Talk:Battle of Britain/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Consequences of Britain losing

I still think that we should say something about what historians consider would have been the consequences had Germany established air superiority over Britain. Please note that I am talking about, what historians say, not what we here think. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Is that a dead horse I see before me? Alas, Horatio... Spenser Hawk ^{whassup, Ichabod?} 15:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I fully appreciate that you do not want to say anything about this but several quality reliable secondary sources do have something to say on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

We have to bear in mind who and what Wikipedia is for. As an instance of its potential value; in recent years, secondary school students in England have been asked to consider the significance of the Battle of Britain and of Operation Dynamo – separately and together – and the potential for catastrophe had the outcome been failure by Britain. The Wikipedia articles should be a good introduction to the subject/s, and teachers can point out that the information and opinions offered are derived from authoritative sources whose inevitable differences must be borne in mind. I’m sure that other individuals and educational bodies are also helped in this way. Please pardon me if I am felt to be stating the obvious, but I do find some of the unproductive arguments we get into to be hindrance rather than help.--Mabzilla (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of WP's aims. I'm also conscious of the need to avoid speculation, sourced or otherwise, masquerading as historiography. That's what this is. That's all this is, & the notional "consequences" flow from circumstances that are, at the very best, improbable. More to the point, this has been already (fairly exhaustively) hashed out, yet Martin Hogbin refuses to let it die. If teachers want to discuss the implications, there are plenty of sources on the page to begin that with. This has begun to degenerate into another variety of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy debate. This content doesn't belong on a serious page on the Battle. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not think there is much point in us continuing to argue with one another about this, I am hoping to get input from other editors. When you refer to 'thrashed out' above, it was mainly a discussion between the two of us. Whatever your opinion on the matter, what we say in Wikipedia is based on what sources say on the subject not on what you or I think. I have given several high quality reliable secondary sources which all give the same opinion on the consequences of German success in the BoB, which is that in that event Britain would have been unable to play any further significant role in the war, with Europe falling into the hands of Hitler and Stalin.

This is not remotely like the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theories, which are contrary to mainstream historical opinion. I have looked at many sources on the BoB and they seem to fall into two categories: those that support what I have given above, most clearly expressed by Bungay, and those who say nothing on the subject. I have not found any reputable sources which challenge this view. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Mabzilla, It is normal to give the opinions of historians on the significance of events and I agree that it would be useful to do so here. I would be happy to use language like 'Historians consider...' but I do not see any reason to weaken that statement as there are no historians expressing contradictory opinions. Just to be clear, I do not want to add speculation about whether there would have been a successful German invasion of Britain. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

In no way like the Pearl Harbor conspiracy debate? Really? It's pure speculation on the possible effect of an outcome that did not happen and had almost no chance of actually happening. I'd call that a fringe theory, just like the Pear Harbor conspiracy. It's also being pushed by a clear minority, in this case, all of one editor, namely you. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not follow you. What are you referring to when you say that it had 'had almost no chance of actually happening'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you just ignored everything I've written on this subject? The "consequences" depend on German victory in the Battle of Britain, which was, at the very best, unlikely. Since Germany did not win, any remarks about such consequences are nothing but sourced speculation. Sourced speculation is still only speculation. Put it here if you want to speculate, not here. On WP, it is inappropriate. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

On what basis do you say that German victory in the Battle of Britain was unlikely? many historians do not accept that view. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

From our own Operation Sea Lion# Chances of success, it notes military experts stating invading Britain required not just air superiority, but also naval superiority, and that Germany could not achieve naval superiority via air superiority. With air superiority alone, Germany could land the initial invasion wave, but could not keep it supplied in the face of repeated British naval intervention after that. So, maybe winning the BoB would just have emboldened Germany into a disaster.

That means there are conflicting views on the consequences of BoB. That means, if we state anything specific about consequences, per WP:BALANCE, we must state the conflicting specifics. Given that they're all speculation anyway, I don't see having that in the article gives anything useful to the reader.

I might be convinced otherwise if some specific text were presented that manages to succinctly capture all this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

And that's captured it better than I did. :( It's not only about victory in the Battle, it's about said victory leading inevitably (or irrevocably) to a broader success, which is nonsense. German success with Sealion is widely acknowledge to have been impossible. Suggesting victory in the Battle, of itself, changes that is not just speculation: it's fiction. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

In perhaps a less explicit way, this is stated in the Aftermath section. That veers into speculative fiction in the paragraph which starts "Dr. Andrew Gordon, who lectures at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, and a former lecturer Professor Gary Sheffield, have suggested the existence of the Royal Navy was enough to prevent the Germans from invading;[203] even had the Luftwaffe won the air battle, the Germans had limited means with which to combat the Royal Navy, which would have intervened to prevent a landing". Should we delete that paragraph? If similar informed speculation discusses alternative scenarios, should these be shown as well? As always, good sources needed. . . . dave souza, talk 09:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A D Monroe III, my point is about the consequences German success in Britain and not about a possible invasion. By 'German success' I mean that Hitler had achieved his principal objective for the battle, which was that 'The English air force must have been beaten down to such an extent morally and in fact that it can no longer muster any power of attack worth mentioning against the German crossing'. This what we would call today air supremacy. The Luftwaffe had annihilated the air forces of other European countries in a matter of days and it seemed no sure thing that it would not do the same to the RAF.

There is indeed considerable disagreement amongst historians as to exactly what might have happened if the Germans had won. German ground forces had swept across Europe as far as The Channel and appeared to many to be an unstoppable force. At the time nobody knew what the outcome of Hitler's planned invasion might have been but all agree that there was an atmosphere of fear in the UK that would have increased significantly if Germany had been able to bomb London and cities and ports in the south at will. He had already rapidly moved across Europe as far as the Channel.

I can find no disagreement amongst historians, however, about what could not have happened had the Germans won the BoB. It is generally agreed that Britain could not have played any major role in the rest of the war after losing the BoB. Britain could not have continued it active belligerence against Germany and could not have been the safe starting point for the Allied liberation of Europe.

This is not my view but that, to a greater or lesser degree, of all 7 sources quoted just above. No one has produced any sources saying that, after losing the BoB, Britain could have remained a significant belligerent in the war or could have still been a base for Operation Overlord. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Dave, I'm not so troubled by that. (I agree, sourcing is a good thing.) That kind of narrow, immediate claim for a consequence, or potential consequence, I'd call reasonable. It's going farther than that I have trouble with. Is it true Britain would not have been a threat to Germany had the Battle been lost? IDK. I doubt the truth of that, since it presupposes Britain would not rebuild, or that Germany would (could) continue to suppress RAF to a comparable degree, or could successfully invade, all of which I find extremely unlikely. And speculating on German success based on an improbable outcome is something for an AH site, not WP. (I'd say, even there, this would get slammed--& should.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion, which you are fully entitled to, but Wikipedia is not based on the personal opinions of editors but on what is said in reliable sources. How would you summarise the 7 sources that I have quoted above? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"How would you summarise the 7 sources that I have quoted above?" As I have repeatedly said, sourced speculation is still speculation. You seem to be the only one interested in adding it, & the only one unable to grasp that concept. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see any way to summarize these disjointed speculations.

First, they don't all agree; what they say ranges from Hitler would have won the whole war, to the USSR would have won, to the US would be ineffective, to Britain would have made peace (seriously?), to merely saying how "symbolic" the victory was.

Second, (where most of the editors here focus on) very little or nothing is given in these sources for the "how" of these various outcomes. While I believe things looked quite different to those involved at the time, none of this seems plausible now. Without invading Britain, what could Germany have done with air supremacy over southern England? Germany had no strategic bombers, so while they could have rained misery on southern England, Great Britain would have fought on, and held out until the US arrived in force. The US would have aid Britain via Africa and the Med for a couple years, but that's what happened anyway. Without something reliable on the "how", there's no substance for us to include, making these irrelevant.

Without any actual text for a proposed change, and none apparently possible, I think we're done here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that you can dismiss seven reliable sources in a paragraph of your own personal opinion. We need to include something based on these sources, because that is how Wikipedia works. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

WP does not work by including all sources. Sources does not equal relevant. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

And just when I thought A D Monroe III had definitively summed things up, the dead horse comes to life again... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it was just a postmortem twitch. I'm backing away. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Need I say I didn't mean you? ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we could do with wider input on this. It seems to me that some editors are allowing their personal opinions to override what reliable sources say on a suject of obvious relevance to the article. I will propose some wording. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Bring in all the "wider view" you want. Since you seem to have an axe to grind over this, maybe you'll listen when the entire Milhist community tells you it's garbage, but I doubt it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

As a member of said community, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this. On one hand, I think over-speculation should definitely be avoided, since "alternative history" really does belong elsewhere. I don't want to rehash this argument, to be sure. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree that over-speculation is a bad thing and should not be in WP but let me just put a point to you. It is right and proper for an article on a military campaign to give some idea of the wider significance of the result. In the case of an offensive campaign such as Operation Overlord, for example, the significance of the success of the campaign is clear; Europe was liberated. Hidden in that statement, though, is some consideration, not normally regarded as counterfactual speculation, as to what the situation might have been had the Allies failed. We have to ask ourselves whether Europe might have gained its freedom from Hitler and Stalin without the Normandy landings. In this particular case that is an easy question to answer. There is no conceivable way that Europe could have been freed from the iron grip of Hitler and Stalin without success in Overlord, at least for several years, when a new operation could have been mounted. Obvious though it may be in this case, it is always necessary to 'speculate' over what the situation might have been had the results of any campaign been different.

