Battle of Britain.

[Hagar]

Hi Scorp. Please don't think that I'm trying to set myself up as some sort of authority on this or any other subject. I'm merely expressing my opinion. My passionate interest in WWII history, specifically the BoB, makes me a tad over-enthusiastic at times.

It's very interesting to speculate on what might have happened if any major event in history had been changed in some way. I'm all for it providing that the authors of novels or films based on these ideas make it clear that this is fiction. Too often we see these so-called documentaries & feature films that bear very little relation to the truth. People watching them without knowing the true history tend to believe what's shown in the film. This is what annoys & upsets me about programmes like the one Eno mentioned.

As you seem to have a rich imagination it might be worth studying what life was like for ordinary people living in Britain in 1940. This would make your "movies" even more convincing.

I don't know if it's available where you are but I was given a very interesting little book named Aces, Erks & Backroom Boys. This would give you some idea of what life was like for many of these ordinary people. It's well worth a read. IMHO
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0304359270/wwwlink-software-21/202-8049846-9218207

[Scorpiоn]

Don't get me wrong Hagar, I'm not trying to insinuate anything, I'm just trying to say I don't claim to understand war, or for that matter, understand what went through the minds of the air and ground warriors on either side, although that's what I always strive to do.

You needn't tell me about bias, I take my federally funded school education with a grain of salt.  I saw the flaws in it's World War II curriculum, and corrected my teacher numerous times.  The success of Kamikazes for example. I can only imagine what these privately funded (as I imagine they are) "documentaries" tell people.

I'm not bound to get the book as my acute interest in the Pacific air war and cash won't permit, but now I have grown more interested in daily life during the Blitz on Britania, so I shall do some light research... Convesely, it seems all I've researched lately is the Luftwaffe, specifically the Ju 87, rather than the IJN or the USAAF.  Go figure.

[Professor Brensec]

I was surprised to see this one mentioned again, so soon. (Even if it hasn't been posted in for a couple of weeks........ )

As has been said, there are many 'accepted' theories and orders of events that there may well be more to than meets the eye.

The 'Invasion' (Sealowe), was merely a ruse, in my opinion. There were so many 'obvious' flaws in the plan (not the least of which, was the total lack of suitable landing craft and troop carriers).

In fact, I watched a History channel Doco the other week which featured a 'witness' (German soldier in charge of a work gang who were charged with cutting the bow off the 'river barges' to fit the 'drop bridge'). He said that they all said they would desert before trying to cross the channel in one of these things.

But I digress. Basically, as Hagar has said, there is pretty much an accepted opinion these days that there was really no serious 'invasion' in the offing.  ;D

[mosquito633]

The common belief that i have heard is that there was no real serious threat to England.. If u look at its geographical position it would just be murder to send ships across the channel with the RAF still around..But this makes me ask. Why did Germany decide to call a halt to stop the bombing of England.. I can safely say in heinsite that the Brits were running terribly low on aircraft. But surely the pilots should have noticed a lack of fighters up there? So why was the bombing stopped?

[Professor Brensec]

G'Day, Mozzie. Welcome.

The Brits (and many Australians, Kiwis, Canadians, Poles, Czechs, French, and even some Yanks), were not so much short of fighters, but more so, trained pilots (especially battle experienced ones).

But the Germans were also in the same boat. Their fighter forces had basically been unable to stop the molestation of their bombers. This was obvious in the loss figures. Even a 'stalemate' was unacceptable given the German crew losses.

Then, once the RAF received it's 'accidental' reprieve on Sept 7th (my birthday), and the bombing was switched to the cities rather than the pressure being kept up on Fighter bases, the Battle was lost. The germans handed the skies back to Fighter Command and that was that.

Had the German attacks on the Airfields continued for even just a couple more weeks, Fighter Command may well have been crippled. But it didn't happen, did it??

No amount of continued bombing would have cleared the skies of the RAF. And, as you say, it was suicide to attempt an invasion without total air supremacy, in that area (although we all agree, I think, that there was really no serious invasion intended).

The Allies knew this also in 1944. Their demonstration of 'TOTAL' air supremacy showed just exactly HOW effective and deadly that advantage can be (e.g. The Falaise Gap, to mention just one total anihilation of ground forces, due to Air supremacy).

It certainly was a very busy and important 4 months or so. But fate, or better planes, or better pilots, or luck or all these, decide the outcome.  ;D

[Hagar]

The common belief that i have heard is that there was no real serious threat to England.. If u look at its geographical position it would just be murder to send ships across the channel with the RAF still around..

