Talk:Battle of Britain/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Lithuanian Pilot?

I have removed the claim that a Lithuanian pilot participated in the Battle of Britain as the source given did not support the assertion (it said that a Lithuanian pilot few in the RAF in 1942-43, after the BoB). If anyone has a better source for this assertion then I'll be happy to put it back. --Shimbo (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fighter-bomber issue

"The Bf 109 was also used as a fighter-bomber - the E-4/B and E-7 models had the ability to carry a 250kg bomb underneath the fuselage. The Bf 109, unlike the Stuka, could, after releasing its ordnance, fight on equal terms with RAF fighters.[20][21]"

This is incorrect in this context. The fighter-bomber models were not used in 1940 as far as I know. The Bf 109E-3 was the standard model of the time and the normal E-3 without ETC250 appeared in the battle in only very small numbers. The fighter-bomber business was more one of the Bf110 in 1940 than of the Bf 109. Lastdingo (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bf 109s were used as fighter bombers during the battle; one of the main units to use them was Lehrgeschwader 2 which (for example) lost an E-7 (Brown?) 2+ (Uffz. Klick 3./LG2) on 15 September - Battle of Britain day (Ramsay; The Battle of Britain Then and Now Vol 5 p.647.) Several other units changed role and became fighter-bomber units; eg: 9./JG26. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Bf109E4 was used extensively through the battle. It was capable of fulfilling the "Jabo" (fighter-bomber) role. It could be equipped with one SC-250kg bomb, or 4x SC-50kg bombs. However, the standard "Jäger" (fighter) armament of 2x MG-17 (7.92x57mm) machineguns + 2x MG/FF 20mm cannons was most often used. I'm not sure about the E3, but I'm pretty sure it was also used in the Jabo role. I think that the E3 was basically an upgraded version of the 109E-1, if I'm not mistaken (new cannons in place of old MG-17s in wing and better pilot protection). But it should be noted that 109s were not very commonly used as bombers in the BoB. The JU-88, JU-87, DO-17, and HE-111 did most of the bombing, and were more suitable for the role. The 109 had VERY limited range, and carrying bombs made effective combat use almost impossible. So don't think the sweet sounding advantages of a Bf-109 in the bomber role didn't come without a bitter price. Savagelife714 (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Britain commands

Despite the popular conception that the Battle revolved around London and the environs, the attacks that took place involved all of the British Isles commands including those of #10 Group with Air Vice-Marshal Sir Quintin Brand in command from 15 June 1940 to 22 July 1941. #13 Group commanded by Air Vice-Marshal Richard E, Saul from 24 July 1939 to 4 February 1941, was similarly engaged. Excuse the very rapid change to the article as it has been receiving a bit of unwanted attention. My comments were in no way meant to be inflammatory. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

Yes they were. You said my change was "vandalism". This has to be about the most insulting, accusatory and demeaning term there is in Wikipedia. Wallie (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not me, check the edit history, that must have been some other editor. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC). Found it, do you mean this? [1] as you can see that was a different editor Srushe who reverted to my last edit, not me. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

Yes that was me. I marked it as vandalism as it was the second time Wallie had made the same change in the last 3/4 days. Last time he was clearly told to discuss it on the talk page before doing it again and he ignored that. srushe (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. I put a comment on the talk page. You just did this to be insulting and go for a quick kill. Wallie (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, let's put this into perspective. An edit was made, looked to be questionable- the note back is simply a caution and does not indicate an accusation of vandalism as it is veeery mild, simply stating an edit was reverted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

Just to clarify, the addition to the talk page came after I had made my revert and suggestion to take it to the talk page. It had not been made at the point I reverted. I had no desire to be insult anyone, I merely wanted to restore the consensus version of the page and say why I had reverted. srushe (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your attitude stinks, Srushe. I put the amendment in at 17:58 and then put a comment on the talk page at 18:00. You made your revert also at 18:00, the same time. "It had not been made at the point I reverted." is not quite accurate. Your intention was to catch me and score telling points rather than to be co-operative. At best, you gave me two minutes. Wallie (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I remind you all about WP:CIVIL please discuss the content, Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that decorum and WP:AGF extends to all contributions including talk page submissions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

If I am attacked in any snide way or indeed a direct way, I will sure fight back, and I would expect others to too. I won't be called a "vandal" and any snide attempt to attempt prove that I am one, as any attempt to sully me will also be addressed. I find that calling people names, or their work, and then using WP:CIVIL to prevent them from replying is not on. Wallie (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a hot topic, and I feel that some peoples' patriotism is getting in the way of being objective. Wallie (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than castigating others' motives, perhaps get back on topic. Talk pages are for discussions related to the formation and development of the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC).

I am not sure what me reminding users about WP:CIVIL has to do with with preventing anybody discussing the subject at hand. Wallie made a change, another user reverted it back to the consensus version and Wallie brought it up for discussion - all seems fairly standard practice. srushe used twinkle to do the reversion which creates the vandal warning it does not appear to have been a personal attack. Reverting a change within a couple of minutes is fairly normal loads of people have the article on their watchlist and somebody knowing the history of the article was sure to react. Perhaps a twinkle vandal warning was not the best reversion method but I cant see any attempt to sully anybodies reputation as Wallie suggests. The civil warning was addressed to all users (or I would have put it on individual talk pages). So I would suggest that this discussion which has nothing to do with Battle of Britain commands is finished. I would ask editors to refrain from extending this particular discussion about reversion but are welcome to contribute to the British/Allied victory discussion above or below if they have anything to say on the original subject. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Extreme bias

I find this article extremely biased. I am not the only one - see comments above.

1) Decisive British victory - Were they the only ones. British also doesn't single out the Scots, Northern Irish or Welsh involved. Note that the main commander - Dowding was a Scot.

2) What about the Poles? They are not even mentioned in the infobox. It mentions that the "British Empire" were the only ones fighting.

3) What about the commanders? The top guy was a Scot, supported by a New Zealander, an Englishman, a South African and an Irishman. When people see British, they always think English - there is only one Englishman out of five!

4) We stood alone (Impression given). The English (British) had plenty of help. Look at all the other nations involved.

5) Decisive? This has been also discussed. It was a victory, but not a decisive one. It was also an allied victory. To say it was British is an insult to the others imvolved.

Wallie (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The use of the term "Allied" would not be applicable here (see above posts). Also, British refers to the nationality of those from the United Kingdom, which includes the English, Scotish, Welsh and Northern Irish. On top of that, the top five commanders were all career officers in the Royal Air Force, which would, naturally, come under the term "British". I fail to see how "extreme bias" is represented in this article by your comments. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wallie, you are the only one who continues to push this. Others have read the explanations, understood and been happy.

British nationality covers English, Welsh, Scots and NI equally (though of course weight of numbers is definitely with the English, which is partly why people get mixed up, though more often people say English when they actually mean British). Arguably, at the time we're talking about we could say it does, factually, cover all the other Commonwealth nations too, since there was common citizenship (with the exception of the Republic of Ireland, which remaiend neutral during WWII, though some individuals did volunteer) until several years after the end of the war. Before you start on about my own bias, I'm half-Welsh and half-English, and the basically English side has an admixture of NI a few generations back (and ultimately that lot were probably Scots originally), so I'm perfectly aware of teh niceties thank you very much.

All personnel involved in the Battle of Briain were under RAF operational control, the other Commonwealth governments, and the governments in exile of the ccupied countries had no say in teh diretion of the campaign, all non-Commonwealth personnel held RAF(VR) commissions, in the case of e.g. Poles and Czechs, or possbily RCAF commissions in the case of US citizens.

It was decisive as the Germans failed to achieve any of their initial objectives, and the preponderance of sources appear to agree with this status, though some do try to make a reassessment, this does not yet seem to be the mainstream view.