In the case of success in a defensive campaign (of failure of an offensive one if you prefer) the actual consequences of the result can be much less dramatic. The actual result of German failure in the BoB was, 'nothing happened'. To put this into a proper historical perspective we do have to consider what would most likely have happened had Hitler succeeded.

When I say 'we', I mean of course reliable sources, not we we personally think. There is improper speculation here, just above, by a couple of editors. What I want to add is a summary of what quality sources (of which I have quoted 7 above) say on the subject. As it is, there are sources which do say that the war in Europe would be effectively all over had the BoB been lost by the British, and there are sources which make less strong statements but there are no sources which actually contradict the argument that Britain would have not been able to remain an effective Belligerent in the war had the BoB have been lost. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

To be sure, you make some valid points, but I am not sure if we can see this "what if" on other battle articles, no matter how well it's sourced. What if Hitler invaded Poland early? What if there was no Pearl Harbor? There is some degree of speculation sometimes, but that's typically on things that did happen (did the Balkan Campaign delay Barbarossa?) I think it's fair to put in wording like, "The Battle effectively dashed German hopes of invading Britain," as well as it's sourced properly, but I think going beyond that is a little shaky. Just my third opinion, feel free to ignore me. User:GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"Yes I agree that over-speculation is a bad thing and should not be in WP" Then why do you keep pushing this junk? It depends on purely speculative examination of events that are unlikely or impossible. You seem to consider that, in a way unclear to me, not to be "over-speculation"--but only in this case. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Well 7 historians (and there are no doubt many more) consider it important enough to comment on. I do not see why we should not follow their example here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

GeneralizationsAreBad, you mention other battle articles. Many of the most important battles of WWII have whole sections on their significance. See Battle_of_Stalingrad#Significance, Operation_Barbarossa#Historical_significance, Battle_of_Midway#Impact, Guadalcanal_Campaign#Significance Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that they have sections on their significance. I guess my point is that these sections deal with what did happen, not what could have happened. For example, Operation Barbarossa's section states:

Operation Barbarossa was the largest and one of the swiftest military operations in human history; more men, tanks, guns and aircraft were committed than had ever been deployed before in a single offensive. A total of 75 percent of the entire German military participated in it. The invasion opened up the Eastern Front of World War II, the largest theater of war during that conflict, and it witnessed titanic clashes of unprecedented violence and destruction for four years that resulted in the deaths of more than 26 million people. More people died fighting on the Eastern Front than in all other fighting across the globe during World War II.

All of this is factual -- it's not as if it read, "Had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany could have won the war."

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

References

GeneralizationsAreBad has captured the difference. If this was a statement, "Had Germany won the Battle of Britain, her war against the Soviet Union would have gone better.", I would have no trouble with it. (It's factually supportable.) Going beyond that & saying it would, necessarily, irrevocably, have enabled Germany to defeat Britain is not factually supportable: German victory depends, in this instance, on continual suppression of RAF (improbable at the very least) or on success of Seelöwe (impossible absent intervention by Warehouse 15). Yet that's exactly what is being proposed, here. And that is speculation of the highest order, if not outright fiction. As said repeatedly already, sourced speculation is still speculation. Why Martin Hogbin refuses to acknowledge or accept that, I don't understand. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I have explained all that just above. In all cases to explain the significance of a battle it is necessary to compare what actually happened with what might have happened. In the case of Barbarosa the result at the top of the article is given as 'Failure of the Axis to defeat the Soviet Union'. It is therefore fairly obvious that had the Germans succeeded the result would have been 'The Axis defeated the Soviet Union'. It is the difference between these two radically different outcomes (one factual and the other counter-factual), that indicates the enormous significance of what actually did happened.

In the case of the BoB it is not so immediately obvious what would have been the final outcome had the German objectives been achieved and it is not up to us to speculate. However, many historians in quality reliable sources have considered the significance of German failure and put their opinions in print, based on their opinions of what would have been the results of German success. The result of the battle is considered by sources and of enormous significance and the reason given for this is that, if the Germans had achieved their objectives, Europe would have fallen into the hands of Hitler or Stalin. That result is not in anyway dependent on the success of Seelöwe as many of the sources explain.

GeneralizationsAreBad, let me start by asking you this question. Is there any reason why this article, about what many consider to be The most significant] battle of WW2, should not have a 'Significance' section in this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it should have a significance section, but said section should address what did happen (postponement of Seelowe, eventual scaling-back of air offensive, etc.) A lot of that is already addressed. The closest Barbarossa actually gets to saying what "might" have happened is where it discusses Generalplan Ost (German colonization plans) and the rest. I think there is nothing wrong with emphasizing the importance of the battle for its own sake, regardless of what might have been the consequences. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

So we agree that there should be a 'Significance section in this article, the question is what should it say?

In the case of Barbarosa the ultimate German objective was to bring the Soviet Union under total German control, as Germany had done by invading other European countries. Therefore, when the article gives 'Failure of the Axis to defeat the Soviet Union' as the outcome, this has no significance at all until the (counterfactual) result of German success is considered. In most battles of WW2 the Axis failed to defeat the Soviet Union but that is of no significance whatever because in most battles of WW2 there was no possibility that the Axis might have defeated the soviet union. The facts have no significance whatever until the (counterfactual) alternatives are considered.

Luckily though, we do not need to argue about the significance of the BoB ourselves because what is written in WP is not based on your opinion or mine but on what reliable sources say on the subject. I have quoted above what 7 quality sources say about the significance of the BoB and you are welcome to add any other sources that you can find. How would you summarise their views on the significance of the BoB? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I have just noticed that Hitler's objective for the BoB was, 'The objective of this operation is to eliminate the English home country as a base for the continuation of the war against Germany ...'. It is therefore true, by definition, that had the Germans achieved their objective, the use of the English home country as a base for the continuation of the war against Germany would have been eliminated. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

"'Hitler's objective for the BoB was ...to eliminate the English home country as a base for the continuation of the war against Germany ...'" Since Luftwaffe was incapable of achieving that, even had Germany won the Battle, the notional "consequences" are moot, quite aside anything flowing from said notional victory (in particular, Sealion).

What part of "speculation" do you not understand? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand 'speculation' very well. It is something we should leave to reliable sources and not do ourselves. Hitler's stated objective is an opinion that we should take account of in WP; yours (or mine) is not. There seems to be a consensus forming that we should have a 'significance' section, in line with other highly significant WW2 battle articles. Do you agree?

The question is what should that section contain. I agree that over-speculation is not good and the section should not contain the speculation of editors here but, as I have explained above, it is impossible to understand the significance of any battle without some understanding of what the effect on the war would have been had the result of the battle been different. The section should state what the German overall objective was and give the considered opinion of historians who have studied the battle.

Would you be happy if we made things clear by explicitly giving Hitler's ultimate objective? For example we could start by saying: 'Had Hitler achieved his objective of eliminating the English home country as a base for the continuation of the war against Germany ...'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

♠Clearly, you don't understand "speculation" or you wouldn't be making such strenuous efforts at promoting the addition of it. It's not about editors speculating, either: speculation by historiographers is still speculation. Anything that purports to say Germany might have won the war given victory here is nothing but speculation & has no place on the page, no matter how many sources are saying it, since it was never going to happen. And if I have to, I will dig up two sources for every one of yours to say how impossible Seelöwe was, to prove that point.

♠If you want a "significance" section that talks about how Luftwaffe losses impacted its performance in Barbarossa, I have no problem with that. If you want it to say what Hitler's objectives were, & how they weren't met & had no chance of being met, & why, fine. If you can connect losses to performance in North Africa or in Reich defense, fine. If you mean to claim it leads in any fashion to German victory in the war, forget about it. And your proposed language, "Had Hitler achieved his objective", presupposes achievement, which is a non-starter. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that you do not like the way that Wikipedia works but what reliable sources say does matter and whether you or I agree with them does not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You're the one pushing a fringy theory. As I've repeatedly said, sourced speculation is still speculation. I don't give a damn how many sources say it: if they're theorizing on German victory in the war based on a notional victory in the Battle of Britain, it's an AH, not reality, because there was no damn chance of Germany achieving the notional goal. 7 sources or 7000 saying they might have doesn't make it any more likely or any more than speculation. What part of that don't you get? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Objectives and significance

At the moment, the objectives of the Luftwaffe attack are outlined in the lead, but tucked away under Background. It would be clearer if they were in a section or subsection titled Objectives. Similarly, Aftermath could be focussed more clearly by titling it (or a section) Significance and, following the current first two paragraphs, summarising the defeat of the German objectives. The paragraphs of "what if?" speculation about the Navy preventing any possible invasion even if the battle were lost, or the impossibility of crushing the RAF, should be trimmed and shown in that context. . . dave souza, talk 11:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with reducing 'what if' speculation by editors here as you suggest.

