potential ally against communism". The noted directives in the section are redundant, as they are already very well covered. Hauntingwolf (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"Close British victory"
Can we change "close British victory" to either "decisive British victory" or just "British victory"? "Close British victory" is something that sounds like it's bordering on POV. Utahwriter14 (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Quotation should be removed from lede
The quotation by Churchill is just flowery, imperialistic, racist nonsense and it should be removed. The lede is only a brief summary of the article. (86.144.81.100 (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC))
 * I'm ambivalent about it being in the lede, but it does need to be in the article. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should worry about removing Swastikas before worrying about supposed racism in Churchill's speech.
 * I'm not entirely sure what "removing swastikas" is supposed to imply, but I agree that the quote is entirely too long to be in the lead. Churchill is an important figure, and he's great for getting all warm and fuzzy about history, but he isn't an encyclopedia, he's definitely not a neutral recorder of historic events (as much as I enjoyed History of the English Speaking People) and he doesn't deserve to take up so much lead space, especially in a lead that is already so long it runs afoul of MOS. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Removing Swastikas" implies that most of us have no problem displaying such an odious symbol, representing the most racist regime that has possibly ever existed, because it was a historical fact. Criticizing Churchill's speech as "racist" seems rather hypocritical in comparison. I should remind editors that the primary push to remove the speech has been coming from a banned user.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The speech doesn't need to be removed from the article. It may need to be relocated, and a reference made to it in the lead. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Only one line should be included in the lede, not the whole quote. Churchill had praised Hitler and Mussolini before the war, and many people consider the British Empire to have been far more racist than the Third Reich. The swastika was never used as a violent symbol until the 20th century. (MikeyFinn (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC))
 * Honestly though, do we really need to have a racist dick measuring contest? In pre-modern times, and a lot of modern times, racism wasn't racism; it was just normal. And besides, Wikipedia is not censored and we don't remove quotes by someone because that person as an individual was objectionable, so the issue is irrelevant even if it were incontrovertible truth. The issue is whether it belongs in the lead, a lead which is already too long to satisfy WP:LEADLENGTH. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And for the record Damwiki1, before you start making a historic list of most racist regimes ever, you should probably have a conversation with the potentially 40 or so million Chinese that Genghis Khan killed...by hand, without all the fancy accouterments of industrialization, and maybe take a few moments to appreciate what he would have done given semi-modern technology. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you made your post above. Your prior post sums up my position. Again, this topic crops up on the talk page every year or so and in all prior cases, IIRC, it was initiated by a banned user, with very similar arguments as to the creator of this topic. So here we go again...I'm sure he's having a very good laugh at our expense.Damwiki1 (talk)
 * If you have sufficient evidence to open a WP:SPI investigation, then you are more than welcome to. Otherwise, you haven't actually addressed the point. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not too long and it helps set the stage for the pending battle. It also gives the reader an understanding of the basis for Churchill's war policy and his government's policy of resistance to Nazi Germany at any cost. This speech galvanized UK and Commonwealth public opinion towards total war and influenced USA public opinion as well and it elevates the tone of the article with it's masterful oratory.Damwiki1 (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually most people at the time regarded the speech as rubbish. Churchill was absolutely hated in Britain, which is why he was voted out in a landslide at the very first opportunity. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:FC84:8899:3CCF:C062 (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC))
 * I completely agree, in every respect other than the fact that your argument is exactly the reason it should be in the background section, since the purpose of that section is to set the stage for the pending battle [and give] the reader an understanding of the basis for Churchill's war policy and his government's policy of resistance to Nazi Germany at any cost. However, the purpose of the lead is to summarize the content of the article, and convey a shallow but comprehensive understanding of the topic in the case it's the only thing a person reads. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * " .... many people consider the British Empire to have been far more racist than the Third Reich." - What country voluntarily went into what became the biggest war in human history for a foreign country full of foreigners - the Poles. A bunch of 'Slavs' as Hitler would have termed them. Going to war for the Poles doesn't sound very racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Poland was just an excuse to declare war to preserve the British Empire. The UK and France did nothing to try to help Poland, and did not even criticise the Soviet invasion on 17 September. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:807B:B579:8328:B324 (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC))

