An article that appeared via twitter today. The author is Philip O'Brien and his slim bio states: It is a short article and as a "taster" here are the three opening passages: Link: The Battle of Britain was not won by the Few | Phillips O’Brien | The Critic Magazine A month ago he wrote another article, which starts to critique war films using Operation Mincemeat as an example. See: The myth of the plucky Brit | Phillips O’Brien | The Critic Magazine I expect there could be other threads that pose such questions, but I didn't look for an alternative home.
I find this 'revisionist' stuff really interesting - yes, we should continue to question the 'standard line' on history, that's really what it's all about. (I despair at folks who, having read 'a' book, think that's the answer to a particular campaign, battle or war - the answer is to read widely and then come to a conclusion.) However, we also need to bear in mind that we 'question' this stuff often with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, able to marshal all the information now available (on both sides.) Fear of the German armed forces was not unwarranted after their crashing successes in 1939 and 1940; likewise, the Luftwaffe appeared to present a clear and present danger and I'm sure few, if any, were sure of victory in July 1940. It can be argued that it was a close run thing - 'maintenance of the aim' is a key principle of war and one Goering absolutely failed to apply - had he done so it's possible that the Battle could have turned out differently, though whether or not the Germans could have successfully crossed the Channel becomes another debate! I'll certainly read O'Brien's articles and thanks for posting the links - on the face of it, his comments ref the BoB are not unreasonable (although at the time the ME109, for example, was a very capable aircraft of course); but, it's really a case of what the respective sides KNEW (or thought they knew) at the time which has to be borne in mind.
Assume done for attention seeking headline. Those of us with an interest know that all the service and civilians were involved in one shape or another. Those without an interest dont care After 80 plus years it is easy to look back and take things apart.
At least as far as the assessment of the German side is concerned, the man is quite right: Really consistent war armament actually began in 1943 at the earliest But history is always ambivalent: On the one hand, there are the traditional narratives of those who (subjectively) experienced it themselves: That is the history in the heads In the perception of the time, it was indeed the case that the Wehrmacht had won the war on the continent within a very short time and now set about bombing GB to storm with its hitherto highly efficient Luftwaffe. The fact that in reality any prerequisites for an amphibious landing operation were missing, turned out in fact only long after the war. But by then the story had already been written in people's minds. If you ask a historically unsophisticated contemporary about the BoB, he will probably come up with a picture of a handful of pilots in Spitfires, who threw themselves against huge German bomber streams....... Then there are the subsequently compiled results of historians, which provide (halfway) objective facts: That is the history in the books. And it is a fact that GB used its resources much more consistently and efficiently than was the case on the German side. The performance of those who fought and suffered at that time does not diminish this in any way..... Regards Olli
It goes even lower than that , the BoB was not won ( solely ) by the few, it was won by bomber command, by costal command , by training command, by the AC2 plonks and WAAF who peeled spuds , by the Navy , by the Army, the MN, the politicians , by the empire steadfastly behind “ the motherland “ by the factory workers and to the women and kids who said : “ you know what ? That ‘ere ‘Itler , he can just go and fuck himself “ It’s even more basic than strategy . The few is a myth in some respects , an understandable and even contemporaneously vital myth , but yes , it was not won by Sgt Jones and Spitfire P1234 alone and the seeds of victory were sewn long before. Plus the Nazis were dickheads on so so many levels both ideologically and intelligently . The leadership were fruitloops
But, if you follow that argument, you’d say the same about every battle: El Alamein wasnt won by the Eight Army; Burma wasn’t liberated by XIV Army; the Bismark wasn’t sunk by the RN; etc. Of course, it’s not one single organisation, but Fighter Command was certainly on the pointy end of the spear.
Another American Irishman with an axe to grind. There are plenty of Hollywood film myths that he could see to first rather than pick on some 1950s books and films appreciated by and featuring in many cases, those who had actually served. Bombed-out and impoverished post-war Britain needed to believe that that it had succeeded by excelling itself. Unfortunately, half the population still believes that the actions of eighty years ago continue to make them special today. I dare say that this chap's next book will deal with the failure of Market-Garden due to mechanical problems with Austin K5 lorries or has that already been done ?...
I hear what you’re saying but even there , statistically , bomber command and the Navy were getting whacked with a pointy stick much more than Fighter Command . So many like this author want a neat box answer. It’s never going to be like that
To be fair, he does have a point about the plucky Brits myth. However, I'd much rather watch a movie involving clandestine shenanigans against the Germans than one about tens of thousands of trucks, cans of bully beef or belt buckles rolling off a production line.
One plucky Brit who went on to live here life after loosing her 7 hour old child info from Pete Wood MICHAELIS, ALAN JOHN Rank: Civilian Date of Death: 29/06/1944 Regiment/Service: Civilian War Dead Reporting Authority HARROW, URBAN DISTRICT Additional Information: Aged 7 hours; of 3 Kenton Lane, Kenton. Son of Mr. and Mrs. Railton Michaelis. Injured 28 June 1944, at 3 Kenton Lane; died at Harrow and Wealdstone Hospital. The baby's mother, Sylvia Michaelis, aged just 22, received multiple cuts and was treated at the same hospital. Obit: Michaelis Sylvia Passed away peacefully in Donnington House on April 13, 2012, aged 90 years. Sylvia was the beloved wife of Railton, to whom she had been married for 70 years. She was the loving mother to John, Linda, Kelvin and Colin as well as grandmother to 13 grandchildren, and great grandmother to 12 great grandchildren. Memorial Service to take place on Monday, April 30, 2012, in Chichester Baptist Church at 2.00 p.m.
The Germans needed command of the air to deal with the RN. If the RAF had been defeated then the RN would have faced the invasion. It was the threat of the RN that stopped an invasion.
Did the Germans need command of the air to ensure the RAF would not sink their 4 knot flat bottomed barges
He would be 77 years old today if he had lived. In the prime of his life during the swinging sixties.
There are also numerous examples of plucky Dutch, plucky French, plucky Poles, plucky Belgians, plucky Czechs etc. "Pluckiness" was not a uniquely British trait, as some might have us believe.
Nothing new here. Philip Bungay's A most dangerous enemy made the same case in the 1990s. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Most-Dangerous-Enemy-History-Britain-ebook/dp/B0071B705O They are both correct. The British gave the appearance of being the amateurish plucky underdog and the Germans the efficient rational masterrace. But this was the battle that the British had been preparing to fight since the mid 1930s, and the numbers really were against the Luftwaffe. The Germans needed to shoot down three British fighter aircraft for each German aircraft lost just to break even.
Let's be honest, what little remains of British Nationalism seems to centre on events like the Battle of Britain, white cliffs of Dover, Vera Lynn etc. Any reasonable attempt to question wartime and post war myths will likely be met by hostility. After 80 years of the same narrative, I think the British would rather believe familiar lies than question the uncomfortable truth. I am not saying that everything is a lie and it all needs to be picked apart. I would however, like to see a decline in the persistence of wartime propaganda.
I'd quite like to see a decline in the persistence and perniciousness of modern propaganda but I'm not stupid enough to hold my breath...
Yes I know others found it difficult but this thread is about Great Britain and again the nice under current of Brit bashing goes on