Many other WW2 battle articles do have a section just called 'Significance' is which the significance to the overall progress of WW2 of the results the battle made clear. As this, at least, one of the most significant battles of WW" we should have such a section. The point that I have made above is that the significance of the result of any battle can only ever be determined by comparing what did happen with what would have happened had the result of the battle been different. Just the factual outcome of a battle cannot possibly tell us how significant it was.

In the case of the BoB the overall German objective (to remove Britain from the war) was clearly spelled out so we can easily compare what did happen (when Hitler failed to achieve his main objective) with what would have happened had he done so. We also have several reliable sources that comment on this very subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"I agree with reducing 'what if' speculation" Do you really? Then why do you endorse a more sweeping speculation on German victory in the war, which was impossible? Nay, not endorse, positively push for?

A "significance" section which only talked about how poorly Luftwaffe did, & how far from achieving the stated objective it was, would be a worthwhile addition. One that starts, "Had Germany achieved her goals, she'd have won the war" is nonsense. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Trekphiler, what you think is impossible in completely irrelevant as is my personal opinion. What matters is what reliable sources say in the subject.

It is true, by definition, that had Germany achieved her objective 'to eliminate the English home country as a base for the continuation of the war against Germany ..' then England (Britain) could not have been used as a base for the continuation of the war against Germany. I do not see how you can argue with that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

" I do not see how you can argue with that." Because achieving it was impossible, for a start, & because victory in the Battle of Britain, even if it happened, was not going to achieve it. How do you not get that? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not get it because it is just your personal opinion. Find some sources that say what you claim.

There is little point in us two continuing to argue here. I am going to suggest an RfC. There seems to be a consensus to have a 'Significance' section. The disagreement is about what it should say. I propose that the RfC should say:

'There is a consensus to have a "Significance" section. Should the proposed section be a summary of what is said reliable sources about the significance of the Battle of Britain?' Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have very little inclination wasting my time proving something no credible historiographer believes to somebody so demonstrably closed-minded. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• General Hastings Ismay: "Personally I always felt if we won the Battle of Britain, the Germans would not invade, and that if we lost it, they would have no need to invade. .... the Luftwaffe could have proceeded to wipe out, in their own time and without any significant hindrance, first our air stations, then our aircraft factories, then perhaps our other munitions factories, then our ports and so on. The point would have been reached, perhaps quite soon, when we would have been bereft of all means of serious opposition. We could have continued the war from Canada – I hope that we would have done so. But the physical occupation of Britain would have presented [to the Germans] no real difficulties." Patrick Bishop's Battle of Britain, p. 329 (ellipsis in the book). Citing Baron Hastings Lionel Ismay (1960). Memoirs. Viking Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) pp. 81–82, Modern historians may assess the possibilities differently, but at the least this should be shown as a historical view. . . . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ismay posits an anti-historical situation, in that he assumes that defeat = RAF/RCAF simply disappearing. We know that RAF FC had plans to pull back from the coastal bases if losses became unbearable and we know that the weather after October was such that strategic bombing could not destroy UK fighter production during the fall and winter of 1940/41; all of this is easily referenced. RAF FC would recover unless the Germans invade. RAF defeat in the BofB would mean that the depleted RAF/RCAF pulls back beyond Luftwaffe fighter range and consequently the Luftwaffe is able to dominate the Channel. The only way Germany can immediately exploit this victory is if they undertake Operation Sealion and pit the Luftwaffe and depleted German navy against the RN and the remnants of RAF FC and the largely intact RAF BC. Published Wargame studies in the 1970s (which Ismay could not know about - see references) showed that Germany was highly unlikely to prevail in such an invasion attempt, indeed as was shown during the Battle for Crete. Therefore a "significance" section cannot discuss the total defeat of the UK since that could not be achieved by aerial means alone and this is easily demonstrated through numerous historical works.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Historically, Ismay's fears lacked the benefit of hindsight, and modern whatiffery. Does that take into account the likelihood of the U.S. ending what little support it was giving, and the availability of drop tanks to extend the range of German fighters? These were real concerns, and fears at the time left open the possibility of an armistice rather than total defeat. What I'm saying is that we should show these earlier concerns as well as the more recent revaluation. . dave souza, talk 21:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

♠And that, in essence, is what I've been saying all along. It is the consensus of historiographers (not including, apparently, the seven fiction writers we're to rely on for this special section). It is the consensus among AHrs, too, who've bothered to study this more deeply than anyone involved in this debate (myself included)--& make no mistake, if it was remotely possible, in an AH setting, it would be acknowledged. (This is a listing of the number of AH threads, at a single site, on the possibility; Sealion's notional success has become notorious {or should I say infamous?}). Such nonsense should not be perpetrated here.

♠As for whether Ismay foresaw or not, I suggest it makes no difference. The posit of RAF defeat fails if Luftwaffe can't achieve air superiority, & that was functionally impossible if FC withdrew north: the 109s did not have the range to engage them much north of 11 Group, while RAF could continue to intercept over home ground. German victory is, at best, improbable in those conditions. Since it appears the "sources" have overlooked that (or chosen to ignore it)... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

An armistice is indeed what many sources consider would be the most likely result of Germany winning the BoB an it is exactly what Hitler wanted. An armistice , of course, means that Britain would have stopped fighting Germany and played further no part WW2 in other words Hitler would have achieved his ultimate objective 'to eliminate the English home country as a base for the continuation of the war against Germany ..'. The armistice terms would undoubtedly have prevented Britain from allowing foreign, in particular US, forces on its territory. In other words 'game over' for Europe. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

♠ What part of "withdrawing north & continuing to fight" do you consider to equate to "armistice"? Exactly? More to the point, what part do you suppose Churchill and the British would have considered the equal part? I'm not seeing any. (Then again, you think speculation is fact.)

♠An aside on Crete: the German success there proves nothing, contrary to what's implied by the Churchill remark; Luftwaffe did not have the weapons to sink RN heavies, while RN was perfectly able to wipe out any invasion convoys. (Which makes any claims victory in the air alone would lead to "armistice" fairly preposterous.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:54, 1 July & 01:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a 'Significance' section

I am not going to call open an RfC yet because, according to WP policy, there is no need for one. No one has objected to the addition of a 'Significance' section. As to what should be in it that is also quite clear, it should be what reliable sources say on the subject. There is no need for an RfC on that it is one of the fundamental principles of WP.

I will add the section and start work of a summary of what sources say in the subject. If there is edit warring, not based on what the sources say, then I will propose an RfC, with the question,

Should the "Significance" section of this article be based on what is said reliable sources about the significance of the Battle of Britain?

This really should not be necessary because basing what we write on reliable sources is such a basic principle of WP that there can really be no argument but, if necessary, I will start an RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Section

I have added a significance section, besed very closely in what is said in several reliable sources. If anyone wishes to challenge it by suggestingthat the cited sources are specially chosen please feel free to find other sources so that wording can be discussed here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This well referenced section has been deleted based on one editor's personal opinion. Please can we have a proper discussion of the subject based on what reliable sources say on the subjectMartin Hogbin (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Your claim "some historians" don't believe this is misleading. At best, a handful of historiographers take the claims you're advancing seriously. Most consider German victory in the Battle of Britain unlikely, & success with Sealion impossible. That being true, claiming victory in the BoB necessarily equals victory in the war is an absurd stretch. See my comments above, most of which you ignored before now. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that support your claim? Do we really need to have an RfC on whether articles should be based on what reliable sources say or on one editor's opinion. Perhaps someone else could answer that question. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources vs personal opinions

The content of this page seems to be being controlled buy how some editors think things are, or should be. A very well sourced section that I added was removed twice because a couple of people did not like it. That is not how WP works! What we say in articles is based on what can verified from reliable sources.Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This argument has been had before, as you'd know, since you proposed adding this fringe junk & were widely disregarded. For good reason, since it hinges on speculation & on outcomes that are improbable at best, as the discussion on the page above clearly demonstrates--a discussion you've continually ignored. I don't expect you'll be any more susceptible to reason now, either. Nor has the quality of your proposition improved. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You continue to state your personal opinion as though it has some relevance to WP; it does not. Find some sources to support your opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

Hohum, I am pleased that, at last, someone wants to talk about sources and I am more than willing to discuss what the sources say on the significance of the battle of Britain but please can we leave your personal opinion, 'this seems fringe', out of it.