The consensus versions reflects historical realities, rather than looking back with 21st century eyes. David Underdown (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks David. You have hit on the very kernel of the discussion. People reading Wikipedia now think in terms of the 21st Century. It is very important to think in today's language rather than the language of 1940. Encylopedias are living documents. They always have been. I have a 1935 Encyclopedia (from England), which states that Hitler is doing a good job, and that there are concentration camps in Germany for "bad people". That was the thinking then, but would hardly apply now. Wallie (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember that the infobox is necessarily a very high level summary, if there is potential for misunderstanding, then in an infobox we can only really address taht with a footnote, but the issues should be fully explained in the article proper. We're also here to educate, so if people's preconceptions are initially challenged, hopefully taht will actually hook them into the article so that they end up understanding why it is written like that. No matter what we think now, the situation was different then, and we must reflect that, we cannot write as things were just the same as now. Wikiepdia should be accessible, but that does not mean dumbed-down, or anachronistic. David Underdown (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see from your comments that you think along the same lines as I do. I am also willing to learn new approaches. I find the article and the infobox to be overly nationalistic, and does not reflect reality, then or now. I am not sure that people are "hooked into" the article. Most would look at it quickly, particularly the infobox and get an overview (maybe wrong) which would remain in their minds. I think that most people still think that England won the Battle of Britain all alone. This is a myth. The RAF tried to correct this by acknowledging others, even though as pointed out that many foreign pilots held British Passports. The Poles get annoyed that they aren't recognized too, and I can understand this very well. The article should reflect what it really was, an international effort, and not just an English one. If this idea is put forward, then people can give credit to the English effort too. Wallie (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little perplexed by all this ... the article certainly does discuss the contributions made by other nations in the British effort, and I certainly doubt that Poland is that perturbed by not having anything listed in an infobox. If the article itself (not the niceties, like pictures and infoboxes) ignores those contributions, then there is a factual problem that must be corrected. However, that problem does not exist, as the article states quite clearly that the "decisive British victory" came about thanks to many different people from many other nations. If someone reads only the infobox and ignores the rest of the article (i.e., taking the Cliff Notes approach), they're doing themselves a disservice. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure keep repeating these points again and again is getting anywhere all the answers to your points have already been made numerous times in this talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wallie is having a field day today regarding the issue of people being "British" - he has now had the explenation given to him by at least 6 people today outside of this talk page yet he still doesnt understand that generally Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen, and Irishmen (under certain circumstances and a host of other people) are British. He has yet to acknowledge that being British is not discriminating agaisnt a person regarding where abouts they were born within the United Kingdom.

Thanks David. You have hit on the very kernel of the discussion. People reading Wikipedia now think in terms of the 21st Century. It is very important to think in today's language rather than the language of 1940.

You must have missed the memo back in the 18th Century when things changed then eh? The idea of being British or there being a United Kingdom or British state isnt something we all just cooked up ten minutes ago to fool you.

British also doesn't single out the Scots, Northern Irish or Welsh involved. Note that the main commander - Dowding was a Scot.

Wallie i think you should take a step back and try to understand all the information given to you today by myself and others regarding this issue. British does not equal English! Unless the person came from southern Ireland for example it is entirely acceptable for you to state they are British. Dowding was British...

What about the commanders? The top guy was a Scot, supported by a New Zealander, an Englishman, a South African and an Irishman.

So two British blokes, a Kiwi, a South African and possibly a third British bloke otherwise an Irishmen.

When people see British, they always think English - there is only one Englishman out of five!

Is it our fault people are ignorant of how the United Kingdom works? Several people today have tried to help you yet you seem to not want to learn about this country. I wouldnt generalise too much either - can you speak on behalf of the 6 billion inhabiants of the planet and ensure me that they are all equally ignorant about the United Kingdom?

The English (British)

Again showing your complete ignorance of the state of the United Kingdom and your general lack of intrest in wanting to absorb any of the information presented to you today by 6 different people including online resources.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are looking at things from today's perspective. It was so much easier then. All people of the British Commonwealth were "British", but each country was given its recognition. People backed each other up. Now there is all this nationalism. Wallie (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Am not looking at it from "today’s" perspective; being "British" (i.e. a resident of the United Kingdom) is not a modern phenomenon. You will note for example the British Empire for a historical example. I think it fair enough to say that the identity of the dominions (a dominion being a partly self governing state and considered equal to the homeland) had progressed far enough, by WW2, to be recognised as Canadians, New Zealanders etc and not British ; not that am delving into the argument regarding nationalities flying within the RAF.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to correct a comment above, the Irish Republic did not come into being until after the war. As far as I know at the time of the war all inhabitants of the island of Ireland were theoretically British citizens. --Sf (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And while I am in correcting mood, I should also point out that a greater proportion of the population of what had been the Irish Free State volunteered for service during WW2 than did from Northern Ireland. --Sf (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Also point out that the Irish Free State was formed in 1922 although it was still a Dominion until 1937 when the Republic of Ireland was formed. All before the Battle of Britain. MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually no the state of Ireland was not declared a republic until 1949 and the citizens of Ireland remained theoretically subjects of the British King until that point. --Sf (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

All Commonwealth people were subjects of the King at that point (I think that the Commonwealth people are still subjects even today - not the Irish of course). Under foreign contribution, the Irish are recognized separately, as are the other Commonwealth countries. Wallie (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Most likely due to them acting as a soverign state, like the Dominions practically were, during the time period and staying neutrel throughout the war; hence why Canadians, New Zealanders etc are shown.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I nominate this for the silly arguments page.

I'm as patriotic & nationalistic a Canadian as you're liable to find, & I call them Brits. It was a victory of the British nation. I'd only add Canadian, Polish, whatever, when it's important to distinguish (#3 RCAF from #3 RAF, say), or to give particular credit (top aces, a notable event). Otherwise, everybody's going to want a flag in the infobox, which is just...I don't know what it is. Geez. Read the article. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a compromise... call it a "Decisive German defeat". ;) Hohum (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. That is the same thing. Dapi89 (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe he was being sarcastic :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My bad vision didn't pick up on the ;). Sorry. Dapi89 (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, partly sarcastic. It avoids the issue of using the term British, which a small minority object to, without giving sourced justification. Hohum (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Commanders list

I don’t know if there is a manual of style thing on this but from all the articles i have worked on it seems consensus points to flags of nationality not identifiers for service i.e. Union Flag over the RAF roundel etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the article should show the nationalities like the others. Wallie (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for help re: Terminology of Battle of Britain

The designation: "Battle of Britain" is normally capitalized, and it was my understanding that the use of the term thereafter if shortened, as in "the Battle" should also be capitalized. The RAF use this form, is it correct? This stems from an anon that insists that only the full term be capitalized. See:Battle of Britain (film) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC).

By the letter of the Manual of Style the anon is probably right. Though to me this seems like a case such as Roman Catholic Church where capitalisation would be sueful to clarify that the Battle as referred to in the title fo the article is the one referred to rather than any other that might be mentioned. David Underdown (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I can understand where they have come from, it does seem grammatically correct to have only the full term in title case and the usage of the word ‘battle’ on its own in sentence case. If the RAF does refer to this as ‘the Battle’ I think that should be avoided due to POV issues, on the other hand there are plenty of battles throughout history that are not revered to as such; perhaps it would be easier to reword to avoid the term if it is going to pose a problem or just to use the full title of the battle?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I resorted to doing, but there was a "string" earlier that explained the use of the term especially when one refers to a specific battle, i.e. The Battle of Britain. I was hoping that someone would pull up the correct terminology and useage for this particular use. (Note: there are two difference spellings for usage, useage.) There is a particular style that many current publications use to identify the specific museum, organization, company, etc. by capitals, although it certainly does not seem to be a widespread practice. FWiW, the National Air and Space Museum in articles is often described as the "Museum" after the first mention of the full title. Bzuk (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC).

The book The Battle of Britain Then and Now (Vol V) uses battle right throughout the text, as does The Most Dangerous Enemy and The Hardest Day. For interest I looked up Fowler's Modern English Usage (2nd edition, 1965) which says;

Uniformity is lacking not only in practice but also in precept; no two sets of style rules would be found to agree in every respect(italics added)...Let it be repeated: the employment of capitals is a matter not of rules but of taste; but consistency is at least not a mark of bad taste.