So, was there a point to the Genocide Olympics and Nazi apologism here? Virutally none of this is relevant to the quality of the article. Utahwriter14 (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Battle of Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120707085002/http://airlandseaweapons.devhub.com/blog/61173-fairey-battle/ to http://airlandseaweapons.devhub.com/blog/61173-fairey-battle/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607103944/http://www.saunalahti.fi/~fta/fintac-1.htm to http://www.saunalahti.fi/~fta/fintac-1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827042806/http://ftp1.us.proftpd.org/hyperwar//ETO/BOB/BoB-German/BoB-German-A.html to http://ftp1.us.proftpd.org/hyperwar//ETO/BOB/BoB-German/BoB-German-A.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216155830/http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=420 to http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=420
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131115041910/http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/remembrance/battle-of-britain-70th-anniversary to http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/remembrance/battle-of-britain-70th-anniversary
 * Added tag to http://www.tudorrosepatchwork.co.uk/bbattle-of-britain-wall-hanging-or-picture-cushionbbr-saturday-july-11-2015br-chris-hinchcliff-kate-frankland-p-9966.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221182520/http://nfb.ca/playlist/its-oscar-time/viewing/Churchills_Island/ to http://www.nfb.ca/playlist/its-oscar-time/viewing/Churchills_Island/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100926072822/http://www.aflma.hq.af.mil/lgj/index.asp to http://www.aflma.hq.af.mil/lgj/index.asp
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20101113033622/http://www.celebratebritain.com/ to http://www.celebratebritain.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111125155937/http://members.multimania.co.uk/hampshire7/ukairfields.html to http://members.multimania.co.uk/hampshire7/ukairfields.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/,news/2009/september/30/battle_of_graveney.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227023326/http://www.cilip.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C3B54A7D-BB2C-4EEF-BCF9-8469A5CA504F/0/ADLGVisitsRAFUxbridgeBattleofBritainOperationsRoom.doc to http://www.cilip.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C3B54A7D-BB2C-4EEF-BCF9-8469A5CA504F/0/ADLGVisitsRAFUxbridgeBattleofBritainOperationsRoom.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Threat of invasion?
It is unlikely Hitler ever intended to attempt an invasion of the UK, as Rundstedt and Galland later said. In any case the German High Command was already planning the invasion of the Soviet Union when France surrendered. (81.159.6.37 (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC))


 * None of that is really relevant. The threat was there because the UK perceived it to be there, and with what was facing the UK across the channel this is not even worth discussing. You are confusing what the Germans were thinking and reality. If someone holds a gun to your head, but it is empty and they don't mean to shoot you, would you say the threat was only 'apparent', even if you knew the gun was not loaded? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

File nominated for deletion on commons
The file c:File:Sir Winston Churchill - 19086236948.jpg has been nominated for deletion on Commons Reason: I don't understand the decision above. The final comment, "The Karsh photo of Churchill is PD in Canada and the US since it was published in a 1945 issue of Life magazine. URAA affects images published or taken after 1945 in Canada. --Leoboudv 09:44, 21 August 2017 " is wrong. It was, indeed, the cover of Life in 1945. That issue of Life had its copyright renewed, so the image will be under copyright in the USA until 2040. Deletion request: link Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC).

Hitler took little interest in the invasion plans
I`ve read quite a bit about the BofB and Operation Sealion and it`s regularly mentioned that Hitler took little interest in the plans for Sealion. Many books refer to Hitler`s almost autistic interest in the minutiae of military plans and statistics so I took it as read that mentioning his lack of interest in plans for the Sealion operation was just confirmation that right from the start the whole thing was just a bluff to put pressure on the allies to come to terms. I added a comment to this effect but someone reverted it (no surprise there than......), I`m unsure if I`ll have the time to trawl through all my books to find a relevant quote so does anyone else have one to hand ? Is it actually worth me spending time finding quotes (that Hitler was obsessively interested in military plans and statistics) or will some picky editor say that`s not sufficient proof his lack of interest in Sealion meant anything (even though it is....). Basically Hitlers attitude to Sealion`s plans does prove he never really intended to invade Britain.--JustinSmith (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am the picky editor who reverted your uncited addition. Hitler may not have been interested in the minor detail of the invasion plans, but to say that proves he never intended to invade at all is flawed reasoning and original research. You will need good secondary sources to show otherwise. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn`t go so far as to state in the article that Hitler`s exceptional (because, for him, it was exceptional) lack of interest in the plans for Sealion proved that Sealion was a giant bluff. However, stating that his lack of interest was exceptional is something different altogether, that`s just a fact to anyone who knows anything about Hitler, the reader can make their own mind up as to its obvious implications. That said, I find it bizarre that if any "historian" was to state such a conclusion it would suddenly be acceptable to put I in the article, even though it`s obvious. --JustinSmith (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's how an encyclopedia works. What's obvious to different people, differs wildly as one second ticks over to another. It would, perhaps, be interesting to note whether any historian mentions that Hitler had an abnormal lack of interest in the Sea Lion operation. MPS1992 (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Many books on Sealion and the BofB mention that Hitler had little interest in the invasion plans, and many other books (more about Hitler personally) mention he had an obsessive interest in detail, particularly military detail. Is pointing the discrepancy between those two reported facts (so the reader can join the dots if he/she cares to think about it) classed as original research, if so I think it further brings into disrepute the whole concept of "original research" being inadmissable--JustinSmith (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. MPS1992 (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes to what ?--JustinSmith (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes to your question. MPS1992 (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