What I have written is based on a number published sources. These sources were not 'cherry picked' by me but were those that I found by looking in libraries and bookshops. They are all books about the Battle of Britain, published by third party-publishers and all meet the Wikipedia requirements for being reliable sources. The quotes from the sources were those that I could find that expressed opinion on the significance of the BoB. If you suspect that I have tried to misrepresent any of the souces and want me to give full details of the context of any quote (including page numbers), I would be happy to do so.

One source, Bungay, about which a national newspaper said, 'Already hailed as the standard work, whose comprehensiveness is unlikely to be surpassed', and which contains hundreds of references to original documents studied by the author, makes it abundantly clear that, had the Germans won the BoB, all continental Europe would have fallen into the hands of Hitler or Stalin. Some of the other sources make similar or supportive statements. I have not found a single source which challenges this assertion by Bungay. If you want to try to find a source that questions or criticises this view then by all means do so and we can discuss it here.

If you want to talk about the subject in general, including our personal opinions, I would be happy to do that too but not here, rather somewhere in user space. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I asked for page numbers and supporting quotes in the sources, not handwaving. (Hohum ^@) 11:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I addressed all the points made in your edit comment. If you are going to revert text which is based on several quality sources you will need to do better than that. I will restore the text with page numbers if that is all you can find wrong with my addition. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Quotes from the sources used - with page numbers

Stephen Bungay, - The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain.

'If Hitler had won, all Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals would have come under Nazi rule...'. P393

'America could have done little, even if she had wanted to. ' P393

'On the other hand, as is probably more likely, things may have ended up in a Soviet victory.' 'The whole of Europe, lacking any western presence on the battlefield, would have been occupied by the Soviets'. P393

More Quotes:

'In 1945 after the defeat, the Russians asked the Wehrmacht's most senior operational commander,Field-Marshal Gerd von Runstead wich battle of the war he regarded as most decisive. They were expecting him to say 'Stalingrad'. What he said was, 'The Battle of Britain'. P386

'A political result had always been the most likely outcome. If Dowding had been forced to withdraw 11 Group, leaving the south-east to be patrolled unchallenged by the Luftwaffe, the pressure on the war cabinet would have become immense. Under such circumstances, the Germans would only ha had to offer generous terms, such as a non-aggression pact and the return of a fiew colonies to give Halifax new impetus'. P386

'However, if the Battle of Britain had not been won, the Battle of the Atlanticcould not hav been fought'. P387-388

James Holland' - The Battle of Britain'

'[The Battle of Britain] was a key - if not the key - turning point of the war because it meant that instead of the conflict being a European war which one day would escalate into a clash between Germany and Russia, it became a global conflict in which the Third Reich was unlikely to ever emerge victorious.' P604

Holland also quotes Churchill's liaison officer, General Hastings Ismay, as saying: 'Personally I always felt that if we won the Battle of Britain the Germans would not invade, and that if we lost they would have no need to invade... the Luftwaffe could have proceeded to wipe out, in their own time and without significant hindrance, first our air stations, then our aircraft factories, then perhaps our other munitions factories, then our ports, and so on. The point would have been reached, perhaps quite soon, when we would have been bereft of all serious means of opposition. We could have continued the war from Canada-I hope that we would have done so. But the physical occupation of Britain would have presented [to the Germans] no serious difficulties.' P329

Fighter - Deighton

'...Hitler decided on a quick war against the USSR. After this, he said, Britain will make peace'. P241

'All of them [The Germans] from Hitler downwards assumed that Great Britain would make peace once France was defeated...' Intro P xviii

'Battle of Britain' - Patrick Bishop

'The Battle of Britain had immense strategic and symbolic importance. In victory Britain lived on in freedom to provide a base for the heavy bomber offensive against Germany and, eventually, a launch pad for the Allied invasion of Europe.' P332

Spitfire Ace - Martin Davidson and James Taylor

'It is still all too clear what the result of destroying fighter command would have been - the removal of Britain from the war, either by invasion or, more likely, by some kind of time-winning armistice'. P241

Continued discussion

So there you have it all the quotes on which the text was based with page numbers. Can you find a source which contradicts what Bungay says? As I have full addressed all your concerns I will now restore the text. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to fail to understand WP:BRD. It's not [make a bold edit] [revert] [put the edit back before consensus is reached]. The third step is discuss. I expect other editors, @Trekphiler:, @Dave souza:, @Damwiki1:, for instance, will also have an opinion. Please self revert until there is consensus. (Hohum ^@) 17:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I addressed all the issues that you raised. I would love to hear from dave souza and Damwiki1 on this subject. Trekphiler has given his opinion, and reverted, below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

How about some discussion from you. Do you think that I have misrepresented the sources? Do you think that I have failed to include the opinion of any important source? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

♠"This they could only have done if the British had done nothing to try and win it." Actually (& this is really OT to the issue at hand), the Brits came close to doing something stupid in mid-'43, with the BoA virtually won: abandon convoys. It was possible the Germans could have forced HMG to that point sooner... Otherwise, you're right.

♠"the British Government, Royal Navy, and Royal Family, along with the various governments-in-exile, important scientists, etc., were to transfer to Canada where the conduct of the war would be continued-from" Again, I must disagree. I've read that, too (& I think it comes from Winston), but it's improbable Canada would have welcomed HMG. The Royals, yes; HMG would more probably relocate to Bermuda or the Bahamas. If there's a good source for it, from a Canadian POV saying Ottawa would have welcomed it, I'd love to see it. It's also probable Tube Alloys would have relocated to Northern Ontario or Northern Quebec & continued, successfully building the Bomb before war's end. (Perhaps, even probably, not before VE-Day, however.)

♠Otherwise, you're right. The Brits had long practiced fighting alone while trying to build alliances to defeat Continental opponents. This wasn't different. And, like before, the Germans didn't apply the full force they had effectively enough. Winning the air battle was never going to be enough. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You still seem to think that restating your personal opinion on the subject makes it more important than what reliable sources say. If you want to discuss your own theories, I have responded to them on my talk page.

Your comment that the what I wrote is not supported by the sources is quite baffling. What I wrote closely follows sources. I did not write, 'Losing the Battle of Britain means Germany would win the war.' as you claim, my words were, 'This would have left Europe to fall into the hands of Hitler and Stalin with the US being able to do little to help'. The sources on which this wording is based say, If Hitler had won, all Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals would have come under Nazi rule... and, America could have done little, even if she had wanted to, and On the other hand, as is probably more likely, things may have ended up in a Soviet victory. The whole of Europe, lacking any western presence on the battlefield, would have been occupied by the Soviets. It is hard to see how I could have been any closer to the wording in the sources without being accused of plagiarism. The rest of my addition follows the sources equally closely. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"If Hitler had won" And you persistently refuse to acknowledge not a single one of your "reliable sources" says anything like, "Winning the Battle of Britain would guarantee German victory in WW2." That's because there isn't a historiographer who thinks so. (You don't qualify.) So, I repeat, not supported by your "sources". That's not only a minority opinion, it's yours, which fails synth, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Would someone please post here the proposed wording? This should have been done to begin with.Damwiki1 (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed wording

The Battle of Britain had immense strategic and symbolic importance being a key - if not the key - turning point of the war because it meant that instead of the conflict being a European war which one day would escalate into a clash between Germany and Russia, it became a global conflict in which the Third Reich was unlikely to ever emerge victorious. Although it is considered unlikely by some historians that Germany could have successfully invaded Britain, with the Luftwaffe being free to wipe out, in their own time British air stations, aircraft factories, munitions factories, and ports, Britain would have become bereft of all serious means of opposition. Hitler wanted peace with Britain [230]and after a German victory at the Battle of Britain would have been under great pressure to come to terms. This would have left Europe to fall into the hands of Hitler and Stalin with the US being able to do little to help.

You will note that nowhere does it say,"Winning the Battle of Britain would guarantee German victory in WW2." it does say, ' This would have left Europe to fall into the hands of Hitler and Stalin with the US being able to do little to help.', which exactly what the sources say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I note it has the same false connection it had before between success in the BoB necessarily leading to successful invasion, which is nonsense. I also note it still has the false "some historians" claim; the truth is, most historiographers don't think Germany had any chance of successfully invading, & you're presenting a tiny minority opinion (all of seven sources) as the majority. "Pressure to come to terms" is not "German victory". Show me one source, just one, that says victory in the BoB equals German victory in the war. You can't. I expect, however, you'll continue to call that "nothing but opinion" & ignore it until, unless, you get your way. Guess what? I'm going to continue to oppose, because this is the synthesized opinion (& nothing more) of a single WP editor. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere does my propsed text metion either, 'German victory in the war' or Germany 'successfully invading', in fact it specifically says that, 'it is considered unlikely by some historians that Germany could have successfully invaded Britain'.