Methinks that nothing much has changed. :) Minorhistorian (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Opening of the air war

I thought it was necessary to show that an exchange had occured prior to the Battle of Britain, where the British bombed German port installations and the Germans did the same to England. It shows that these two countries were actively involved against each other (and in Norway, too) and it wasn't just a continental expeditionary force that britain had committed.--Npovshark (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there an objection to including aerial combat details prior to the Battle of Britain? If so, then the attacks on Scapa Flow, etc. should not be mentioned, nor should the war on continental Europe, particularly involving France.--Npovshark (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure other stuff exists can be used! The addition of information of the British attacks on the German ports infers a direct connection with the German decision to attack Britain, this was not clear from the references provided that this was the case. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure other stuff exists can be used! I am not sure what you mean here. By the way, the attacks on Scapa Flow precede the fall of france, and are therefore not a part of the Battle of Britain, either.--Npovshark (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right but that was nothing to do with the bit of text you added. The Scapa Flow bit was added as this is mainly about the previous activity before the Battle of Britain involving Fighter Command. Fighter Command didnt attack the German Ports. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am still a little confused. What does Scapa Flow have to do with Fighter Command? I think both details, Scapa Flow and the attack on German ports, are important details that should be mentioned, but they do not have anything to deal with the battle of britain directly. Indirectly, they both did. For example, Britain's success against the Germans made any sort of invasion impossible for the time being, and that has to do with attacks on the German fleet in general, as well as Germany's inability to neutralize the British fleet. Going hand-in-hand with these two details - British attacks in general and German inabilities to neutralize the British fleet - is the Norwegian Campaign, which I am happy to see is also mentioned in the article.--Npovshark (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in those british attacks on German naval ports, several German ships were sunk. I am pretty sure the references make note of this...so this of course contributed to the situation of mid-1940.--Npovshark (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Its called war! MilborneOne (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I'm not sure I know what you mean by that, but yeah, that is what it is. War.--Npovshark (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC

This addition has nothing to do with the BoB. Anything outside the July-October period is not needed. The article is too long as it is, without irrelevent stuff being added. Dapi89 (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that adding in a whole load of info on the air war taking place is rather irrelevant; prehaps a sentance could be added to show that while the landwar had gone off the deepend an airwar was already underway between both nations?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you are interested, this is what I proposed: "As World War II began, the Royal Air Force bombed a number of German ports, ships and installations along the North German coast.[11][12][13]Shortly thereafter, the Luftwaffe began raids on naval targets in the British Isles. German bombers were shot down over the Firth of Forth on 16 October 1939 and over Scapa Flow the following day. However, no major attacks occured during the Phoney War period, which came to an end on 10 May 1940, when Hitler's Germany invaded the Low Countries.[14]"--Npovshark (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that still detracts a bit from the main subject how about:

As World War II began both the British and German Air Force commenced bombing operations agaisnt one another however no major raids took place during the Phoney War period, which came to an end on 10 May 1940, when Germany invaded the Low Countries.[14]

I think that way we can appease everyone; no major detail is added, the background info is expanded a bit and this whole thing of Hitler's Germany is removed :p--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving the article as is. Perhaps it is not that important to include these details, anyway.--Npovshark (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Polish contribution

Over the last day or so there have been continuous corrections to the Polish contribution to the BofB; user 83.24.140.147 /83.5.58.42 needs to realise that although 303(Polish) Sqn. was one of two Polish manned units to be set up during the battle, and 303 Sqn was the highest scoring unit of the battle, there were Polish pilots and aircrew in other units. By changing the bias to 303 Sqn only you are overlooking their service. There is a page Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain which deals with the subject and, hopefully, gives a clear record of the valuable contribution the Poles and the personnel of other Nazi occupied countries gave to the RAF. Thanks, Minorhistorian (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have just made this comment on the Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain page but it may need a wider response. The Non-British article appears to growing into a list of non-British pilots rather than an overview of the national contribution. Perhaps to regain balance it is time to have a British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain? MilborneOne (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello
After short talk with Minorhistorian and Bzuk, I decided to put here some arguments to bring Polish Air Force as co-belligerent on the allied side.
I'd like to introduce you some informations from a few sources (about British-Polish agreement, establishing Polish Air Force in Great Britain as a sovereign, allied military formation):

• [2] - at page 47. you can see the photo from signing of the Polish-British Military Agreement on Aug. 5th, 1940;
  
• [3] - Organization of the Polish Air Force in GB. Here's the quote: The agreement provided for an autonomous Polish Air Force in Britain, organized to operate with the RAF.
  
• [4] - text of the agreement (unfortunalety only in polish);
  
• [5] - click on Galeria links to see pictures, where inter alia you'll see the RAF flag raised together with PAF flag and british-style uniforms with polish eagles and insignias;
  
• [6] Stanisław Sklaski's uniform (with polish eagle, PAF and RAF wings) from Pomeranian Military Museum in Bydgoszcz.
  

This shows the articles of the agreement - PAF as a sovereign formation.

That's why I tried to put Polish airmen under British Empire in 'Belligerent' section at the top of the article...

Please, forgive my bad english; warm regards (specially to Minorhistorian and Bzuk)
Cheers Mboro-bis (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this is not true. Having read Peszke, Michael Alfred (October 1980 - volume=44, number 3). "A Synopsis of Polish-Allied Military Agreements During World War Two" (html at The Journal of Military History), he makes it clear (page 134) that the Polish Air Force was not sovereign. The Polish Army and Navy were given independence, but that of the Air Force was refused until "ammendment #7" in June 1944. Dapi89 (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mboro-bis I have no problems understanding your writing, and thank you for setting out your argument in such a succinct way. Unfortunately the problem here is, once again the source of the references you are using; for various reasons websites -especially self-published ones, which the "Aquila - PAF Organisation" is- are not considered to be suitable sources of information in a Wikipedia article, especially when referencing an important issue such as the one we are now discussing. While Mike Ingham writes:

The point that the Polish Air Force was an autonomous part of the sovereign forces of the Republic of Poland serving with the RAF, but not part of it, is often missed.

There is nothing to back-up this statement; it can only be quoted as a matter of opinion, not fact.

A second issue is this; on pages 43 and 44 of "The Polish Underground Army" it says

...(p43.)the Polish ground forces would be an autonomous allied force while the Polish Air Force would be symbolically autonomous and no longer part of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve...(p.44.)The Polish negotiations for an autonomous Polish Air Force were strongly and successfully confronted by the British Air Ministry which, while conceding minor cosmetic points prevailed on maintaining substantive RAF perogatives. The points conceded were to dispense with enrollment in the RAFVR and the oath of allegience to the British monarch, and the Poles were now allowed to wear Polish insignia and Polish decorations according to the Polish set of priorities and fly the Polish flag on bases where the Poles were stationed. But the British prevailed on having complete operational control over Polish squadrons and even for a time had RAF officers in command of the Polish fighter squadrons.

In other words, your first source (The Polish Underground Army) confirms that, while there were some points conceded, the Polish Air Force units were, for all other purposes, an integral part of the RAF ("complete operational control" means exactly that); in turn it explains why the Polish and RAF flags could be used and why pilots such as Stanisław Skalski could wear Polish insignia and decorations on his uniform. It would seem that Mike Ingham may have misquoted the agreement. Sorry, but you have scored an "own goal"! ;) Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the practical concerns that prevented any independent action was that the Polish airmen had to be integrated within a command-control system that required fluency in the English language. This may seem to be a trivial issue but it encompassed an overall concern that the Polish contingent could not operate without a RAF officer overseeing individual units, acting in parallel with the Polish command structure. In 302 and 303 Squadrons, initially English-speaking RAF officers were appointed to serve as the CO and Flight Commanders alongside their Polish equivalents, as the Polish pilot contingent in the Battle were not yet familiar with RAF Fighter Command language, procedures and operational needs. A large number of individual Polish fighter pilots were also sent to regular RAF squadrons, sometimes making up as much as 50% of the squadron as in the case of 234 and 609 Squadrons. These Poles fought alongside their British mates. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

Why dont we just put British Empire at top, and the tab the air forces (or at least the Polish, Canadians, New Zealands, Australians [the "important ones"] ...) involved? TheStarter (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign Air Forces

I noticed that the notation added to the 'British Empire' and flag in the infobox states that "The RAF was the only sovereign Allied Air Force". This does not reflect the fact that not only were the RCAF, RAAF, RNZAF and SAAF all sovereign air forces, but that No. 1 Squadron RCAF (later 401 Squadron) was involved and earned the BOB battle honour. I believe that that citation should be removed and perhaps 'British Empire and Commonwealth' would be the better label for the belligerents in the infobox, as well as a separate one for the UK itself. Thoughts?McMuff (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we just need to remove the note and leave it at British Empire. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It did not fight as a sovereign force during BoB though, everything was under RAF operational control. David Underdown (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 'operational control' is a satisfying criterion. It may have been under the RAF during the BOB, but theoretically if Canada wished they could have been pulled from the battle. Would American and Canadian units that fought under Mountbatten in South East Asia be considered not sovereign? Would the British XXX Corps be considered 'non-sovereign' since it fought as part of the 1st Canadian Army? Or for that matter Royal Navy ships that found themselves as part of Canadian Northwest Atlantic Command? McMuff (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

strenght figure

the luftwaffe strenght at 29th june it's for all the luftwaffe not for the forces used in the battle, wikipedia as usual doing propaganda --87.6.235.184 (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have more reliable figures from a reputable source by all means please include them, along with your source instead of anonymously grumbling about so called "wikipedia propaganda'. If you cannot make a more useful contribution, your comment is nothing more than useless, unsourced nonsense. Minorhistorian (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

He does have a point, the figures quoted at the forces window do indeed look like are for the complete Luftwaffe, see here for fighters that contains every unit. Not all the LW was deployed against GB at the time, however. For example, Wood and Dempsterás Narrow Margin give on page 318 the following in Apendix 20 : "Luftwaffe Forces against Britain, August 10th 1940":

Total of the units committed had an establishment of 3609 aircraft, of these 3358 were on strenght with the units, and 2550 were servicable on the day. Of these (on strenght/servicable), there were

Close recce: 95/80,

Long R. recce: 100/71,

934/805 fighters,

289/224 destroyers,

1481 bombers but of which only 998 were servicable,

327/261 diver bombers.

ground attack: 39/31,

Coastal 93/80.