So, one source explains what "1" is, another explains what "2" is, but stating that 1+2=3 is inadmissible. If I was to publish a book in which I said 1+2=3 are you saying it`d suddenly become admissible ? Or would this farce go even further, being told you cannot say that (because it`s your own book), but someone else can ! That would be bizarre on its own terms, but most contributors to Wikipedia are anonymous.... Ridiculous. It`s particularly ridiculous when, these days, you can nearly always find a source to back up almost any argument, but, as it happens, I have found a "cast iron" citation :

"to their [Von Brauchitsch & Halder] surprise and 'completely at odd with his normal practice' he [Hitler] asked no questions on specific operations, was not interested in details and recommended no improvements"

This was at a meeting discussing proposals for the invasion of Britain at Berchtesgarden on the 13th July, 3 days before Hitler issued his invasion directive. Egbert Kieser, quoted in "Battle of Britain" (Bishop), p105.--JustinSmith (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

HOLD ON. What is going on here ??????? First picky Wiki editors say I cannot add something because it`s not a quote from a source and may be own research, then, when I add the quote you say I cannot quote a source. This is A JOKE. I am not au fait with this esoteric minutiae, like almost all Wikipedia editors. This is all rubbish anyway, there are loads of quotes all over Wikipedia, why this is being singled out IO have no idea. So, the person who has reverted this addition because they consider it to be quoting a source can re edit it (NOT DELETE IT) so it conveys the same message but, in their opinion, does not breach copyright. If I`m banned so be it, Wikipedia editing is getting too much trouble these days.--JustinSmith (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See wp:PLAGIARISM – everything has to be fully supported by good published sources, but put in our own words. If it's a quote, we could have "Bishop says 'this happened' at the meeting", but we can't use a quote without inline attribution, and that formulation implies it's only Bishop's opinion, giving wp:UNDUE weight to other unsourced opinions. If it's too much trouble, sorry to hear you're stopping editing, but don't [inadvertently] plagiarise the source. . . . dave souza, talk 18:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To get back to the question, it would seem that Hitler simply was intimidated and bored by naval operations and planning. As the navy increasingly dominated Sealion planning, this would make sense. Leo McKinstry mentions Hitlers lack of motivation here. [] Simon Adler (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with "intimidated", not so much about "bored", considering how vital the naval operations were to any chance of success for Sealion. Hitler was famously quoted saying "On land I`m a hero, at sea I`m a coward". But that didn`t stop him authorizing massive expenditure on the German navy, much of it sent to the bottom of the sea (or nullified) without achieving much, or, in the case of the aircraft carrier, even being completed.--JustinSmith (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Decisive British victory
If the RAF lost around the same number of aircrafts than the Luftwaffe, and if Britain got its cities bombarded, why can one say that it was a "Decisive British victory" as an outcome? I understand that the air attack was repelled and thus the German objective was not fulfilled, but looking at casualties on both sides, I'd rather say it was a draw. João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering Germany failed their objectives (ensuring air superiority over Britain), and the British succeeded (stopping this), then it is without a doubt a German loss, and a British victory. Also considering the difference in lost airmen, which came to prove significant as the war progressed, it is a German loss.