As I have explained several times, the sources were not selected by me to push a particular point of view but where the sources that I happened to come across by various means. If they are a minority, as you claim, it should be easy for you to find some sources which contradict or criticise the cited sources. So far you have not found a single one.

I do not insist in any way on my specific wording and I amm happy to work with anyone to improve it. Maybe it is unclear in some way, as you seem to think that I want to say that if Gemany won the BoB they would have sucessfully invaded and won the war. Let me say one more time that that is not what I want to say and I am perfectly happy to change the wording to make that abundantly clear.

On thing I do insist upon, though, is that we follow the most fundamental principle of Wikipedia and write what reliable sources say, not what you or I think. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"you seem to think that I want to say that if Gemany won the BoB they would have sucessfully invaded and won the war. Let me say one more time that that is not what I want to say and I am perfectly happy to change the wording to make that abundantly clear." Your proposed wording says the exact opposite. If you are happy to make it "abundantly clear", remove, "after a German victory at the Battle of Britain would have been under great pressure to come to terms. This would have left Europe to fall into the hands of Hitler and Stalin with the US being able to do little to help." The implication is exactly contrary to your stated intent, and "under pressure" is not "German victory"; neither is the prospect of German defeat of Britain supported by your cited sources (Ismay's opinion, alone, notwithstanding). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

' This would have left Europe to fall into the hands of Hitler and Stalin with the US being able to do little to help.' is pretty much exactly what Bungay says; his actual words are just above.

To 'come to terms' is different from a 'defeat' and 'Britain coming to terms with Germany' is not the same as 'Germany winning the war'. Britain could have just agreed to withdraw from the war in Europe and carry on running her empire. This is exactly what Hitler wanted and he would have bent over backwards to come to an agreement with the British. I will add some more quotes from sources to confirm this.

You are still giving your personal opinion. Do you have any sources at all that support your contention that Britain would have remained an effective belligerent in the war and a potential base for the liberation of Europe if Hitler had achieved his objectives in the BoB? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

First part: "The Battle of Britain had immense strategic and symbolic importance being a key - if not the key - turning point of the war because it meant that instead of the conflict being a European war which one day would escalate into a clash between Germany and Russia, it became a global conflict in which the Third Reich was unlikely to ever emerge victorious. "

The source given is a quote by Ismay used by Holland. It represents Ismay's opinion at the time. Not Hollands evaluation as a historian. It is unsuitable as a source. (Hohum ^@) 16:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That quote is from Holland, not Ismay. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Holland also quotes Churchill's liaison officer, General Hastings Ismay, as saying: 'Personally I always felt that if ..." (Hohum ^@) 16:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The quote you show above, 'The Battle of Britain had immense strategic...' is Holland's words not Ismay's. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"The quote you show above" The quote is neither Holland's nor Bishop's nor Ismay's, by appearance of what you actually quote, but your own invention, connecting what Bishop & Ismay say. None of your sources, not a single one, says, "German victory in the Battle of Britain would have enabled Germany to win the war." Show me one that does, you might have grounds to add what you're proposing. I defy you to do it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It has been suggested on the ANI page that we have an RfC so that is what I am going to do. I think that this wording describes pretty well what we seem to disagree about.

One editor wants to add a section called 'Significance' including, 'Had Hitler achieved his objective that, "The English air force must have been beaten down to such an extent morally and in fact that it can no longer muster any power of attack worth mentioning against the German crossing", it would have removed Britain as an effective belligerent from the war'. Another editor believes that this statement is not justified.

Does that sum up our disagreement? If the RfC goes against me I will leave the page (and probably Wikipedia as it would then seem to be controlled by mob rule rather than reliable sources). Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:RFC, it's best phrased as a question. I suggest is should be more along the lines of Should the article include the following: And then show the content you're proposing, including the inline references, followed immediately by a {{Reflist}} code. (Hohum ^@) 17:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I will do it that way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Another source

I have just added another source (see above), which says very clearly that if Hitler had achieved his objective for the BoB, Britain was out of the war. How much verifiable evidence do you need?

Speculation on outcomes commented out

I've commented out speculation on outcomes, which seems to be answering an unstated point about significance and belongs in new section if anywhere. Look forward to seeing the proposed RfC, to my mind we should show the points made by reliable sources that victory in the Battle prevented both the feared potential of an invasion, even if with hindsight this was improbable, and the more likely outcome of "some kind of time-winning armistice", per #Spitfire Ace - Martin Davidson and James Taylor to name just one source. . .. . dave souza, talk 19:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Query - civilian losses

This section;

The British victory in the Battle of Britain was achieved at a heavy cost. Total British civilian losses from July to December 1940 were 23,002 dead and 32,138 wounded, with one of the largest single raids on 19 December 1940, in which almost 3,000 civilians died.

And this from the infobox;

'Around 90,000 civilian casualties, 40,000 of them fatal.[17]'

leave me scratching my head somewhat. For one things, the numbers do not correspond to each other. The infobox does not give a date, nor say where these civilian casualties are occurring. The 40,000 fatal casualties (presumably almost all British?) must include dead from the entirety of the Blitz, given total Blitz casualties of around c.43,000 and total UK wartime civilian dead of around 60,000. But the period of the Blitz falls mostly well outside the period of the Battle of Britain, at least as defined elsewhere in the infobox. Meanwhile, the text quoted above from the 'Aftermath' section fails to distinguish between the Battle and the Blitz, and implies that the civilian losses were a direct consequence of success in the Battle ('achieved at a heavy cost'), rather than of the German change in strategy. The one raid specifically discussed, falls well outside of the date range given in the infobox. It strikes me that a distinction should be drawn between civilian losses suffered during daylight raids that are contested by Fighter Command (where there is still obviously an air battle being fought), and those night raids that were less coherently met by RAF night fighters.

How do people think we can make this clearer? --IxK85 (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is rather confusing. I think the Blitz casualties should not be included in the figures. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion is a consensus against including the proposed sentence, or any unqualified declarative statement in Wikipedia’s voice that the consequences of the Battle of Britain were X. This is in line with our guideline WP:RSOPINION which cautions against stating opinions as fact. Statements about alternative history, particularly in a multi-dimensional hypothetical situation like this, are almost always opinion. The question of whether there should be a Consequences section citing a variety of opinions from respected sources was not posed directly in the RfC and remains open.—agr (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Breaking protocol a little since I did participate in the RfC, but with 13 opposes and 4 supports, consensus is clear, and there's no point arguing further. Banedon (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)}}

Sorry, but it is not acceptable for an involved non-admin to close this contentious RfC in the basis of a vote rather than WP policy. We need to find an uninvolved, disinterested admin to close the RfC. I suggest we ask for one on ANI. Anyone object to this wording, 'Requested, uninvolved, disinterested admin to close this RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Should the article have a 'Significance' section containg this sentence (or a similar one with the same meaning):

'Had Hitler achieved his objective that, "The English air force must have been beaten down to such an extent morally and in fact that it can no longer muster any power of attack worth mentioning against the German crossing", it would have removed Britain as an effective belligerent from the war'. 12:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The case for inclusion

The evidence from high quality reliable sources is clear. The source which says most succinctly what I want to say is the first one listed below but the same thing is said and supported by other sources. No sources have been presented at any time in this dispute which challenge or criticise these sources.

Spitfire Ace - Martin Davidson and James Taylor

[1] 'It is still all too clear what the result of destroying fighter command would have been - the removal of Britain from the war, either by invasion or, more likely, by some kind of time-winning armistice'. P241

Stephen Bungay, - The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain.

This book has been decribed in the national press as 'The most exhaustive and detailed account of the battle of Britain that has yet appeared', and 'Already hailed as the standard work, whose comprehensiveness is unlikely to be surpassed'.

This book makes the point very clearly that, if the battle of Britain had been lost by the Britsh, Britain would no longer have been an effective belligerent and Europe would have fallen into the hands of Hitler or Stalin. Some relevant quotes are :

'If Hitler had won, all Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals would have come under Nazi rule...'. P393

'America could have done little, even if she had wanted to. ' P393

'On the other hand, as is probably more likely, things may have ended up in a Soviet victory.' 'The whole of Europe, lacking any western presence on the battlefield, would have been occupied by the Soviets'. P393

'In 1945 after the defeat, the Russians asked the Wehrmacht's most senior operational commander,Field-Marshal Gerd von Runstead which battle of the war he regarded as most decisive. They were expecting him to say 'Stalingrad'. What he said was, 'The Battle of Britain'. P386

'A political result had always been the most likely outcome. If Dowding had been forced to withdraw 11 Group, leaving the south-east to be patrolled unchallenged by the Luftwaffe, the pressure on the war cabinet would have become immense. Under such circumstances, the Germans would only ha had to offer generous terms, such as a non-aggression pact and the return of a few colonies to give Halifax new impetus'. P386

'However, if the Battle of Britain had not been won, the Battle of the Atlantic could not have been fought'. P387-388

These sources all contain statements that support what I want to say by making clear that Hitler wanted peace with Britain and that whatever might have happened if Hitler had achieved his objective, Britain would not have been able to make any further contribution to the progess of the war or to have acted as a base for the later Allied liberation or Europe.