In addition the quoted RAF figures, at least in case of fighters seem to only list servicable aircraft, not including the ones that were on strenght with units but not serviceable. For example W and Dempster gives 871/644 Fighters 'in total equipped operationally fit squadrons/total available for operations' for the 29 June (closest date found), and 1106 on strenght of which 749 were ready for operations for the 10 August 1940 (App 7, p 306). Kurfürst (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's all very easy to grumble and complain about "wikipedia propaganda" without making any other worthwhile contribution. The problem with quoting figures is that there is always someone who will find another set of figures to refute those quoted, leading to all sorts of waste-of-time and ultimately pointless arguements. Given the amount of knee-jerk reactions trying to reach an agreement on exactly how many aircraft the Luftwaffe had versus the RAF before during and after the B of B it would be better to steer away from this one. I for one cannot be bothered getting involved in yet another "revision" of published statistics. All the best for 2009 BTW; Minorhistorian (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As the guy who added these figures way back when I'll just have to confirm that this is not a case of Wiki propaganda - these are the figures Bungay listed for the opposing forces in his book about the battle. (As clearly noted in the footnotes) So if there is "propaganda" going on here, blame him :) Abel29a (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

i think that bungay explain that numbers are for all luftwaffe or also him doing propaganda, but saw that bungay admit that are the number of luftwaffe quartemaster for 29th june 1940 and that report it's for all luftwaffe don't need other--82.57.149.217 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you, 82.57.149.217, register as a Wikipedia editor under a username and that way, if you have useful, properly referenced information to add, you can do so. At present you have contributed no evidence that the figures used are the "usual Bungay/Wikipedia propoganda" ; all you have done is complain about a situation you percieve as being inequitable without doing anything useful to contribute to the article. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

i don't want register on wikipedia. if you reading here http://www.ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se290640.htm where is reported the fighter situation for the saem report (29/6) you can easy understand that 1107 it's all the fighter SE strenght of luftwaffe. --95.234.220.106 (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

i found it's wiki compilator making propaganda, boungay explain that are numbers tothe quartermaster for the all luftwaffe --79.49.239.1 (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

TOC

Does anybody object to showing the subsections in the table of contents? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason for a limit on the Table of Contents was that it was excessively long, broke up the article with a large white space and made it difficult to read. This is what it looked like: earlier version. I would caution about a TOC that is so complex. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

I prefer the shorter, limited TOC. Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Two of them on my tail. Can't shake them. Going down... Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Check your six... Bzuk (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC). See what happens when you lose your wingman? Minorhistorian (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hillsboro, Sandy Three-Four. The helo has made the pickup. Sorry for the delay. ;p TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A time for all seasons?

Reading that, I do wonder if Winston was actually referring to FC. "The Few", unarguably, ref FC. I've always taken "finest hour" to mean Britain as a whole, having held against (seemingly) overwhelming odds when Poland & France went down in mere days. Do we have a source confirming Winston's intent? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No mention of FC at This was their finest hour. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Allied victory

This is not a "Decisive British Victory". There were a number of nations involved. Wallie (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This was a Decisive British Victory. FACT. There is something disturbing about your anti-British, specifically anti-English agenda here. Almost smacks of racism. Kentish 21 Jun 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.177.180 (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

See previous talk regarding this issue; it was decided by consensus to leave the note in place. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

There is no concensus here. To call it a "British Victory" is deeply insulting. It was also not "decisive". Wallie (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-read the very, very long commentary in the "string" above, the consensus was clear to leave the description in place. Not my call, but the agreed-upon decision made by the group. FWiW Remember, consensus is the accepted rather than the wholesale agreement. Bzuk (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

Would agree that 'Decisive British Victory' is the best result, and the most accurate. All airforces were under British command, and the Luftwaffe failed to achieve the military/political goals it was set. Skinny87 (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Operation overlord was under American control. It is still an allied victory. I honestly think some English people are so biased they will not listen to reason. Also, El Alamein is an Allied victory, and it was under British Control. This was a nice surprise for once. Wallie (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of god...Okay Wallie, look. It was a British victory, not Allied. The Americans hadn't joined yet, it was just the Commonwealth (and some American/Polish volunteers, yes, I grant you). So, it was British. If this had occurred post-Pearl Harbor and the American fighter units had been official and not volunteers, then it would be 'Allied'. But as it is, it's a British victory. I doubt any historian actually says anything other than 'British/British Empire/British Commonwealth' victory. Skinny87 (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Although individuals from the "colonies" were involved, in most cases, they served under RAF command. I can't think of a squadron or unit that operated outside of the RAF. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

This is typical. The "colonies" and Americans, Poles, Czechs, etc come and help out. They are all under RAF command, so that they can help out quickly. So the British claim victory for themselves and leave the others out in the cold. So so typical! It sucks! Wallie (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the RAF was in the front line, and other nations' pilots flew as either volunteers or were enlisted in the regular force; today's perspective recognizes all the participants but at the time, it was the RAF that predominately garnered recognition. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

I think the opposite is true. After the Battle of Britain, the British nation was extremely grateful. Churchill was always going on about "the British Empire". It is today that people want to rewrite history and call it a "British Victory", when it was an Allied Victory. Wallie (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(od) Okay, Wallie, look. Instead of just yelling at us, give us some proof. Find some historians who label the Battle of Britain an 'Allied Victory'. That's the only way you'll change consensus; arguing alone won't work. We need Reliable Sources that state 'Allied Victory' please. Skinny87 (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it so frustrating. English people do not seem to want to budge one iota. All other nations seem reasonable, and think from a logical perspective. Everyone knows that Britain didn't win this alone, except it seems, the English. In Iraq, the Americans give credit to non-American forces, even though they have the majority there. In the Battle of Britain, the Poles often explain the merits of Polish flyers. That is because they want, and deserve, some recognition too. Other countries such as New Zealand have a major presence there too. Keith Park, one of the two major Commanders in the battle was a New Zealander, and this is not recognized. Wallie (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You need reliable sources backing up your point, Wallie. How many times does that have to be said? Skinny87 (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Skinny on the use of "British Victory". "Allied" refers to the nations of the British Empire, the United States, the Soviet Union, etc. Yes, small groups of other nations fought in the Battle of Britain, but all served under British command and in British squadrons. The Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians would come under the term "British" in both the concept that they were part of the British Empire, but also because they flew as members of the Royal Air Force mainly under the Empire Air Training Sceme. Yes, Park was a New Zealander and one of the major commanders during the Battle of Britian, but he was a career officer in the Royal Air Force, not the Royal New Zealand Air Force. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to do a Mussolini, but I agree with Abraham and skin' (and the rest). The position of "British" and "decisive victory" is undeniable. Who says? Every established historian who has published material on it. But the revisionists will continue to plug away. Dapi89 (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If I may speak from an historical, rather than a 21st Century approach; in the 1940s New Zealanders and Australians (to a slightly lesser extent) still referred to themselves as English first, New Zealander and Australian second - that began to change during the war, but even in the 1950s being a member of the British Empire and "being English" was still common. Even in the 1970s my grandparents sometimes called themselves British. It may seem silly and patronising now, but none of us can change the attitudes and values of 70 years ago! Read the article;

11 Group covered the southeast of England and the critical approaches to London and was commanded by New Zealander Air Vice-Marshal Keith Park.

is that sufficient recognition that Park was a New Zealander? BTW I'm a New Zealander, and I have no interest in having a peculiarly English POV. I would imagine that many Scots, Welsh and Irish would be offended at being accused of having a biased, English POV. According to my dictionary "Alliance" means participation or "Combination for a common objective; esp between soverign states." (Oxford English Dictionary) In other words Allies work alongside one another under their own organisations and under their own flags.