 * I am more unsure about the word "British" being used. Previously, it was "Allied". I can see how both are insufficient. Considering the foreign presence in the mission, among the a significantly large presence of Polish pilots, and Canadian forces, I think the word Allied should be the best choice. On the other hand, the British were the main combatant among the Allies. Perhaps the best option is to call it as a "British-Allied decisive victory"?--Simen113 (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the page archives before flogging this horse again. ( Hohum  @ ) 00:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The Luftwaffe came out of the battle weaker than when it went in, RAF Fighter Command came out considerably stronger than when the battle began.


 * Shot down Luftwaffe pilots and aircrews became immediate prisoners or war, RAF pilots shot down, if unhurt, went straight back to their squadrons and could be flying in action again, in a replacement aircraft, later the same day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.0 (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The Battle of Britain was a decisive British victory, clearly the original user and the rest of you started this pointless debate because you've judged how decisive the victory is in terms of numbers and there's probably a bit of nationalism involved (which is very common on Wikipedia). As historians and most sources agree it was a decisive victory which is measured by its long-term impact, comparable to that of Midway, El Alamein, Stalingrad; the Battle kept the UK in the war, which continued to play a major and defining role which in the end helped bring the war to a successful conclusion. Do you research, the vast majority of sources, even those on this page (the whole source, not just quotes from it) support this. (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I confess I'm sick of being a large contributor to WP, a project where people when it comes to nationalism, are far from neutral. The winner of a battle is not decided by the future, but by the battle as such. Red Army lost more than 8 million men fighting against the nazis, whilst UK lost around 400 thousands military men, 20 times less, and you guys are saying this battle's outcome was "decisive" to the conclusion of the war? I'm Portuguese. I don't give a damm for your grandparent's braveries. I'm in WP to inform the reader about facts and truth. João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide those sources that you refer to. The term 'decisive victory', as far as I can see, is not defined by WP, so its common meaning will apply. A decisive victory is a decisive (military) victory (eg Singapore), not necessarily a victory with decisive consequences (eg Waterloo).Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

John Terraine, The Right of the Line: the Royal Air Force in the European War 1939-1945 (Sceptre, 1988), p.219: 'The outcome of the battle, whatever closing date one accepts, is quite clear: "The objective of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain was not achieved. The Battle of Britain was lost by Germany." Thus, Dr Klee [Karl Klee, in Decisive Battles of World War II: The German View, Andre Deutsch 1965]; Luftwaffe General Werner Kreipe adds [in The Fatal Decisions, Michael Joseph 1956]: "...though the air battles over England were perhaps a triumph of skill and bravery so far as the German air crews were concerned, from the strategic point of view it was a failure and contributed to our ultimate defeat. The decision to fight it marks 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." Both German authorities agree that from all angles the Battle of Britain has to be viewed as a decisive battle of the war; in Klee's words, "the invasion and subjugation of Britain was made to depend on victory in that battle, and the outcome therefore materially influenced both the further course and the fate of the war as a whole." '

Martin Davidson & James Taylor, Spitfire Ace: Flying the Battle of Britain (Pan Books, 2004), p.220: 'Fighter Command's victory had been decisive. Not only had the RAF survived the Battle of Britain, it had even ended it in a stronger position, with more pilots available... In all, the Luftwaffe lost 2,698 aircrew, the RAF just 544.'

The Imperial War Museum, '8 Things You Need to Know About the Battle of Britain': 'British victory in the Battle of Britain was decisive, but ultimately defensive in nature – in avoiding defeat, Britain secured one of its most significant victories of the Second World War. It was able to stay in the war and lived to fight another day. Victory in the Battle of Britain did not win the war, but it made winning a possibility in the longer term.' http://www.iwm.org.uk/history/8-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-battle-of-britain

The Independent, 'V for Victory: the Day the Battle of Britain was Won,' 11 September 2010: 'The Battle of Britain was the first decisive victory in history won by airpower alone.'

Christer Bergstrom, Battle of Britain: An Epic Conflict Revisited (Casemate, 2015), p.279: 'Even if some, in particular German writers, have made attempts to downplay the impact of the Battle of Britain after the war, it is perfectly clear that the RAF won a decisive victory at that time, and that Goering's Luftwaffe had suffered a major defeat.'