James Holland' - The Battle of Britain'

'[The Battle of Britain] was a key - if not the key - turning point of the war because it meant that instead of the conflict being a European war which one day would escalate into a clash between Germany and Russia, it became a global conflict in which the Third Reich was unlikely to ever emerge victorious.' P604

Holland also quotes Churchill's liaison officer, General Hastings Ismay, as saying: 'Personally I always felt that if we won the Battle of Britain the Germans would not invade, and that if we lost they would have no need to invade... the Luftwaffe could have proceeded to wipe out, in their own time and without significant hindrance, first our air stations, then our aircraft factories, then perhaps our other munitions factories, then our ports, and so on. The point would have been reached, perhaps quite soon, when we would have been bereft of all serious means of opposition. We could have continued the war from Canada-I hope that we would have done so. But the physical occupation of Britain would have presented [to the Germans] no serious difficulties.' P329

Fighter - Deighton

'...Hitler decided on a quick war against the USSR. After this, he said, Britain will make peace'. P241

'All of them [The Germans] from Hitler downwards assumed that Great Britain would make peace once France was defeated...' Intro P xviii

'Battle of Britain' - Patrick Bishop

'The Battle of Britain had immense strategic and symbolic importance. In victory Britain lived on in freedom to provide a base for the heavy bomber offensive against Germany and, eventually, a launch pad for the Allied invasion of Europe.' P33

The Battle of Britain: An Epic Conflict Revisited – Christer Bergström

'The battle was a turning in point in military history, and arguably in the fate of the world. By late summer 1940 Nazi Germany had conquered all its opponents on the continent, including the British Army itself, which was forced to scramble back aboard small boats to its shores. With a Non-Aggression Pact with the Soviet Union in hand, Hitler had only one remaining object that seasonthe British Isles themselves'

The Imperial war museum

British victory in the Battle of Britain was decisive, but ultimately defensive in nature – in avoiding defeat, Britain secured one of its most significant victories of the Second World War. It was able to stay in the war and lived to fight another day. Victory in the Battle of Britain did not win the war, but it made winning a possibility in the longer term.

My comment on the opposing view so far

Some editors have made claims that what I want to say is something that 'no credible historiographer believes' and that it is 'a paragraph that would be considered fringe by any real historian with knowledge of the battle of Britain' however Not one single source has been presented which supports these stated views or which opposes, challenges, or criticises any of my cited sources or their authors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The case against inclusion

This space is intended for reliable sources which state the opposing view that Britain would have remanied an effective belligerent in WWII after losing the BoB. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Jeremy A. Crang and Paul Addison, editors, say that the battle was a critical public relations victory for keeping the USA interested in fighting Hitler. (See page 105 of The Burning Blue: A New History of the Battle of Britain.) But it's true that Crang and Addison quote Francis K. Mason saying the BoB was the only thing which prevented UK men from being drafted into the Wehrmacht, and they also quote Hull who thought that if the RAF lost the battle, then British resistance would have collapsed. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

So this is not really source against what I want to say but one for it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Anthony J. Cumming, PhD, writes that the RAF did not win the BoB; rather, the fight was "inconclusive". See page 65 of The Royal Navy and the Battle of Britain. In his Introduction, Cumming says that Churchill said inspiring things to the British people but his actions in placing his forces show that he did not believe that there was ever any real threat of German invasion. Cumming says that "some elements" of the epic myth of the Battle of Britain "are true, but despite the efforts of revisionists, the mythology endures because the legend of the Battle of Britain remains a story close to British hearts." Cumming names the book The Myth of the Blitz by Angus Calder as "useful for understanding the mythology of 1940..."[2] Cumming also names RAF Wing Commander H. R. "Dizzy" Allen's 1974 Who Won the Battle of Britain? as an important blow to the mythology of an expertly handled RAF winning the BoB. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That Britain won the BoB is not what I want to say. I am referring to the consequenses if Hitler had won, that is to say, if he had achieved his stated objective. Again I do not mention an invasion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• • Cumming also says that Crang and Addison hosted in their book a chapter by the German writers Klaus Maier and Horst Boog who describe how there was no possibility in mid-1940 of Germany invading the British Isles, so there would never be any power to support a notional German demand of British surrender and occupation. Thus the UK would never be knocked out of the war. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What do they say about the accommodation proposed by Halifax? The UK could have withdrawn from the war without being "knocked out". . . . dave souza, talk 07:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Basically, any source that says that the proposed German invasion of the British Isles (Operation Sea Lion) was highly unlikely in 1940 is a source that supports the conclusion that the Battle of Britain was not so very critical to the UK staying in the war. Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That's pure original research, and is directly contradicted by Bishop, Deighton and A.J.P. Taylor. What makes you think that invasion was Hitler's primary aim? Operation Sea Lion wasn't even proposed until after the start of the Battle of Britain. . . dave souza, talk 07:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! The point being made is not that Britain would have been invaded; there are sources supporting both sides of that argument so we would have to give them both due weight. You will note that Bungay agrees that a successful invasion was unlikely. More likely Britain would have done a deal. This would not have been capitulation but a deal that would have maintained Britains position in the world in return for ending hostilities with Germany. This is exactly what Hitler wanted. Whatever happened, though, Britain had no possible way of liberating Europe. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• See article We shall fight on the beaches. Churchill said:

We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

Emphasis is mine. Intent I think is clear. Britain would not yield even if the home islands were conquered. Banedon (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

One of the best speeches ever, I agree, it gave the British the hope and strength to fight on but the reality is that with German air supremacy over England there is nothing that Britain and the Royal Navy could have done to prosecute a war in continental Europe. With no safe home ports for repairs and resupply, the RN would have had the choice of remaining out of range or being destroyed by the Luftwaffe.

After the event, Churchill also said, 'Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few' . It is quite clear that Churchil knew what the result of Britain's losing the BoB would have been. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

By coincidence, I've just been reading that 4th June speech in Bungay. Churchill's intent was indeed clear, but he still didn't have the full backing of his cabinet, and Britain's Foreign Office was still trying giving assurances on 22 June that Britain "would not neglect any opportunity for compromise peace". On 18 August Lloyd George advocated peace negotiations. If the Luftwaffe had succeeded, it would have undermined Churchill's position and there would have been no shortage of peace advocates. . dave souza, talk 09:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Churchill did say that "never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few", but that does not imply that Britain would have been knocked out of the war if the Battle of Britain had been lost. It implies that losing the Battle of Britain would've been a big setback, but no more. Granted, "We shall fight on the beaches" doesn't prove that Britain would have continued the war either, but it establishes intent, and it shows that Churchill thought it was feasible for Britain to continue the war even if they lost the Battle of Britain. Banedon (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• According to [[3]], even if the Luftwaffe had won air superiority, the great disparity in naval power would've made it very difficult to successfully invade the UK. The logical implication would be that even if Britain had lost the Battle of Britain, it is not certain that it will be knocked out as a belligerent. Banedon (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Many people here seem to think that the main threat to the freedom of Europe was the invasion of Britain but, although that was a possibility, the more real threat was a peace deal (not surrender or capitulation) between the British and Germany. According to many sources that would have been the most likely outcome following german success at the BoB. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Oppose The sentence proposed is utter speculative extrapolation and synthesis which puts the cart before the horse. The sources don't even support the statement. (Hohum ^@) 18:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source which says this or is it just your personal opinion? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to provide counter sources since your proposed wording is pointless.

Had Hitler achieved his objective that, "The English air force must have been beaten down to such an extent morally and in fact that it can no longer muster any power of attack worth mentioning against the German crossing", it would have removed Britain as an effective belligerent from the war.

In essence: If Hitler had succeeded with "[his plan for succeeding]", he would have succeeded. which is pointless circular drivel. The significance of the battle is already covered in the article. The proposed text is just badly written fluff. (Hohum ^@) 13:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You were arguing that my proposed statement was incorrect, now you are saying that it is obviously true. I agree with you it is obvious, to me and to many historians, that if Hitler had won the BoB (that is to say achieved his stated objective) Britain would have been unable to play any further significant role in the war. Are you now agreeing with that statement? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What a bizarre reading of what I said. I'm not wasting any more time with you. The current state of this rfc is clearly against its proposal. (Hohum ^@) 13:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

But that is exactly what you say above, 'If Hitler had succeeded with "[in the BoB]", he would have succeeded [in removing Britain from the war]. Which bit of this have I got wrong? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Vehement oppose "Not one single source has been presented which supports these stated views or which opposes, challenges, or criticises any of my cited sources or their authors" The proposal fails the undue weight test (which I saw just yesterday, but can't recall the page for :( ). The quote went something like, "If the view advanced is a minority, it should be excluded." What we have, in this instance, is a minority of one WP editor synthesizing a position not actually advanced by even a single historiographer. Yet this same editor flat refuses to see the flaw in proposing something so utterly unsupported. Not only should this not be included, said editor, IMO, needs a sanction to prevent this coming up yet again, since, based on past experience, it's going to. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I what way does, It is still all too clear what the result of destroying fighter command would have been - the removal of Britain from the war not say what I want to add?? If you would prefer to use that exact wording from a source that would be fine with me. Alternatively we could quote Bungay and say, .

