User talk:Martin Hogbin/Battle of Britain

Trekphiler, as this is a discussion partly about about personal opinion rather than what the sources say I have put it on my talk page.

Many sources do refer to ways in which German success in her initial objective, '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' could have eliminated 'the English home country as a base for the continuation of the war against Germany'.

I am fully aware of the following:

Just as the Free French government and the Polish Government in Exile had moved to London, Britain could have moved its government to a place of safety.

Britain could have moved the wreckage of its air force north, temporarily out of range of German attack.

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/seelowe.txt

The great majority of military historians believe Operation Sea Lion had little chance of success. Kenneth Macksey asserts it would have been possible only if the Royal Navy had refrained from large-scale intervention and the Germans had assaulted in July 1940 (although Macksey conceded they were unprepared at that time),

But none of this would have enabled the British to have continued any significant war against Germany.

It was likely but by no means certain that Sealion would have failed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/invasion_ww2_01.shtml By the end of July the Royal Navy had to pull all its larger warships out of the channel because of the threat from German aircraft.

In 1944 Britain's defences against sea-borne attack were scaled down. By that date it was finally certain that the German army - fatally mauled in Russia - was in no position to invade Britain. But Britain's coastal defences were not dismantled.

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/online-exhibitions/history-of-the-battle-of-britain/operation-sealion.aspx No one knows whether Sealion would have succeeded or not had it been launched. Without air supremacy and command of the sea the project could not go ahead; if both had been achieved then it may not have even been necessary.

http://s134542708.websitehome.co.uk/pillboxes/html/german_invasion_plans.html There a two schools of thought on how successful a German Invasion would have been had the RAF been defeated.

The first is that a German invasion, even with air superiority would have probably failed... The second is that, with the Luftwaffe dominating british skies, they would have been able to target oil refineries, industry and ports relatively unimpeded. Combined with a blockade by U-Boats Britain would have been starved either into surrender or a negotiated peace with Nazi Germany.

http://www.operationsealion.com/ n any case, one thing is for sure, if the Germans successfully carried out Sealion and conquered Britain, the consequences would have been terrible both for Britain and the wider world. Indeed, it is quite possible that German victory over Britain would have ultimately resulted in a German victory in World War II as a whole.

More personal opinions
"So there you have it all the quotes on which the text was based with page numbers." And not one says, "Losing the Battle of Britain means Germany would win the war." Not one even comes remotely close. Ismay's opinion of the likelihood of German success in invading is wrong, & no historiographer I know of credits Germany being able to successfully invade. So what we have is an opinion based on faulty reasoning, supported by exactly zero actual sources. Do I have to say it should be left out? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The only campaign where the Germans had the remotest chance of forcing the British Isles out of the war was the Battle of the Atlantic. This they could only have done if the British had done nothing to try and win it.


 * Once Lord Halifax had been side-stepped and Churchill had become PM there was no likelihood whatsoever of Britain making peace with Germany, especially after the Battle and the ensuing Blitz. Short of being starved-out or bombed-to-bits the British were not going to give up. Ever. Seriously.


 * If by some chance Britain had been successfully invaded and occupied the British Government, Royal Navy, and Royal Family, along with the various governments-in-exile, important scientists, etc., were to transfer to Canada where the conduct of the war would be continued-from. This was all agreed and prepared-for with the Canadian Government of the time, IIRC under King. It was for this reason that Britain's gold reserves had been moved to Canada some time earlier. Once the war effort had been moved to Canada the main British war effort would be in the bombing of Germany using bombers operating from IIRC airfields in Newfoundland. It was for this reason that Tube Alloys had facilities set up in Canada as an insurance, as it was thought that if the worse came to the worse it would be possible to guarantee further work there. The MAUD Committee first sat in April 1940, and the Frisch–Peierls memorandum had been written a month earlier. IIRC, it was a Bristol design for a transatlantic bomber that eventually led to the post-war Brabazon. It was around this time that Canada's greater industrialisation was commenced and its aircraft manufacturing capacity increased.


 * For obvious reasons much of this was highly secret, and remained so until as late as the 1970's.


 * As Churchill said; "Some chicken, some neck".


 * As I wrote somewhere else, Britain planned and prepared for a long war. This they could envisage, as they had had a long war before - the Hundred Years' War. Confusingly, as is usual when dealing with the British and matters of war, it actually lasted 116 years. The shortest war in history was also one of theirs - the Anglo-Zanzibar War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.20 (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ♠"This they could only have done if the British had done nothing to try and win it." Actually (& this is really OT to the issue at hand), the Brits came close to doing something stupid in mid-'43, with the BoA virtually won: abandon convoys. It was possible the Germans could have forced HMG to that point sooner... Otherwise, you're right.
 * ♠"the British Government, Royal Navy, and Royal Family, along with the various governments-in-exile, important scientists, etc., were to transfer to Canada where the conduct of the war would be continued-from" Again, I must disagree. I've read that, too (& I think it comes from Winston), but it's improbable Canada would have welcomed HMG. The Royals, yes; HMG would more probably relocate to Bermuda or the Bahamas. If there's a good source for it, from a Canadian POV saying Ottawa would have welcomed it, I'd love to see it. It's also probable Tube Alloys would have relocated to Northern Ontario or Northern Quebec & continued, successfully building the Bomb before war's end. (Perhaps, even probably, not before VE-Day, however.)
 * ♠Otherwise, you're right. The Brits had long practiced fighting alone while trying to build alliances to defeat Continental opponents. This wasn't different. And, like before, the Germans didn't apply the full force they had effectively enough. Winning the air battle was never going to be enough. TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 08:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A deal with the Germans
If Britain had lost the BoB it is quite likely that Churchill would have been replaced as PM by a less beligerent person. Britain at that time had a large empire which she wanted to keep. A deal could easily have been done where Britain kept her empire and status as a world power in return for keeping out of the war in Europe. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Transatlanic warfare
Even with the combined forces of Britain, Canada, and the US, and with complete air superiority, operating from a safe base across the channel, Operation Overlord was quite a close run thing. From America all that anyone (US, UK, or Canada) could do was relatively minor harassement of the Germans. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The Royal Navy would have fought on
If a deal had been done they would have been instructed not to fight on. Suppose they mutinied and tried to fight on, without the home ports and shipyards and any source of finance they would soon have ground to a halt. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)