The Americans who flew during the battle had crossed the border and were officially considered to be in the RAF as Canadians; because they were officially Canadian and officially in the RAF they were "British". The US was neutral and was not supposed to allow combatants to participate but, in their wisdom, Roosevelt and the US government turned a blind eye. It may also help to understand that (like it or not) Czechoslovakia and Poland no longer existed as Soverign nations in 1940, nor did Belgium, the Netherlands or France - Czechoslovakia, Poland and France had been partitioned and all were under Nazi or Soviet control with governments in exile (mostly in Britain). Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

At the time of the battle all the other 'allied' countries had surrendered. The battle was won by the British and her Empire/Commonwelath, with a little help from a few dribs-and-drabs of refugees from the then-occupied countries and a few brave men from the then-neutral US. The only non-Empire country that was then involved in fighting Nazi Germany was Jordan. It is to the credit of the relatively few from the occupied countries who did choose to travel to Britain to fight on, and not to the countries themselves - if you wanted to see how 'allied' Poland, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Belgium, France, Holland, etc. were by then, you only need to parachute from an RAF aircraft down into them.

Incidentally, those Poles and Czechs who did fly in the battle (and subsequent Polish & Czech aircrew) were later offered and took up British Citizenship when it was realised that if they were shot down over occupied Europe while on the later 'Ranger' and 'Circus' operations they could be legitimately executed for treason by the Polish 'puppet' occupation government. That's why so many Poles and Czechs were able to remain in the UK after the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.127.67 (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Outcome of the Battle

The idea that the Battle of Britain was a "decisive British victory" is incorrect and a historical myth. The result of the BoB was actually a stalemate, however it was portrayed as a victory to the English public to bolster public morale. To a certain extent, it appears this is still done today. In reality, the RAF was fighting simply to continue to exist, NOT to decisively win some flamboyant victory for King and country.

Many historians doubt that casualty reports from either side are accurate, because both sides sought to conceal the grim realities of the battle. It is also doubted that Hitler really planned on invading England, and it is well known that he had an open admiration of his "English cousins". Many think the BoB was Hitler's idea of "teaching Churchill a lesson", and that he likened himself to an "older brother putting his sibling in his place". However, the British remained defiant and refused to give in. They stood up to the most powerful empire and air force in the world (at the time), and managed to survive. That was the true victory for the British RAF; simply to continue existing. Their victory was actually that of winning their glory and honor back, especially after the humiliation in mainland Europe. By NO means was this some sort of "decisive victory", as it is all too often falsely portrayed.

The BoB was very bad for the Luftwaffe. The moronic tactics employed by Nazi command caused many unnecessary losses. Göring had even forced fighters to fly almost side by side with the bombers, wasting their precious fuel and putting them at a severe altitude disadvantage. This and other things caused many excellent aircraft and pilots to be lost. This certainly had an economic impact on Germany, but was certainly no where near enough to topple the regime. The BoB and the difficulty of attacking over the English channel became too much of a hassle for the Germans. Hitler suspended "Operation Sealion" indefinitely. It was not because of defeat, but because Hitler had set his eyes on a bigger prize (which he thought would be easier to claim). The BoB could have very well continued on for much longer. But Hitler was ready to go for his ultimate dream; the conquest of his "ideological and racial enemy", the Soviet Union. Savage714 (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition:

I also forgot to mention that the true significance of the BoB was actually psychological and political. It's actual impact on military matters was very negligible. In fact, many people in Germany and the rest of the world have never even heard of the Battle of Britain, and if they have, it is not in the context that American, British, and Russian people have. Most of the world views it as an insignificant part of WWII (compared to the rest of the war), in which Hitler was simply "meddling around" with the British to "punish" them for not recognizing Germany's dominance of Europe, NOT as a major turning point in the war. What the outcome actually did was prove that the Luftwaffe and the German war machine was not invincible, as it was beginning to seem. That was the most important factor in convincing the English people that they had a fighting chance. Prior to the battle, the common opinion in America was that Britain could not withstand the German onslaught. Even the American government felt that Britain would surely fall. However, the fact that Britain DID survive the German offensive proved to America that Britain was salvageable, and that supporting them was not a lost cause. That was the real importance of it to Britain, America, Russia, and the other nations which would soon join forces to become "the Allies".

Portraying the Battle of Britain as a "decisive British victory" is very biased and ethnocentric. Apart from that, it is more of patriotic mythology and legend than historical fact. If the battle's outcome had at all been "decisive", the initial German successes in the offensive against the Soviet Union would have been impossible and could not have been achieved, especially not to the extent that they actually were. Wikipedia is supposed to be an organization that gives a truthful, unbiased, and acceptable worldview on different topics. It is violating those ethics by presenting fallacies to the users of this site. It is wrong to falsely present the general, patriotic English view (or even the general view of the Allied powers) of the battle as historical fact. Instead we are obligated to present the results of this battle in the terms of the real logistical impact it had on each side, both military and economic. In that realistic and factual context, the result of the battle was a strategic stalemate.

It is irresponsible to mislead Wikipedia's readers, whether intentionally or unintentionally. From my personal standpoint, I feel it is shameful to think that many people seeking knowledge of this part of history have probably already been mislead by this. As members of this community, we should do what is morally correct and present only the truth about this battle. Both sides during WWII used propaganda to sway public opinion (though some more maliciously than others), and we can not let that infiltrate its way between the facts. This topic definitely needs revision, and the facts need to be clearly separated from the opinions of each opposing side in the conflict. Savage714 (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Who are these many historians who think that a decisive British victory was incorrect and a historical myth? I have no strong feeling on the matter, but unless you can provide credible sources that validate the claim, it is nothing but your own opinion. BarretBonden (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally prepared to gather any references and confirming materials in support of my argument. I knew that I would have to do this anyway. I, for one, am a military historian and have studied a great deal of military strategy and tactics. I'm also very knowledgeable in the field of military aviation and air combat. However, I understand that my input alone will not be adequate, and that I will need to validate my statements. Rest assured, I will do this. My feelings are strong on the matter, not because of some silly reason such as "liking one side better than the other", but because I am passionate about history, and I believe that it should be presented in a totally honest and factual matter. The majority of historians claiming this battle was a "decisive British victory", were British and American historians, making such claims not long after the battle actually took place. I will be adding references, information, supporting evidence, and validations from historians to the discussion page until these issues can be resolved.

Until I have finished this process, I have a question for you:

What makes you think the battle was at all "decisive"?

Savage714 (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Taken from Decisive victory article - From the book Defining and Achieving Decisive Victory, the author defined the word as "a victory which decides the outcome of a campaign, though not necessarily to the war as a whole". which according to Savage 714 words above Hitler suspended "Operation Sealion" indefinitely sounds like a decisive victory to me. Also you said making such claims not long after the battle is probaby the best time to a get a real view on history untroubled by years of revisonist historians trying to sell their alternate views (books on alternate history are big business). MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just some random thoughts - the 'Hitler suspended "Operation Sealion" indefinitely' is something on what the whole BoB-myth is based upon, ie. that there was a serious determination to mount an invasion, only thwarted by the fact the RAF wasn't destroyed completely, the mythical days of 15 September and 31 October etc. But the Germans considered already in July 1940, before the air operations even begun at their full on Adlertag, to postpone the whole thing for the next year, and they did very little actual planning or could come to terms about what these invasion plans should look like in the first place. Much of August was still spent with bickering over the details of a plan, while Hitler showed very little interest and von Rundstedt considered the whole thing such a joke that he did not even bother to inspect his 'invasion troops'. See Ian Kershaw's books on Hitler. And, much neglected, during the year of 1940 the political crisis on the East was rising, with the German leadership becoming increasingly concerned with the USSR expansion and demands.The whole plan and preparations, already made rather clear by Hitler's original directive (....'to prepeare, and if neccesary, carry out'...) was little more than means to increase the pressure on the British, and Churchill's not-so-stable and popular goverment to 'come to their senses' and quit being an annoyance on the West. The plan as we know did not achieve its goals by the automn until it could maintained as a credible threat (it was obvious the Germans would not launch it in the winter), and only the tactics were changed to nocturnal bombing of Britain that was maintained until May 1941. But as far as the invasion go, there none of that was considered particularly seriously in the first place, and could be even less thwarted by resistance. The myth of the invasion was however neccesary, as the BoB was heavily propagandised already during the war to convince the Americans, and had become a national Saga and part of British national identity post war - but no Saga is complete without a Great Peril, which is why in Britain the part of story must include the threat of an invasion - whereas already in the 1960s continental historians were pointing out there was no such serious risk - the Germans simply had not the means to carry one out, and they were far more aware of that than anyone else. As a deceit it worked: the threat was assessed as genuine, but regardless. Britain didn't quit the war, and Churchill was determined to carry on the war anyway even with the British Isles lost. Kurfürst (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Germans didn't win. They didn't achieve their goal because of RAF resistance. I could provide a hundred sources to confrm this. German military appologists like to claim that there "was no Battle of Britain". One of my former tutors Dr Prauser once said, when he heard the term, "Ah we invaded and the bastards didn't tell us". The German side does not acknowledge the battle widely, much less accept it as a defeat. Tell me, if Britain was not important, or the Germans did not intend to invade, why was the Luftwaffe going flat out to win it?