As I mentioned earlier, with the benefit of hindsight I have come to believe that Hitler expected Britain to sue for peace. A non-aggression pact with Britain would effectively remove opposition from the whole British Empire & leave him free to attack Soviet Russia which had always been his main objective. I could be wrong but it's quite possible that Operation Seelowe was an elaborate bluff to convince the doubters. The German generals had no previous experience of waterborne invasion & didn't fully appreciate the difficulties involved. Admiral Raeder had insisted on aerial superiority before he would commit the Navy & Goering had promised the Luftwaffe could take care of it. This explains the significance of the Battle of Britain. Although the Royal Navy was the most powerful in the world the British Army was in tatters with most of its equipment left behind on the beaches of Dunkirk. Once RAF Fighter Command was taken out of the picture Britain would be virtually defenceless. Whether Operation Seelowe was practical or not, there is no doubt that everyone in Britain at the time, including the government, believed that invasion was imminent. It was generally believed that this invasion would come from the air, not by sea.

But this makes me ask. Why did Germany decide to call a halt to stop the bombing of England.. I can safely say in heinsite that the Brits were running terribly low on aircraft. But surely the pilots should have noticed a lack of fighters up there? So why was the bombing stopped?

By coincidence the RAF "Big Wing" tactics were first tried on September 7th 1940, the same day as the first daylight raid on London. This brought the fighters of 12 Group based north of the River Thames into the picture. The Luftwaffe pilots were shocked to find more fighters than ever & suffered severe losses. The bombing did not stop but tactics were changed from daylight raids on airfields & RADAR stations to night bombing of cities - the start of the "London Blitz". Legend has it that this was in retaliation for a token raid on Berlin. It's a nice story but I suspect it was for the same reasons that RAF Bomber Command went over to night bombing. The losses suffered by the Luftwaffe in daylight operations being unsustainable.
http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/MOLsite/exhibits/blitz/bigstory.html
It's often been suggested that if the Luftwaffe had continued attacking airfields instead of directing its attention to London & other cities the story might well have been different.

The London Blitz lasted from 7 September 1940 until 11 May 1941

[Professor Brensec]

Thanks Hagar.

Although at times we may differ on some small aspect in a specific issue, again, it would seem we are in complete agreement.

Alaso, I reviewed your earlier post regarding the political and 'personal' attitudes in Britain at the time towards the Nazis and more specifically Hitler. I know that younger people these days and certainly anyone with the hindsight that was available in 1945, would be abhorred (if not surprised) to find that there was much 'support' for what the Germans were doing on the mainland, especially in the so called 'aristocracy' and the upper class.

Churchill was very much 'on the outer' with many very influential people, until it was proven that the Nazis could not be taken at their word and that Hitler was the meglomaniac that he turned out to be.

I understand how many these days would be hesitant to admit or to agree with the fact that there were many influential and respected Brits that would have had no problem at all in 'shaking hands' with the Nazis.

I think, in the scheme of things, although Churchill is not loved and respected in Australia with the same passion and fervour that he is in Britain, he was most certainly very much responsible for the holding out of Britain against Naziism and their eventual defeat. Had Britain not been available to the US as a build up and 'jump off' point for invasion, the road to Germany would have been a much longer and harder one.

Although, had the British decided not to resist the Nazis, would the US even have been involved in the European theatre? My guess is: not until they themselves had been directly threatened by the Nazis. They would have been to committed to the Pacific war (which I beileve would have gone ahead without the European situation as it was), to have been bothered with Europe if Britain had not been in need of assistance.

[Woodlouse2002]

Although, had the British decided not to resist the Nazis, would the US even have been involved in the European theatre?

Definately not. Even after Britain resisted America didn't get involved because they were so sure that gallant England was doomed to losing. It took Pearl Harbour and a declaration of war by Hitler to get the US involved.

[Professor Brensec]

Definately not. Even after Britain resisted America didn't get involved because they were so sure that gallant England was doomed to losing. It took Pearl Harbour and a declaration of war by Hitler to get the US involved.

Quite so. Had the Brits made peace (or had to surrender), I expect that the US would have maintained it's Isolationist policies regardless of how keen Roosevelt was to help the Brits.

Even when the Japanese attacked Pearl, there would have been no reason for the US to become involved in Europe, unless it was helping the Russians. Maybe they could have gotten invloved that way.

They were supplying the Russians with all kinds of stuff, but was this from July to December 1941 (when the US was still neutral), or did they start supplying Russia after Hitler declared war.

Also, I believe Hitler would still have been 'oblibged' to declare war against the US after the Japanese, because of the terms of the Tripartite Pact (although being a non-agression pact, did it mean he was obliged to?).

Some interesting questions I suppose.  :D