Robert Skidelsky, Britain Since 1900: A Success Story? (Random House, 2016), p.238: 'The Battle of Britain, starting in August, was Britain's first and most decisive victory of the war.'

And so on. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * At the risk of being tedious, not one service person from the British Empire that took part in the Battle of Britain, or in World War II as a whole, was 'foreign' to either Britain or the RAF.


 * Persons (of any race or colour) from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia, Nigeria, Tanganyika, Uganda, Fiji, India, Singapore, Malaya, Burma, Hong Kong, etc., were all British subjects and had exactly the same citizenship and nationality as the people in the UK had. Not only that, but they all swore an oath to the same King upon enlistment.


 * The only RAF 'foreign' nationals in the Battle were the Poles, Czechs, French, and one or two other nationalities, including IIRC a Palestinian. And their countries weren't 'allies' as for the most part, with the exceptions of the Palestinian and the persons from neutral states, their countries had surrendered. IIRC, the only ally the British Empire had at that time was Transjordan.


 * After the battle when in 1941 the RAF started to fly offensive operations over occupied Europe many of the Poles and Czechs in the RAF were given British nationality to protect them if they were shot down and captured. As British subjects they would be protected by the Geneva Convention. As Poles or Czechs they wouldn't be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The Battle was decisive to the war because it was the only time during the whole period where one nation - the British Empire - could have given in to Hitler and Mussolini and thereby ended WW II there and then without having to consider any allies - as by the time of the Battle it no longer had any. It didn't happen, the RAF won, and so WW II continued, and while the Soviet Union did lose millions of men, that was to a large part due to the leadership and tactics used by the Soviet High Command, that Stalin had purged of competent officers in the 1930s. Any fool can lose millions of men, sending some of them into battle without weapons, and telling them to pick up the weapons dropped by their fallen comrades.


 * And BTW, of all the major combatants of WW II only France and Britain went into the war to help anyone else, the others all waited until they themselves were attacked.


 * The Battle of Britain was decisive because if the British had lost it, WW II could have ended in 1940. When the other countries were still sitting on their a***s and watching from the side lines.


 * @Khamba Tendal and João Pimentel Ferreira.Thank you KT and sorry for the late reply. Most of those references deal with the later effect of the victory, not the battle itself. Even those that refer to a 'decisive victory' do not talk specifically about the military victory, thus creating ambiguity. The closest that comes specifically to the actual battle being decisive is Davidson and Evans, that talks about the numbers killed. It does appear that the term 'decisive victory' is being taken out of context or even invented from a misquoted article. Unless the term 'decisive' is very clearly used to refer to the actual battle or to the later long term consequences of the victory (two meanings), then its meaning will need to be drawn from its context. In isolation (as in the infobox) 'decisive British victory' must refer to the actual battle, not the later consequences. There does seem to be a barely disguised thread of nationalist bravado running through much of this article with misplaced weasel editing taking place when it suits. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your WP:OR of what you think decisive victory means, is irrelevant, wikipedia requires that we reflect what reliable sources say about the Battle of Britain. They say decisive victory. (Hohum @ ) 13:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If Red Army lost 20 times more men fighting the Germans than the UK, and if roughly 90% of the Wehrmacht perished on the eastern front, I still don't get how can you tag this victory as decisive. Don't cherry pick your sources, use also your analytical mind according to the known data. João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Article talk pages are for giving opinions, are they not? Please stay on topic, address the issue and resist the temptation to attack the messanger rather than the message. Your reliable sources are not quite as reliable as you make them out to be, meaning that many of your edits are OR. Evidence shopping is good fun when you have an agenda to back. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your handwaving is unconvincing. (Hohum @ ) 17:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The Red Army was not involved at the time, the Soviet Union not then being at war with Nazi Germany. If the British had lost the Battle then they may have been inclined to sue for peace with Hitler, thus ending World War II before either the USSR or US became involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.249 (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The BofB was only a decisive victory if one accepts that it was the RAF, and only the RAF, which stood in the way of a German invasion. Most historians these days accept that Sea Lion was never a goer at all, partly down to the RAF, but mainly down to the Royal Navy and Germany not being equipped or trained for a large scale amphibious operation. The argument that had the Luftwaffe been able to force Fighter Command to withdraw north of London, their only realistic goal, that either an invasion would have been successful or not required at all, doesn`t stand up to scrutiny. So, for me, the BofB was a victory for the RAF, but only in the narrow sense that the Germans didn`t achieve total air supremacy (i.e. no significant numbers of RAF planes present in the sky at any point), something which was never possible anyway.--JustinSmith (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Some of you are missing the point, which is that losing the Battle of Britain made Hitler unable to even attempt to invade, as without defeating the RAF his invasion forces would be vulnerable to air attack. Thus winning the battle prevented a possible invasion of Britain even being attempted, whereas all Hitler's previous invasions had gone ahead and been successful.