To try an assert it as a stalemate ignores the operational defeats of the Luftwaffe. It was forced into night bombing because it could not afford to operate in daylight any longer after failing to destroy the RAF, then it failed to break the morale of the people or to destroy British industry. It failed, thus it was a British victory.

Does it matter whether the Germans could have invaded or not? No. This about the Luftwaffe achieving air superiority. It didn't.

Why was it decisive? Why do you think? Dapi89 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Very good points Kurfürst. Milborneone, thank you for your interest and input, however I feel that you are missing my points. Your definition of decisive victory comes from a reference in wikipedia's definition of the term. You have omitted this, the actual definition: "A decisive victory is an indisputable military victory of a battle that determines or significantly influences the ultimate result of a conflict". While both of these definitions are viable, the result of the Battle of Britain does not meet the criteria for a decisive victory. As previously stated, the battle did not have any decisive factor in deciding the outcome of the conflict from a military standpoint. What the British did achieve was the bolstering of public morale, and winning the hearts of their American allies (who previously doubted that helping Britain with military action was feasible, and believed Britain was not salvageable.). A psychological and political victory is NOT a decisive military victory, as the battle is erroneously portrayed. Per the definition, a decisive victory is indisputable, such as the American victory in the Pacific at Midway. With Midway, the outcome is not even questioned, because the campaign was obviously of crucial importance, and the victors were obviously the victors. The Battle of Britain was of no such importance to the outcome of WWII, though it was of great psychological and political importance to the British.

No serious planning was even put into the operation by the Germans. None of the necessary ships and landing crafts were built or ever even started; ships and crafts that would be vital to any force attempting an invasion over a body of water. That further asserts the fact that "Operation Sealion" was not a serious attempt to invade by the Germans, but instead was an operation designed to pester and strike fear into the British. It was just as much of a political conflict to the Germans as it was to the British. Adolf Hitler wanted to instill doubt and fear into the people to put a lasting scar on Churchill's reputation. He even hoped that the people would begin to hate Churchill and possibly even revolt against him. One could even say it was a "political punishment" for Churchill's defiance of Hitler. However, Churchill was very popular and was a great orator. He was able to portray the battle as an "epic saga of conflict" in which "the fate of the entire free world was at stake". What was actually at stake was his credibility as a leader, commander in chief, and politician. Churchill and the British government were able to cement the unity and morale of the population through patriotic propaganda. Had they not done this, Hitler's wishes may have been fulfilled.

After WWII, the Battle of Britain became a part of British national identity as Kurfürst stated. It is still an example of British bravery and patriotism to this day, much as the American Revolution is to Americans. This is the reason that many British people feel insulted when their accounts of the battle are questioned or scrutinized. However, the bravery and dedication of the fighting men is NOT what is being questioned. No matter the importance of the battle, or the reasons for the conflict itself, the gallantry, bravery, and valor of the fighting men (on both sides) is unquestionable. They all fought bravely and heroically to do their duty. Propaganda was very important to the governments of all the nations involved in WWII. It was done, most notably by the Nazi government, but also by the Japanese, the Americans, the British, and every other nation. Simply look at wartime recruitment posters, post-war films, news reports, movies, and documentaries from the Allied nations, and you can see that it is unquestionably propaganda. Many people automatically think of the racist Nazi posters and videos when they hear the word "propaganda", and often define their idea of the term by this. But propaganda is not necessarily racist or evil, though it has been used in those ways. Propaganda is most often used to bolster public morale, sway public opinion, or to bring out the patriotism of the general population and get them to support the actions of their government or military (most often in the times before, during, or after a war or conflict). There is no doubt that the British government (or any other) used propaganda during WWII, and the Battle of Britain is no exception. The battle was dramatized, and made out to be of more importance than it was. Why? Because the government needed the wholehearted support of the people, they needed new recruits for the military, and they especially needed to lift public morale after the defeats on the mainland. Please understand that when I talk about the British propaganda surrounding the BoB, I am NOT saying there was some sort of malicious or wrongful purpose behind it. People had become extremely pessimistic about the war effort after the BEF was defeated in mainland Europe, and something had to be done to lift their spirits. Had the government not done it, the people may have become so tired of the war that they could have demanded a peace treaty with Hitler, which was the last thing Churchill and the government wanted. They knew that a world with Hitler in it could never be a good world, and they willed the people to continue fighting. The epic saga they created from the Battle of Britain served its purpose to keep the British people's minds in the fight. I do NOT blame Churchill or the government at all for what they did, and I actually admire their cunning and leadership abilities. However, when we are discussing history, writing history, or examining history, we can not allow it to be polluted with political propaganda, or ethnocentric viewpoints.

To be continued...

Savage714 (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dapi89, no the Germans did not win, and I have not suggested that at all. I have only stated the fact that the battle itself was a strategic stalemate, and was not at all a decisive victory for either side. Just as I have said before (as well as Kurfürst), the planning of "Operation Sealion" was not that of a serious invasion attempt. The Nazi high command looked at the idea as a joke, and did not pursue the operation as a real attempt at invading and conquering Britain. It is untrue that the Luftwaffe "went all out to win". They had many more aircraft than they actually used in the conflict, which they could have committed to the battle had the operation been serious. It is also true that the strength estimates for the Luftwaffe in this article are for the entire Luftwaffe, and not the actual forces used in the battle; something else that needs revision. Had the Germans been deadly serious about "Operation Sealion", they would have placed nearly every available aircraft in front-line airfields and began building the much needed ships and landing craft for the invasion. There was a non-aggression pact with the Soviets at the time, and they would have had no reason to fear doing so. But they did no such thing. They did not even train men to act as an invasion force, which would have been vital to a successful operation. They also did not build a true strategic bomber (such as the British Lancaster or American B-17), which also would have been necessary to conquer England. They did not take any of the required steps an invading force would need to take to be successful. Why? Because Hitler did not really intend to invade England.

As we all know, Adolf Hitler was a very deluded racist. He believed that the "Aryan" race was superior to all others, and he sought to destroy other races and preserve the Aryan race. The English people have nearly the same racial and ethnic background as the German people. This is why Hitler often referred to the British people as "our English cousins". He did not hate Britain or really want to destroy and/or conquer it. What he wanted was Britain to submit to his will. He once said that he would let Britain keep her empire if she recognized Germany's dominance. He totally expected the British to sue for peace after he conquered France, however they did not. Churchill defied and even mocked him, thus Britain remained a thorn in his side. He did not like Churchill at all, and he hoped to discredit him and see him removed from power. "Operation Sealion" was most certainly an attempt by Hitler to make the British "come to terms with Germany's dominance". He hoped that attacking British soil by air would be enough to "teach them a lesson". But it was not. It actually worked in reverse, mostly due to the British government's portrayal of the conflict as an "epic saga of insurmountable importance to the entire world". The time of crisis brought the people together and they continued to remain defiant. Hitler's real dream was the conquest of the Soviet Union, in which he hoped to win Germany the natural resources needed to become the premier global power, as well as "Lebensraum" (Living space/room) for his people in the east. He hated communism and the Slavic people with an extremely deep rooted passion. He felt that the British could eventually become more of an annoyance (or even an extremely serious problem) in the future if he did not achieve peace with them. Basically, his goal was to rough them up enough so they would stop defying Germany, so that he could then be free to conquer the Soviet Union without the prospect of more conflict in the west. He believed that once he had brought Britain to its knees and scared the daylights out of the people, but allowed her to keep her empire, that the British would feel he had done them such a "charity" and "great service" that they would never threaten to fight against him again. His plan never worked out, as many of them didn't, but it was what he believed.