There is no sythesis whatever, I want to say exactly what two sources say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

♠"it is obvious, to me and to many historians" Many? When did 7 become "many"? Moreover, not one of the sources you cite actually says what you claim.

♠"I want to say exactly what two sources say." No, you don't. You want to combine what two sources say into something neither does. That's synthesis.

♠"If Hitler had won" And Bungay does not say victory in the Battle of Britain of necessity gives Germany victory in the war, because it wouldn't. Presupposing the Luftwaffe could "beat down" Fighter Command is improbable; presupposing this necessarily leads to British defeat is nonsense.

♠This whole discussion is predicated on the allegation by a single editor who refuses to acknowledge his grasp of the subject at hand is deficient. This proposal fails the test of credibility. And I, for one, am getting tired of repeating myself to someone who is self-evidently not paying attention. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Several good sources have been proposed discussing the significance of the Battle, if you think the summary of them is inaccurate, please propose wording that you feel reflects them better. Any further sources on this aspect will be welcome. Also, please stop dismissing other editors, focus on improving the article content. . . dave souza, talk 21:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Trekphiler, if you would prefer to change the wording to match the sources even more closely that would be fine with me. We could quote Bungay and say If Hitler had won the Battle of Britain, all Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals would have come under Nazi or Soviet rule. I would be quite happy with that. It is perfectly clear from the context, and from the fact that his whole book is about the BoB, that he is referring to the Battle of Britain. I can give supporting quotes from the book if necessary to show this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to discuss this more I will start a new section below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. If the RAF been beaten down to where it could not oppose a an invasion, this would certainly have represented a Luftwaffe victory in the B. of Britain, but it would not have guaranteed the success of a sea crossing, and barring German occupation Britain could have fought on.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Where do I mention a sea crosing? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I should not need to keep repeating this but what we say in WP should be based on what is said in reliable sources. Do you have a source saying that 'If the RAF been beaten down to where it could not oppose a an invasion Britain would have fought on and remained an effective combatant in the continuing war' or is this just your personal opinion? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The whole article is skewed to give the impression that the battle was about defeating Seelöwe, and it's absurd that Sir Thomas Inskip's 1937 air policy of preventing the Germans from knocking Britain out of the war only gets mentioned in the aftermath. The primary concern of the defenders, and of Göring, was the expected air victory of unopposed bomber fleets: much of the significance of the battle came from defeating that expectation. More on this later. . dave souza, talk 09:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and that is precisely what many sources say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support in principle – multiple histories of the battle, as shown above, point to the outcome as a turning point, removing the threat of cross-channel invasion, dispelling the likelihood of an attempt to to negotiate a peace settlement with Hitler as Halifax had favoured, and keeping the UK in the war as a viable combatant. The section should also show the sourced claims (currently commented out) that a sea-crossing was never viable, and if sources can be found, the contention that the UK would have fought on even with the RAF defeated. I'd like to see sources putting this in the context of the whole history of WW2, but currently don't have access to such sources. The point remains that good sources about the Battle discuss its significance, and this should be covered in the article. . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

As I say in the RfC I do not demand any specific wording. We (and all the sources) all seem to agree that Britsh success in the BoB kept the UK in the war as a viable combatant. Or, as the sources specifically say, if the BoB had been lost Britain would not have been a viable combatant. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: "removing the threat of cross-channel invasion". From numeous works I have read, the British Government continued to prepare for a German invasion into 1942. The German invasion of the Soviet Union, on principle, removed the possibility of invasion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It that got put in, or if that was what was being proposed, I'd support it, too. It's not. So long as it's Martin Hogbin's overwrought nonsense, no. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to use language like 'Martin Hogbin's overwrought nonsense' you should have at least one source to support the assertion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

To both Trekphiler and Martin Hogbin, omment on content, not on the contributor; this is an opportunity to meet both sets of requirements, showing a broader picture of the significance of the outcome of the Battle. . . dave souza, talk 09:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That is all I have ever wanted to do. If you would like to start a section somewhere where we could try to agree on what should be put in a new 'Significance' section I would be very happy to enter into civil discussion with anyone about the subject. One thing I would insist upon, because it is one of the core principles of Wikipedia, is that we leave out our personal opinions and only discuss what is said in reliable sources.

I do not see much difference between what you said above, and Trekphiler agreed to, and what I would like to say so it should be possible to reach agreement on how best to represent the opinion of sources on this subject. So far everything that I have added has just been deleted in it entirety. I would have been, and still am, perfectly happy to discuss and try to agree on the exact wording. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. It is what the sources say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Deighton should be struck as he does not support the thesis. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The quote from Deighton is just to support the view that a political solution was the most likely. I do not intend to cite it as a source.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as specifically stated. First off, this must be seen as interesting conjecture by historians, so we are in the area of opinion rather than fact. I'm generally in favor of a "significance" section quoting historians who feel that this was a very critical battle for keeping the UK in the war, but the problem is one of WP:WEIGHT; the historians who do not think the BoB was critical to the UK staying in the war merely describe it differently rather than write explicitly against previous conjecture. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you quote any historians who do not think the BoB was critical to the UK staying in the war. If there are any who say this then we do have to give due weight to their views but so far no such sources have been presented. I am not aware of any sources that assert that Britain could have remained an effective combatant in the war after losing the BoB. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I have been watching this debate for over a week now, so I suppose I should chip in. Here are some quotes which rather dent the BoB saved the nation myth. Note that all associate a successful ground invasion with defeat. The concept that Martin is advocating, that a temporary loss of air superiority over southeast England would have led to a British defeat by itself I find bizarre frankly. The core issue appears to be that air campaigns can never be decisive without "boots on the ground". This was true in Germany in 1944-45 as well as Syria today. Invasion was impossible, so I am rather baffled by the reasoning, and disappointed by the paucity of supporting sources and a G/F neglect of the principle of WP:WEIGHT.
• The fact that Britain was not overrun in 1940 was due not only to Mr. Churchill and the "few" of the RAF, it was due also to our being protected by 20 miles of sea and by the Royal Navy Instructions for British Servicemen in France, 1944
• The only reason the Germans didn't cross the Channel in 1940 is because they couldn't have done so without being wiped out by the Royal Navy Andrew Lambert, Laughton Professor of Naval History, King's College, London
• Had we not won the Battle of Britain life would have been extremely unpleasant, but..German Jackboots would not have been running down Piccadilly until they'd got rid of the Navy Captain Val Bailey, Sub Lieutenant on HMS Active (H14) in the summer of 1940
• I would like to lay great emphasis on the fact that the decisive deterrent to the operation (Sealion) was the expected large-scale intervention of the British fleet F.V Von Plehwe, Assistant to the Head of German Army liaison staff at Kreigsmarine Headquarters, 1940. All quotes above from Robinson, Invasion, 1940, Robinson, London, 2006.

I would say that the British defeat would be temporary, in the worst case, their high production rates would have made good their losses. In fact, British plans called for scenario if their losses in fighters were too great, which would involve them temporary to withdraw their fighters North to be outside the range of the Germans. Furthermore, I will add that the Soviet air force suffered much greater blows then the British, and the Soviets air force recovered.BernardZ (talk)

I would suggest a close study of the highly readable and persuasive Invasion, 1940 by Derek Robinson. The BoB has been heavily mythologised, and it was indeed a great symbolic victory, but claiming it's loss would have led to the defeat or negotiated capitulation of Britain in 1940 is audacious indeed, and flawed for the excellent reasons given by various opposers above, to whom I must add my support. Sorry Martin, but this won't fly. Simon Irondome (talk)