 * And Germany had plenty of modified Rhine barges all along the Northern French ports together with enough newsreels of similar German invasion preparations being shown to foreign neutrals for an impending invasion attempt to look pretty convincing from the British side of the Channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.42 (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The Myth and the Truth, some initial numbers please
The conventional story is that the Luftwaffe outnumbered the RAF 4:1 (e.g. Film, Battle of Britain), which is why Britain was doomed. That Chaimberlain only thought of peace and that the RAF was totally unprepared. And that much of the RAF was lost in the battle of France, with no mention of Luftwaffe losses.

The truth, of course, is quite different. A table of the build up of aircraft in the years leading up to the battle would be very useful if someone could find a good source. Tuntable (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Certainly. Do you have one in mind?


 * Do you feel that the article should represent the "conventional story" in the meantime? MPS1992 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The German figures usually refer to both fighters and bombers, whereas the only RAF figures that matter as regards the battle are fighters.


 * At the time the public (and much of Parliament) was completely unaware of the existence of RDF (radar) and the associated GCI system, and the effect it would have on any forthcoming battle, in that it saved considerably on RAF flying hours, wasted sorties, pilot fatigue, engine wear-and-tear, and wasted petrol. Thus RAF Fighter Command was able to be more effective than the figures suggest, un-informed opinions at the time judging the likely effectiveness of the RAF based on assuming the fighters would have to perform constant standing patrols in order to detect incoming enemy aircraft and thereby steadily lowering availability rates (due to increased need for maintenance, etc.,) and so reducing the effectiveness of the defence over time. Radar made this unnecessary. One of the things that puzzled Luftwaffe pilots was that there never seemed to be any weakening of the defending forces over time. In fact Fighter Command was steadily getting stronger.


 * In contrast to being 'unprepared', Fighter Command was probably better placed to fight such a battle than any other air force in the world, and it was the Luftwaffe's misfortune in having to face it. The RAF's only handicap was that it had had to send a large proportion of its fighter force to France previously which reduced the numbers of aircraft (Hurricanes) available when the battle subsequently occurred.


 * BTW, Fighter Command's primary purpose was not to shoot down enemy aircraft per se but was actually to prevent attacking enemy bombers successfully bombing their targets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * ... which BTW, Keith Park understood, while Trafford Leigh-Mallory it appears, didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.42 (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Mistake in nb3 / Inconsistency in article
Hi there, i spotted an inconsistency between nb3 and the main article.

nb3 states:

German historians usually place the beginning of the battle in May 1940 and end it mid-August 1941, with the withdrawal of the bomber units in preparation for Operation Barbarossa, the campaign against the Soviet Union, which began on 22 June 1941.