After the air battles continued for a while, Hitler saw that the British defiance would not be quelled by simple air attacks on the RAF, British industry, or British civilians. He saw that it was becoming a pointless conflict, and he needed to free up his forces for his eastern campaign. The fighting over England could have easily lasted much longer, possibly even several years. Had Hitler seriously planned to invade Britain, its hard to say what the result would have been. At its state during the battle, the German military was not prepared for a cross-channel invasion, and had not even attempted to prepare. But winter was soon coming, and very bad weather conditions would make air combat more trouble than it was worth. These are the reasons Hitler suspended "Operation Sealion" indefinitely. Had the Luftwaffe been decisively defeated, the proposal would have been totally canceled. But Hitler still wanted the threat of resuming action to hang over Britain's head. Before the Battle of Britain ever ended, Hitler had come up with a new plan to wound Britain seriously enough that it would vouch for peace without a real invasion. His plan was to shift focus to an invasion of Northern Africa, in which German forces would take over British territories in the Middle East to cut off their oil supply. He felt it would be a much more realistic goal, and planned to cause the native people to revolt against British rule while German forces pushed east towards modern-day Iraq. It would also give Germany control over vast quantities of oil which could not only greatly aid "Operation Barbarosa", but force the British into an unwanted treaty. He indeed shifted the focus off of Britain itself, and invaded North Africa. Irwin Rommel was put in charge of German forces, which were called the Afrika Korp, and they arrived in Africa on Feb 12, 1941. Initially, the Germans had a great deal of success, and pushed quite far eastward. However, British resistance soon toughened up, and America (as well as other Allied powers) joined the fight. As the end of the battle neared, Rommel decided it was logistically unfeasible for military actions in Africa to continue, and Axis forces were forced to withdraw. THIS was when Britain (with the assistance of her Allies) won the decisive victory they had sought for so long. The outcome of THIS conflict WAS decisive, and did have a direct impact on the outcome of the war. Had the Allies failed in Africa, Hitler would have very likely, with newly attained resources, conquered the Soviets, and there's no telling what his insane mind would have thought of next. I also found it shocking that on Wikipedia's article about the campaign in North Africa, it says "Result: Allied victory; Axis retreat to the Italian peninsula". It does not say the African campaign was a "decisive victory", but does say this about the Battle of Britain? That is very out of touch with the truth and reality.

Dapi89, no one is "denying the operational defeats of the Luftwaffe". The Battle of Britain was indeed a strategic stalemate, and it ended just as much because of the harsh seasonal weather as it did because it didn't do what Hitler intended it to: to simply scare the British into a peace treaty. "Operation Sealion" was not at all a serious attempt to invade England, and Hitler really did not want an invasion. It would have been too costly and time consuming, and would have deterred him from his true goal; conquering the Soviet Union. The British did achieve a significant psychological and political victory, however it was not a decisive military victory at all. They certainly won their glory and honor back (by surviving the onslaught of the world's most powerful empire), but the battle did not contribute to the eventual Allied victory in any "decisive" way, other than renewing American faith in Britain and convincing them they could help Britain. However, that is NOT a decisive victory, but a political one. The front lines never shifted during the battle, neither side was crippled or seriously hurt, neither side achieved superiority (of any type) over the other, no one was forced to surrender or submit to the other, the battle could have EASILY continued for much longer, and the Germans never truly intended on invading in the first place. If they had, they would have taken the proper steps to do so. I will say once again, that the valor and bravery of the men fighting in the conflict is not at all in question. This is about political propaganda being called "history", when it is not true. This also does not detract from, in any way, Britain's brave defiance of Hitler and the Third Reich, and the fact that Britain was able to survive and cause a strategic stalemate is testament to their determination and fighting spirit.

I'm still gathering sources and references for this issue, and have quite a few already. I will be posting as soon as I feel I have a sufficient amount of backing for my statements. Thank you for listening!

Savage714 (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You might find that the longer your comments that people typically stop reading them and move on. Perhaps this is the difference between the simple world and the revisionist world. In the simplistic world it is all clear, Germany started attacking the UK, Britain fought back, the Germans stopped and packed up their toys and went somewhere else to play = decisive victory. MilborneOne (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Note

Just to note that as the 'talkheader' says this is not a forum for discussing the subject but a place to add improvements to the article, with your unbounded knowledge and unlimited references we can not loose, please continue. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is not a forum for discussing the topic, and that is not what is going on here. There are many aspects of this article that are incorrect, biased, and based on old political propaganda. Hopefully, we can have these things changed and present a truthful, unbiased, and acceptable world view of this topic. If you have anything you would like to add, please join the discussion.

Savage714 (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion, and in the opinion of your revisionist literature. Wikipedia will only accept a consensus; the consensus is it was a British victory.

The Luftwaffe failed to achieve the military and political goals set for it, end of story. MilborneOne's comments sum it up well. Dapi89 (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I should add the that the Luftwaffe failed strategically as did the German intentions. They wanted to end the war in the west in 1940 they failed. The British strategy was to survive they were successful. The German strategy was beaten. And of course this was decisive, it prevented the war in the west from ending which kept the western fron open. This was important for the post-war world. Decisive? Absolutely. Dapi89 (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Savage714, while nobody doubts your sincerety and your good intentions please read Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:No original research ; this information, along with lots of other useful guidelines, has now been posted on your discussion page; there is also Wikipedia:Tendentious editing including section 3:Righting Great Wrongs, which should be of interest to you. Cheers! Minorhistorian (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be the best idea to leave to debate to historians, and find sources that would state for 'decisive victory', 'victory' and 'stalemate/draw'. Kurfürst (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Planning for Sealion was sufficiently advanced that it could be wargamed by a combined British and German staff in the 70s see for example this obit of one of the British officers who took part.

I appreciate that Dave, but as you will notice the scenario was carried out under the condition that the Germans had not won air superiority therefore it was doomed to failure for those reasons. The wargamers at Sandhurst have never made that clear until recently. I mean, you don't gauge the potential of the Royal Navy's ability to stop the invasion by initiating a scenario in which it has air, or partial air cover! You set it under the conditions that the Luftwaffe had defeated the RAF! Afterall, the outcome of sealion was the Royal Navy vs the Luftwaffe; a battle of each sides greatest assets. To tip it heavily into the British favour RAF Fighter Command needed to survive and this is where the decisiveness of the RAFs victory comes in.....just some (erroneous?)observations. Dapi89 (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I really meant to add this further up. The point I was trying to make is that some have been claiming that there was never a serious invasion plan on the German side anyway, so BoB is irrelevant and so on. But if it could be wargamed, then presumably there was actually a reasonably advanced plan so these claims are rubbish (regardless of the assumptions used in the wargame effectively examined a sitaution post-BoB). David Underdown (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I see sorry. To answer this wrangling over strategy I have some quick observations from Richard Overy from his book The Air War 1939 - 1945, p. 34;The failure in the Battle of Britain left German strategy in some confusion. No invasion could be aattempted and it was indefinitely postponed and on p. 46; Britain could not be defeated in 1940 because the Luftwaffe could not eliminate its air force. It meant that the air blockade of British trade could not be carried out successfully carried on in the face of British counter measures in the air. Finally it meant the Luftwaffe was forced to abandon any serious long-term effort to mount a bombing offensive. Dapi89 (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Some more............Stephen Bungay; The most Dangerous Enemy, A History of the Battle of Britain, p. 379; The most fundamental reason for the German defeat was a failure of strategy.

p. 387-88; If the Battle of Britain had not been won, the Battle of the Atlantic could not have been fought. To that extent the Battle of Britain was a necessary pre-condition of all the later success, and by the same token a necessary if not sufficient condition of victory ultimately won by the Western Allies. Winning it did not make victory inevitable, but it did make it possible.

