User:Martin Hogbin/Battle of Britain

RfC Should the article have a 'Significance' section containg this sentence: 'Had Hitler achieved his objective that, "The English air force must have been beaten down to such an extent morally and in fact that it can no longer muster any power of attack worth mentioning against the German crossing", it would have removed Britain as an effective belligerent from the war'.

The case for inclusion
The evidence from high quality reliable sources is clear. The source which says most succinctly what I want to say is this one.

Spitfire Ace - Martin Davidson and James Taylor
 'It is still all too clear what the result of destroying fighter command would have been - the removal of Britain from the war, either by invasion or, more likely, by some kind of time-winning armistice'.

There is a general feeling that a successful invasion was unlikely, either because it would have failed or because it was never Hitler's intention; he greatly admired the Britsih and would have done all he could to negotiate some peace deal.

Another source, of the highest quality is Bungay. A main theme of his book is had Hitler won (achieved his stated objective) in the BoB, Europe would have fallen irretrievably into the hands of Hitler and/or Stalin.

Stephen Bungay, - The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain.
This book has been decribed in the national press as 'The most exhaustive and detailed account of the battle of Britain that has yet appeared', and 'Already hailed as the standard work, whose comprehensiveness is unlikely to be surpassed'.

This book makes the point very clearly that, if the battle of BRitain had been lost by the Britsh, Britain would no longer have been an effective belligerent and Europe would have fallen into the hands of Hitler or Stalin. Some relevant quotes are :

'If Hitler had won, all Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals would have come under Nazi rule...'. P393

'America could have done little, even if she had wanted to. ' P393

'On the other hand, as is probably more likely, things may have ended up in a Soviet victory.' 'The whole of Europe, lacking any western presence on the battlefield, would have been occupied by the Soviets'. P393

'In 1945 after the defeat, the Russians asked the Wehrmacht's most senior operational commander,Field-Marshal Gerd von Runstead which battle of the war he regarded as most decisive. They were expecting him to say 'Stalingrad'. What he said was, 'The Battle of Britain'. P386

'A political result had always been the most likely outcome. If Dowding had been forced to withdraw 11 Group, leaving the south-east to be patrolled unchallenged by the Luftwaffe, the pressure on the war cabinet would have become immense. Under such circumstances, the Germans would only ha had to offer generous terms, such as a non-aggression pact and the return of a few colonies to give Halifax new impetus'. P386

'However, if the Battle of Britain had not been won, the Battle of the Atlanticcould not have been fought'. P387-388

These sources all contain statements that support what I want to say by making clear that Hitler wanted peace with Britain and that whatever might have happened if Hitler had achieved his objective, Britain would not have been able to make any further contribution to the progess of the war or to have acted as a base for the later Allied liberation or Europe.

James Holland' - The Battle of Britain'
'[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.' P604

Holland also quotes Churchill's liaison officer, General Hastings Ismay, as saying: 'Personally I always felt that if we won the Battle of Britain the Germans would not invade, and that if we lost they would have no need to invade... the Luftwaffe could have proceeded to wipe out, in their own time and without significant hindrance, first our air stations, then our aircraft factories, then perhaps our other munitions factories, then our ports, and so on. The point would have been reached, perhaps quite soon, when we would have been bereft of all serious means of opposition. We could have continued the war from Canada-I hope that we would have done so. But the physical occupation of Britain would have presented [to the Germans] no serious difficulties.' P329

Fighter - Deighton
'...Hitler decided on a quick war against the USSR. After this, he said, Britain will make peace'. P241

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

'Battle of Britain' - Patrick Bishop
'The Battle of Britain had immense strategic and symbolic importance. In victory Britain lived on in freedom to provide a base for the heavy bomber offensive against Germany and, eventually, a launch pad for the Allied invasion of Europe.' P332

The opposing view
Some editors have made claims that what I want to say is something that 'no credible historiographer believes' and that it is 'a paragraph that would be considered fringe by any real historian with knowledge of the battle of Britain' however Not one single source has been presented which supports these stated views or which opposes, challenges, or criticises any of my cited sources or their authors.

This dispute is about the future of Wikipedia. Either we base what we write on what can be verified from reliable sources or we base it on the individual opinions of editors, albeit sincerely and strongly held. I cannot see any future for WP if personal opinion is allowed to trump what the best sources say.

What I do NOT want to say or do
Because I am genuinely baffled by the strength of unsubstantiated personal opinion, I wonder if some editors suspect that I am trying to push some hidden agenda. I can assure you that this is not the case and that I am not in any way pushing any of the following.

That Hitler would have invaded Britain
At the time, there was a genuine belief and palpable fear that Hitler would invade Britain, however many historians have since considered that this was unlikely.

Many sources show that Hitler greatly admired the British and wanted to make peace with them. Most people in the UK disliked Hitler but had no idea just how evil he really was and thought of Churchill as being excessively belligerent. Britain had an empire to run, and fighting in Europe was a serious distraction from this. There were plenty in the country and the govenment who would have wanted do the same as the US was doing and keep out a war that need not directly threaten them. That, together with the real fear of invasion, would have made a peace deal the most likely option. That deal would, obviously, have prevented Britain from playing any further part in the war, including the stationing of US forces in the country.

Diminish the role played by Russia, the US, and other Allies in defeating Hitler
In terms of human life, by far the largest contribution to the defeat of Hitler was paid by Russia. More people died every day on the Eastern Front than died in the whole of the Battle of Britain. Without Russia, the liberation of Europe would have been much harder or perhaps impossible.

There was no way that Europe could be liberated without the US joining the war. Whatever the result of the BoB, and subsequent battles, Britain and the other Allies could never have staged Operation Overlord without US support.

That Britain won WWII single handed
Even without the US, Rusia may have defeated Hitler thus winning the European war but, as we know from the history of the countries that the Soviets did control for half a century, rule by Stalin was not much better than rule by Hitler. To put it is simple mathematical language Britain's winning the BoB was a necessary but not sufficient condition for the liberation of Europe from Hitler or Stalin.

That Britain could not have taken defensive action after a defeat at the BoB
Britain could certainly have moved the govenment to a place of safey and withdrawn the remnants of the RAF to the North wher Hitlet would be, at least for the time being, unable to attack them. The Royal Navy was still intact and powerful but, with no airforce to defend them (by definition) Hitler would have been able to bomb London and the southern ports at will reducing the effectiveness of the Royal Navy. With a less effective navy and without the RAF, and the confidence of the US that BRitain could survive, the Battle of the Atlantic would have been lost. If Britain hade not sued for peace before, they certainly would have done then.