The main article says it ends in June, which seems to make more sense to me, since barbarossa started in June, IIRC. Qwartz2003 (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The primary objective of the German forces was to compel Britain to agree to a negotiated peace settlement
I tagged this as needing a reference. Hohum reverted the tag. How can you subscribe to this baloney, hohum? I see you are on under the banner of being British. Are there actually any other British who think the Nazi primary objective was not to invade Britain but only to bring pressure on it? I'm pretty sure I could make the request stick, or, my next move would be to, better still, put up a banner saying the article is not balanced. And it isn't. However it is a big article and I am not working on it right now. I'm working on something else, which I never will get done if I have to take this on as a project. You aren't helping WP any and no one really is going to buy it. I would suggest, as you are a native, you take it on and fix it. I am noting here, in case there is any interested public, that this intro, and probably the article, is badly off balance and may need re-writing.Botteville (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to agree with you Botteville, even the article on Operation Sea Lion states it was a precursor to invasion and losing this would have exposed Britain to a land invasion. It should also quite clearly state it was a "Decisive" British victory, given it's often argued by Historians (even myself) that the Luftwaffe never recovered from the defeat.AlbionJack (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sources please. MPS1992 (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I see there is some interest in this. Thank you. MPS1992, I think you have the cart before the horse. We don't supply sources on statements that have not been made. We request sources on statements that have been made. If you find a source, you put it in. We don't need a source on a request for a source. You reverted my reversion. Since the issue is being made now I can wait while it is being made. Where is this consensus that is being made? I don't see any consensus here. I see more objections. Have you got a source for this statement? Why not put it in? What I can do is easily re-write that statement with plenty of sources, since the view currently expressed is not the primary view in any historian of which I know, including Winston Churchill. However the right thing to do is give you a chance to give a source. Then I can say, this is one point of view, but the main point of view is, etc. That is balance. Have you got anything against balance? Why so eager to edit war?Botteville (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I just read this again carefully. Although it implies that the Battle of Britain was fought to apply pressure on the British to surrender, it does not actually state it. If you read further, the application of pressure might apply to the initial steps the Germans took. I still don't agree with it, but that is more likely to be true than that the strstegic objective was to apply such pressure. The implication is something of a shocker. Indeed! That thousands of men should be trying to kill each other and making a major commitment to the destruction of vital war material all over some minor goal of applying pressure is really quite absurd. How can I ask you to find a reference when there can be none? That can't be the meaning. I would alter my suggestion then and not ask for an impossible reference. The problem it seems to me is what leads one to draw the shocking conclusion. It's the phraseology that is wrong, perhaps the point at which the statement is introduced. Maybe too little is said as to meaning. I'm not the only one who sees it that way, as you can see. It implies the wrong thing while trying to say something else. For the rest it, you're too quick on the trigger. You're going to edit war on me and crush me, you think, because I noticed a flaw. Shame on you. You read it more objectively. If you think the meaning is that the Battle of Britain was fought to bring the British to the bargaining table, then you DO need a ref, because no one I ever heard of, or read of, thinks that, unless you find some German apologist. If you can read the statement some other way, then I suggest correcting the English so that it does not make the wrong implication. Hey, wrong implications have caused wars. I've got other things to do now. I repeat, I'm not on this article, but someone should take a good look.Botteville (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The section on German aims is not well written; it is selective and lacks balance. This includes placing undue weight on plans drawn up before France was even invaded. Although I give no opinion on what the German war aims were, I do agree with what I think you are saying, about the poor use of references to draw wrong conclusions. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, I removed the citation needed template in the lead section, for something that is already included and sourced in the main article. I have no opinion on whether that sourced text is correctly balanced, but it's good that editors are now considering it. I'd caution against appealing to the nationality of editors, which just makes me cringe. (Hohum @ ) 15:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A request for sources sounds reasonable, but as you correctly state the lede might not be the right place for it, and the detail sections lower down do provide sources. More problematically, bluntly stating that 'They intended the invasion of Britain' as if that's a known fact is itself controversial. Serious preparations were definitely made, but I think the actual consensus among historians is that Hitler saw an invasion of Britain as a last resort at best. He also seriously doubted it could be successful, and rightly so. He wanted to avoid a two-front war, and wanted to conquer further territories in the East, not the West. A prolonged war with Britain was not in his interests. If the reason were restated as a question, 'didn't they intend the invasion of Britain', it would be much less objectionable to me. Even so, the lede still probably isn't the right place for it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There was no chance of Britain either surrendering or 'making peace' with Nazi Germany all the while Churchill was Prime Minister. Hitler would have been well aware of that fact. It is possible that Hitler's plans had been made on the (understandable) assumption that Chamberlain would remain Prime Minister, however his removal changed the situation much to Hitler's cost, such that what may have been initially intended as a bluff then had to be acted upon.


 * Whatever, there is little reason to suppose that if the RAF had been beaten the invasion would not have at least been attempted, with results that have since been simulated in staff office war games and which result in initial German gains followed by a British recovery that eventually leads to the invasion being defeated.