The Burning Blue written by various editors; section written by Richard Overy, p. 267; A true air war, even if on a small scale, and had decisive strategic results (Quoting AJP Taylor), and p. 271; The following year were as important to the British strategic position as the defeat of the Luftwaffe in the autumn of 1940. Dapi89 (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To endorse a point made by User:David Underdown; Richard Hough and Denis Richards, in their work The Battle of Britain say;Did the RAF really save Britain from invasion or was Hitler bluffing all the time? Post-War investigations amply confirmed Hitler was far from bluffing, but he knew he had to beat the RAF first. He tried to do precisley that, and failed. Dapi89 (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, he did not "knew" that. Simply because it was wrong. They followed rather primitively an non-applicable pattern of campaign preparation and did not realize that they blunted their sword that they still needed against the Royal Navy's Home Fleet. The UK had almost 20 battleships, more than 50 cruisers and even more destroyers. The Kriegsmarine was in comparison non-existing and still repairing damage from the Norway campaign, many of its capital ships were not repaired until winter when an invasion wasn't feasible due to the weather any more. Hitler exerted pressure on Britain with what he had at hand and his generals executed a preparations as they were used to do at the beginning of a land campaign (as they did again in June 1941 with great success then). The pressure wasn't enough, and an invasion was not feasible at all - no matter how 'serious' Hitler was. By the way; the Battle of Britain ended because of Hitler's intent to attack the Soviet Union, not because of the RAF's success. Lastdingo (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The historians don't agree. Dapi89 (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that I seemed to disappear from this discussion. I was in a bad car accident and it dropped down on my list of priorities. I also had to create a new account because the old one wouldn't work. But back to the topic...

Yes, the historians do agree that the Battle of Britain was a stalemate. The vast majority of those who deny this fact are British (go figure) and American. I also found it funny that you tried to use Richard Overy to back up your claims; the same man who wrote a book called "The Battle of Britain: The Myth and the Reality" in which he clearly asserts the fact that the BoB ended in a stalemate, and NOT the "glimmering decisive victory" many people like to imagine it as. Maybe you should read it. It's a very good book! (Btw, I was also taught the same thing through every college history class I took; BoB = stalemate).

It doesn't matter what the "consensus" in your town, or your country is. There was once a time when the consensus was that the universe revolved around earth; however, that didn't ever make it true. No offense, but the rest of the world doesn't share your deep love of "queen and country" to the point that they ignore facts to believe in old myths and war-time propaganda. Just go take a look at Allied newsreels and videos, and keep in mind that those same people wrote the early post-war "history" that some people still refuse to let go of. The British/Allied use of propaganda, though less malicious than that of the Nazis, was masterful and articulate. They created their own "consensus" to aid in the war effort. While I understand it was totally necessary at the time to boost morale and bolster public support, it's time to give it up. We aren't fighting the Nazis anymore, and there is no need to continue believing in fantasies, sensational journalism, and propaganda. Savagelife714 (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to consider the Battle as a "stalemate" when the Luftwaffe withdrew from the fray, essentially conceding the issue. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC).

Withdrew? To where? Germany? Where fighting still continued? And France? Where fighting also continued? And even still over England? There was no "withdrawal". The only thing that changed was that Hitler "suspended" Operation Sealion and gave no definitive date at which he planned to resume action. That's actually why many people say "the Battle of Britian never happened", because fighting continued after the date it allegedly ended, and in the same places. I acknowledge the BoB as the air battle that took place over Britain before the North African campaign. But, the idea of a German "withdrawal" is silly. Nothing changed except the bad fall weather over the English channel, and Hitler decided to quit playing mind games with the British and go after his dream of eastern conquest. Had the upcoming weather not been a problem, the BoB as we know it might have continued for much longer. It easily could have gone on for a few years. However, the plan was a hoax meant to scare Britain into a treaty from the start. The OKL laughed at the concept of "Operation Sealion" because it was impossible to accomplish, and no preparations were ever made to even try. Savagelife714 (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's not entirely true. Invasion barges were brought together in the Lowlands and in French ports, and German forces were prepared for an invasion of the British isles, including elements of the Heer and the navy. I'd also say that descibing the BoB as a British victory makes sense - the RAF prevalence over the Luftwaffe, no matter how inflated by contemporary propaganda, still ensured that Sealion would not take place and that Hitler was not able to secure his western flank prior to Barbarossa. Of course aerial battles continued throughout the war, but not at the same frequency or intensity as during the BoB period, nor with the same intention - to defeat the RAF to allow an invasion to take place. Thus, a British victory, or at least something other than a 'stalemate' seems a decent conclusion to come to. Skinny87 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I also found it funny that you tried to use Richard Overy to back up your claims; the same man who wrote a book called "The Battle of Britain: The Myth and the Reality" in which he clearly asserts the fact that the BoB ended in a stalemate, and NOT the "glimmering decisive victory" many people like to imagine it as. First of all, mind your tongue. Second, Mr Overy has gone on record calling the Battle of Britain a British victory. If what you say is true, Overy has contradicted himself. The OKL laughed at the concept of "Operation Sealion" because it was impossible to accomplish, and no preparations were ever made to even try. As skinny points out, there isn't a remote shred of truth in this. I have the memoirs of Raeder, who was C-in-C of the Kriegsmarine. He, along with the combined chiefs, believed it to be possible as long as the Luftwaffe had air superiority over the beaches. Deal with the issue. The Luftwaffe failed to achieve its strategic goals as it was prevented from doing so. "Stalemate" is ridiculous. RAF Bomber Command failed to achieve its objectives in the Battle of Berlin, thus it was a German victory. You wouldn't call that stalemate would you?Dapi89 (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If historians agree that the BoB was a stalemate, provide sources as required for wikipedia. Hohum (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to bring up something, I'm not sure how this will be seen, as I have no evidence to back it up, and it's an essay topic, but my prof gave us an essay topic reading "Britain did not win the Battle of Britain, Germany lost it." I asked him afterward, and he said that it was more Germany's mistakes rather than Britain's advantages that swung the battle to the British/Allied cause. Thoughts? TheStarter (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

War is like that one side makes an mistake or other has a technological or tactical advantage, doesnt change the result. Also remember that this is not a discussion board and we should only be talking about improving the article! MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had that as well. My answer was it was a stupid question - there isn't any distinction between one side winning and the other losing. If the Germans lost it, equally the British won it. Its a silly play on words as the result was the same either way. A much better question would have the words "root causes" in it. The other question is just a way of asking that. The German failures caused the British victory. Dapi89 (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In connection to the above claim that "Operation Sealion" because it was impossible to accomplish, and no preparations were ever made to even try. by Savagelife714 - there is what seems to be a good German order of Battle for the invasion here [7] Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly Jim, do you think the British would have ever taken the ploy seriously if there wasn't an order of battle, or a few barges sitting in the docks? No. Think ahead to the Allied deception campaign before D-Day. They faked not only military equipment, troops, and bases, but they even made fake documents, radio transmissions, and the whole nine. When you want to "psyche" the enemy out into believing an invasion is coming, you have to do better than just sending some planes over for a couple months.

"You wouldn't call that stalemate would you?"

I see what you did. You went looking around for something similar that says "German Victory" because you don't get it. You think I'm even bothering with this because I "favor" the Luftwaffe or something? Please... In military terms, the Battle of Berlin could be argued a stalemate as well. Why? Because the German "victory" was short lived, and didn't make a large impact on the final outcome of the war. However, it was of far more significance than the Battle of Britain. There really was an ongoing invasion for the Germans to deal with, and they were truly at each others' throats, full force. It was a much more serious matter. The real problem with this article is not so much claiming a "British Victory" as it is "Decisive British Victory". Simply omitting the word "Decisive" would be a major improvement. "Decisive" is the last word you could describe the Battle of Britain with. The term isn't tacked on the front of "Allied Victory" for the North African Campaign (which was by all means decisive). You can get away with calling it "British Victory" (in terms of politics, national pride, and morale), though that's really not ideal. Stalemate really would be the best term for it, due to its nature and outcome. If that term is too offensive to our friends in the UK, maybe "Successful British Defense" would work as a happy medium. Something similar may work well for the Battle of Berlin article as well. Apparently, we have some serious inconsistencies in our WWII articles for defining the outcomes of battles; compromising the overall quality of the information.

I'll give it more thought tomorrow. Very tired. Savagelife714 (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead of insulting people just stick to the content - I didn't go looking for anything. Citing reliable sources is what we do here. I happen to have articles and books of Richad Overy's that contradict the claims you are making about his position on the matter. You have not addressed the issue. The author has contradicted himself. Am I to understand that you accept it as a German defeat of British victory? Dapi89 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a very good case to be made for the Battle of Britain being the most decisive battle of the Second World War. Had Britain lost, the consequences for Europe and the world would have been unimaginable. One of the German generals, Von Rundstedt, annoyed Soviet interrogators by claiming this. It was a decisive British victory because it allowed Britain to fight on, it gave the free world time to recover and because it forced Germany to fight on two front. Kentish 21 Jun 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.177.180 (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)