Who Won The Battle Of Britain?

[WotWotius]

You may have been heard in the news that many revisionist historians are now saying that it was the Royal Navy's, rather than the RAF's contribution, that stopped Germany in 1940--basically, the sheer presence of the RN was enough to deter a full blown Nazi invasion.

 

I personally believe the idea to be poppycock, and that as with most so-called revisionists, historians in question are only 'revising' (or rewriting) history in order to have a basis for a career. Who would protect the Navy if the RAF were destroyed?

 

I've said it once and I

[Pertinax]

Given the fate of Z force

 

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/personal/pow_repulse.htm

 

, I fail to see the logic of the argument in the "revised" history. No air cover and the mightiest of ships are in trouble.Clear the sky first and proceed against any capital vessels.

[WotWotius]

Given the fate of G force

 

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/personal/pow_repulse.htm

 

, I fail to see the logic of the argument in the "revised" history. No air cover and the mightiest of ships are in trouble.Clear the sky first and proceed against any capital vessels.

 

I can see the relevance of the Royal Navy during this period, but what really threw me was the fact that the historians presented their arguments in a 'the Royal Navy won it and nobody helped' way.

 

I suppose they thought that controversy, at the expense of belittling the deeds of the RAF, was the way to receive prominence.

[Gaius Octavius]

Given the fate of Z force

 

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/personal/pow_repulse.htm

 

, I fail to see the logic of the argument in the "revised" history. No air cover and the mightiest of ships are in trouble.Clear the sky first and proceed against any capital vessels.

 

The war in the Pacific proved that. Battle ships became escorts for carriers and artillery platforms for island invasions.

In any event, what would the Nazis use to invade Britain? Row boats?

[Pertinax]

A fleet of barges is the trick answer.

 

Heres a recce photo of same-

[phil25]

Surely the points that there are two separate strands here:

 

The RAF won the BofB which was an AIR battle. (In fact the germans lost it, by switching tactics from bombing airfields to bombing cities, but the outcome was the same.)

 

The Raoyal Navy was the reason that hitler would have found it difficult to INVADE - a different point, since had the B of B been lost by Britain, a sea-borne invasion was only one option.

 

As for revisionists being poppycock, I think the author of those words needs to think again.

 

History is no more than perception. Each generation looks again at the past and sees something different. There never was an ABSOLUTE. All that those who dislike revisionism are doing is clinging to their familiar, loved view of the past. Nothing wrong with that - so long as one remembers that it was never RIGHT/CORRECT any more than any other view. It is an opinion - no more valid than any other, provided the facts are respected.

 

To quote a line from the TV series I Claudius: "Things aren't what they were. No. And you know what, they never were what they were."

 

Phil

[WotWotius]

Surely the points that there are two separate strands here:

 

The RAF won the BofB which was an AIR battle. (In fact the germans lost it, by switching tactics from bombing airfields to bombing cities, but the outcome was the same.)

 

The Raoyal Navy was the reason that hitler would have found it difficult to INVADE - a different point, since had the B of B been lost by Britain, a sea-borne invasion was only one option.

 

As for revisionists being poppycock, I think the author of those words needs to think again.

 

History is no more than perception. Each generation looks again at the past and sees something different. There never was an ABSOLUTE. All that those who dislike revisionism are doing is clinging to their familiar, loved view of the past. Nothing wrong with that - so long as one remembers that it was never RIGHT/CORRECT any more than any other view. It is an opinion - no more valid than any other, provided the facts are respected.

 

To quote a line from the TV series I Claudius: "Things aren't what they were. No. And you know what, they never were what they were."

 

Phil

 

I didn't imply that all form of revisionism was poppycock, I merely said that the whole concept of the Royal Navy single-handedly winning the Battle of Britain was a bit to hard to believe.

 

Besides, my point was that some historians have a tendency to muster-up controversial angles of History based on very sparse evidence, often resulting in articles such as: was Cleopatra black?; was Hugh Gaitskell murdered by the KGB?; Did Elvis shoot JFK?

[phil25]

It's a reasonable question, is it not to ask whether Cleopatra might have had a negroid appearance? Everything surely depends on the reasoning and the evidence. As I understand it the identity/race of one of Cleopatra's grandparents is unknown, so, in my view, the speculation is reasonable. Even if I personally would need a great deal of convincing that she was other than pure blood Greek/Macedonian.

 

I see no reason to question the logic behind asking the Gaitskill question, especially if one recalls that for many years Wilson was suspected of being a Russian placeman. Gaitskill's death was sudden and unexpected. Again, nothing wrong with the question, in my view one just has to bring maturity and common sense to the game of speculation.

 

Elvis and JFK - I have read deeply on the JKF assassination, but never seen that theory advanced. I'd be fascinated to see the logic - it could be fun.