 * It is also worth pointing out that prior to the Battle of Britain all of Hitler's previous invasions had been 100% successful, as they were also to prove afterwards, at least initially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.42 (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * BTW, FWIW, if the UK government had been convinced an invasion was likely and feasible they would have recalled much of the overseas Navy back to the UK to counter any invasion. They didn't. The fact that they didn't suggests that they thought any invasion was likely to be ultimately unsuccessful even if it was attempted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Will it be all true?
Why did Axis not occupy Britain? It was able to join Moscow and Caucasus. Why should it have changed the target? It seems really fishy.79.13.190.232 (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Have a read of Operation Sea Lion and Operation Sea Lion (wargame) to learn more. MPS1992 (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Reason for removal of pilot
I have removed Mohinder Singh Pujji from the Other notable Battle of Britain pilots section. He was later a great pilot indeed, but the BOB was fought 10 July until 31 October 1940, and he never got his wings until April the following year. Moriori (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Contribution of the Polish Air Force to the Air Battle of Britain is Totally Ignored
--2601:18C:8480:7610:4CEE:3B36:8A60:6BD1 (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)The Polish Kosciuszko 303 Squadron was the most formidable fighter unit in the Air Battle of Britain yet is totally ignored in this article.In the six weeks of combat during the battles most crucial period, this squadron shot down 126 Nazis air craft,more than twice as many as any other RAF squadron at that time. Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding said "Had it not been for the magnificent contribution and unsurpassed gallantry of the Polish squadrons, the outcome would not have been the same." Queen Elizabeth II made the same point: "If Poland had not stood with us in those days... the candle of freedom might have been snuffed out." On the first day of the Blitz the Poles of 303 shot down 14 Nazis planes in less than 15 minutes. In just over a week of combat the all Polish Squadron had destroyed 40 enemy aircraft-- by far the best record in the entire RAF. Reference: Lynne Olson "Last Hope Island" Chapter Six, Random House 2017 If you don’t like it add to the belligerents section, you are correct Signed: gceasar@msn.com


 * Except... 303 Squadron is specifically mentioned quite positively in the article, and Polish forces multiple times, along with a link to an article about foreign involvement in the RAF in the BoB. (Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain). (Hohum @ ) 19:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The words "Poland" and/or "Polish" are included over thirty times in the article. There are also two photographs related to the Polish squadrons included in the article. In what way does this constitute the Polish pilots being "totally ignored"? --Shimbo (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The primary purpose of RAF Fighter Command was to prevent enemy bombers form successfully attacking their chosen industrial and military targets and to discourage such further attacks. As such, fighter 'kills' were of secondary importance. As far as the UK Government was concerned the Luftwaffe could come over every day and night as often as it wished and as long as their bombs fell in empty fields or farmland their efforts would have little or no effect on the British ability to wage war.


 * This was a key part of British air defence strategy that Dowding and Keith Park understood that Leigh-Mallory and Bader didn't.


 * The 'Polish Air Force' along with the Polish Army and Navy had been surrendered to Nazi Germany in 1939 and as-such took no part in the Battle of Britain, the Polish pilots who fought in the battle consisted of a relatively small number of refugees who chose to escape to Britain and continue to fight as members of the RAF, these personnel then being organised into ad hoc RAF Squadrons with the subsequent agreement of the Polish Government in Exile in London. This was necessary because the Polish Air Force was no longer recognised by Nazi Germany as what is now known as a 'lawful combatant' and it was only as members of the RAF (a 'lawful combatant') that Poles would be accorded the protections of the Geneva Convention if shot down and captured. This state of affairs also applied to members of the other armed forces of states occupied by Nazi Germany who chose to escape to the UK and continue to fight.


 * While such 'legal niceties' may appear irrelevant they in fact made the difference between being treated as a legitimate POW if shot down and captured, and possibly being put up against a wall and shot by the Nazi puppet governments of these occupied states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia
Czechoslovakia was fighting for UK 176.10.139.75 (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * true, and that article states that as such. The Banner  talk 20:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As well as summary in the Allies section, which mentions Czechoslovakia, there's an article on Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain, which has a section on Czech pilots which goes into further detail. If there's any further sourced details to add they should go in the Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain article. Shimbo (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Poland in the Belligerents box
I do not believe Poland should be included in the Belligerents box. Although Polish pilots were instrumental to the defeat of the Luftwaffe, the actual Polish state had capitulated at this point. Also, Czechoslovakian and French pilots served a major part in the campaign, yet they are not present in the box.

I suggest moving 'Polish Armed Forces in the West' to the 'Units involved' section instead. 109.158.87.3 (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree fully. 86.145.154.160 (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)