 

As for the Bof B - has any serious historian ever doubted that in 1940 Britain regarded its navy as it's primary defence. Had Hitler got to the point of trying a seaborne invasion, then in all likelihood the RN would have swept down from Scapa and disrupted the barges as they crossed the Channel.

 

But as i have argued strongly in another thread, there is absolutely no evidence that Hitle ever seriously planned for an invasion, or intended to mount one.

 

But I say again, look carefully at the arguments advanced - I have not read the article - but does the author talk of the Navy being key to the Bof B or to stopping an invasion? I suspect that press-hype has distorted the wording.

 

A recent book - 1940 - which i have, takes the line that the importance of the RN has been overlooked, but does not argue more than that.

 

Phil

[WotWotius]

It's a reasonable question, is it not to ask whether Cleopatra might have had a negroid appearance? Everything surely depends on the reasoning and the evidence. As I understand it the identity/race of one of Cleopatra's grandparents is unknown, so, in my view, the speculation is reasonable. Even if I personally would need a great deal of convincing that she was other than pure blood Greek/Macedonian.

 

You obviously have more of an open mind than I do. There is evidence to suggest that Cleopatra's father was the product of political marriage treaty: his mother may have been a concubine from Nubia (or from an area with lighter-skinned inhabitants). So does this make Cleopatra 100% black? Probably not. The Romans, who wrote about her rather extensively, probably would have noted it. Besides, the few busts (I do believe there is only one) of Cleopatra that remain depict her as having Caucasian/features.

 

I see no reason to question the logic behind asking the Gaitskill question, especially if one recalls that for many years Wilson was suspected of being a Russian placeman. Gaitskill's death was sudden and unexpected. Again, nothing wrong with the question, in my view one just has to bring maturity and common sense to the game of speculation.

 

Just because Hugh Gaitskill died of a tropical disease does not mean was assassinated by the KGB; though the manner of his death was fairly eccentric, I find it hard to believe that the Russians would go to effort of using germ warfare against a minor player sitting at the Cold War card table. And as Wilson being a KGB agent--various tapes of Wilson being secretly interviewed by the press divulged that he was himself incredibly paranoid of both Russian spies, and coups from the British aristocracy (if you would like further details, please inquire).

 

Elvis and JFK - I have read deeply on the JKF assassination, but never seen that theory advanced. I'd be fascinated to see the logic - it could be fun.

 

Bubba-hoptep

Not really evidence, but a brilliant film involving both historical characters--greatly recommended.

 

But I say again, look carefully at the arguments advanced - I have not read the article - but does the author talk of the Navy being key to the Bof B or to stopping an invasion? I suspect that press-hype has distorted the wording.

 

No, the original article in History Today (the article I provided was just a commentary on it) implied that, during the Battle of Britain, the Navy's contribution was a much more important one than the RAF's. I am of the belief that during the fateful months of 1940, the RAF was Britain's sword and the Navy acted as her shield. I do not however, see how sole credit could be placed on the shoulders' of the Navy.

 

The main point of this post was that some Historians (in order to gain recognition) tend to document History on the opposite end of the spectrum, with no room for middle ground. For instance, instead of claiming that Cleopatra may have been black, a career conscious revisionist historian may just state that Cleopatra was black...full stop. I have nothing against people revising history; I just want people to do it properly.

[phil25]

Historians may also, in this strident clamouring world, have to attract attention somehow.

 

But any discussion about the Battle of Britain, in my view, is to be welcomed. One can always pick the wheat from the chaff and something good may emerge from dross.

 

Thanks for the offer, but I am quite well versed in Wilsonian politics myself. I was working in Whitehall in 1976 when he suddenly resigned. the speculation immediately was that he had be given a choice - go quietly and with honour, or be exposed as a Soviet agent and lose everything.

 

Given his background the speculation - although wholly unfounded - was not without some basis.

 

I am also, I should say, a lover of the enigmas of history - Richard III; Kennedy assassination; Jack the Ripper; Iron Mask; was Edward II murdered (poker etc); etc. I enjoy the ingenuity of the arguments and trying to spot the special pleading and the flaws in the arguments. I suppose it helps me sort through my own thinking too.

 

Phil

[WotWotius]

Historians may also, in this strident clamouring world, have to attract attention somehow.

 

Fair point.

 

Thanks for the offer, but I am quite well versed in Wilsonian politics myself. I was working in Whitehall in 1976 when he suddenly resigned. the speculation immediately was that he had be given a choice - go quietly and with honour, or be exposed as a Soviet agent and lose everything.

 

I always thought that he resigned because he was physically and mentally exhausted.

 

If you don't mind me asking, I am interested to know what your Whitehall job was during the 1970s.