Appears to be Derek Robinson (novelist). Perhaps Captain Val Bailey wrote that afterwards, having been a Sub Lieutenant on HMS Active (H14) in the summer of 1940? However, at the time the public don't seem to have shared this relaxed view. Sea invasion was only one of the options pursued by Hitler, and this needs clarification. . dave souza, talk 21:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The chaotic mish-mash of strategies explored by Germany in the summer of 40, certainly does not help clarification. They range from clumsy, farcical diplomacy to a major build up of an invasion force, arguably beyond mere bluff due to the evident dislocation of the German economy and the huge planning and logistical efforts expended. Even the ultimate aim of Luftwaffe operations is deeply confusing. Yeah it's Derek Robinson (novelist). A bloody good historical writer with a formidable understanding of the period. Arguably as good a source as Len Deighton. A gadfly of a book which excited a lot of debate when it was published, and actually explores some core issues here which no other works explicitly address. I recommend it. A fun read and it does bring to the table genuinely new insights. Simon Irondome (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I keep asking but so far have had no response from anyone. What I want to add makes no mention whatever of invasion, most historians agree that a deal with Hitler was by far the most likely option. That would still have removed Britain from the war. Do you have a reliable source which states that Britain could have remained an effective combatant after losing the BoB. There are continual references to this theory but no one has produced a single source to support it. If we do ever find sources saying that Holland, Bungay and others are wrong we will have to give them due weight but, without such sources, assertions that the opinions of reputable historians are mythology carry no weight in WP. Please find some sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with adding information about these "core issues" from Robinson's book, assuming it's as good as you say, but if they're not covered elsewhere that's a bit of a red flag. The point that Seelöwe was impractical has been made by numerous historians, including Deighton. The Battle was mythologised even before it started, and that was part of its significance: it had a considerable effect on international opinion. The views of the RN and German historians that it had less military significance than the myth should also be shown, as should the sequence of Hitler's wish-mash of strategies. As for the resources put into Seelöwe, the UK had already put considerable resources into land and coastal defences against invasion by air or sea, so they clearly didn't share the view that the threat could be left to the RN to deal with. . dave souza, talk 10:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I also see nothing wrong with putting a balanced view of what the sources say about the likely of Seelöwe in the article. Most historians think that there would not have been a successful invasion but that is quite irrelevant to what I want to say.

With no airforce there was nothing Britain could possibly have done to reverse Hitler's gains in Europe? No source disputes that fact.Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"With no airforce there was nothing Britain could possibly have done to reverse Hitler's gains in Europe" Nonsense. You don't have even a single source saying victory in the Battle would perforce have left Britain with "no air force", let alone with "nothing to reverse Hitler's gains".

"Most historians think that there would not have been a successful invasion but that is quite irrelevant to what I want to say" That's the core of your argument: German victory in the Battle leads to successful invasion leads to German victory in the war. Which is utterly unsupported by your alleged sources (or, indeed, any sources).

Let it go, already. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:16 & 23:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The argument of the historians that I have cited is not 'German victory in the Battle leads to successful invasion leads to German victory in the war', we all agree that a sucessful invasion was unlikely. I have made this perfectly clear many times. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"I have made this perfectly clear many times." What you've made perfectly clear every time is that is exactly the position you're advancing. You're just trying to phrase it in a way that's not so explicitly nonsensical. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose clearly makes no sense either as a sentence and would look particularly daft as a stand alone section. It also appears to be a badly constructed synthesis that is not needed to that already covered in the background section. MilborneOne (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to change the words to the exact words of a source.

Please do tell me, what role do you think Britain would have played in the war if the BoB had been lost? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not my place to speculate nobody knows what the result of a failure to maintain air superiority over England would cause, I could make something up but that is not encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

So the situation we have is that some quality sources are of the opinion that Britain could not have played a significant role in the war after losing the BoB. No sources describe a significant role that Britain could have played in the war after losing the BoB and you chose not to speculate on the matter.

It therefore looks fully justified to me to say that Britain could have played no further significant role in the war after losing the BoB. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment' – the proposed wording is 'Had Hitler achieved his objective that, "The English air force must have been beaten down to such an extent morally and in fact that it can no longer muster any power of attack worth mentioning against the German crossing", it would have removed Britain as an effective belligerent from the war'. That was just one of Hitler's objectives, and like many of the responses gives excessive weight to the issue of practicality of a seaborne invasion. Will aim to clarify this in the article. We do cover the topic in the Aftermath section, but this lacks some nuances such as the Luftwaffe view, and the layout placing considerable emphasis on Alfred Price's opening comment may give the impression that historians now think the battle was unimportant. . . dave souza, talk 11:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment The solution to this disagreement is likely to be found in a compromise. On a nuanced issue like this, on which reliable sources disagree, there is a position out there that will be acceptable to everyone. It will not consist of demanding a wording which over-simplifies the matter in either direction, nor will it result from a binary yes-no vote. Neither is suggesting using the exact wording from one of the sources a good proposal. It will look something like "Sources x, y and z say foo, while sources α, β and γ say fah." The exact weight assigned to the various sources is what should be discussed so that a consensus version that everyone can live with can be agreed. --John (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a compromise would be right if there were sources that said different things but I want to say that had Britain lost the BoB it would have not been able to remain an effective belligerent in the war. I am not aware of any sources which say that Britain could heve remained an effective force in the war after losing the BoB. Do you have a source in mind which says this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Once the RAF was knocked out the Navy would have followed. First the ports would have been taken out very quickly (difficult things to hide) and then the ships would have been picked off one by one. Survivors would have gone into exile in Canada or the US but would not have much impact on the European war there. The Battle of Britain was pivotal. Sliven2000 (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"Once the RAF was knocked out the Navy would have followed." Which, yet again, presupposes the Germans could "knock out" even Fighter Command, which they signally failed to do even when the main defensive strength was in 10 & 11 Groups, which was marginally within the Me109's operational radius. If FC was compelled (by means nobody has specified, since it was beyond Germany's power) to withdraw north, out of range of the Me109, how, precisely, was Germany going to achieve the objective which it could not achieve when FC's strength was within range? Beyond that, supposing "the Navy would have followed" is nonsense, too. Luftwaffe did not have anything like the means to "knock out" the Home Fleet. Going beyond that to saying ports would just be closed by some mystical means (what the AH community calls "handwavium": that is, writer fiat) doesn't make the Germans actually capable of it, & they weren't. This sort of speculative junk wouldn't pass muster at an AH site, let alone as genuine historiography. Give it up.

As to saying "'X' says this & 'Y' says that", no. That fails the undue weight test. This proposal is advanced by a minority of no serious historiographers & all of one WP editor. Not a single one of the notional "sources" says, expressly says, "German victory in the Battle of Britain would have given Germany victory in the war."--yet that is the proposition being advanced, as if several (a tiny minority) actually did say so. It fails both times. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:08 & 04:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"German victory in the Battle of Britain would have given Germany victory in the war." is not the proposed addition. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your proposed text:

"The English air force must have been beaten down to such an extent morally and in fact that it can no longer muster any power of attack worth mentioning against the German crossing", it would have removed Britain as an effective belligerent from the war'."

"not the proposed addition" Really. You had me fooled. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Trekphiler, you seem to be fooling yourself, and your edit summary breaches npa. Removal of the UK as an effective belligerent does not equate to victory in the various fronts in continental Europe. . dave souza, talk 02:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• SupportHogbin's assertion is correct and its inclusion in this section is justified. It is supported by academic authority and research. It is generally accepted that victory in the BoB kept Britain in the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdhooper (talk • contribs) 18:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Garbage. His assertion has no basis in fact. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Eh, the various sources do give a basis for something along these lines. You are of course free to point to any academic sources saying the opposite, if there are any. . . dave souza, talk 02:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose As important as the Battle of Britain was to the outcome of the war, I do not think you can draw the conclusion as stated. Unfortunately, I do not recall the source, but I remember reading that the UK government would have continued to fight from the Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, India), much of which was directly embroiled in the war with Germany and Japan already, and not just a source of manpower for Britain. Given how energetically positions are being defended, I'm going to have to see if I can drudge it up. Additionally, the role of the Royal Navy, with or without Great Britain as a base (would they have continued to use Belfast as a port if Great Britain were occupied?), cannot be underestimated. See Corelli Barnett in Engage the Enemy More Closely for a treatment of the RN that makes the fate of the BoB a complicated topic indeed. In 1940, it was still very much the equal of the U.S. Navy, quantitatively per the Washington Treaty and qualitatively perhaps superior. And unlike the French, the RN would not have steamed serenely into port to sit out the war. The unequal outcome of the Bismarck′s and Scharnhorst′s sallies into the North Atlantic proved the effectiveness of the Royal Navy and caused the Germans to focus on submarine operations and abandon the buildup of a surface navy. From the U.S. perspective, even on our first try, Operation Torch proved the ability to make a successful transatlantic amphibious landing, so Britain was not indispensable. The invasion of Europe would have taken place as a follow-on to Operations Husky and Avalanche. Operation Dragoon would have been the main effort instead of a sideshow. The impact on the Eastern Front involves so many "what-if's" that it is probably not a useful exercise, but in the long run would have probably not have changed the overall outcome. My $0.02 worth--sorry I'm short on the references. Bilhartz (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not draw any conclusions but two historians, supported by many other, have drawn a conclusion and that is what we should write here. Of course Britain could have fought on for a while, but with German air supremacy over England there is nothing Britain could have done to affect the outcome of the war in Europe. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• Oppose- kinda I think this section could easily be subjective and speculative as it is proposed. At the same time there is clear historical agreement that it was a turning point in the war and had England been invaded by Germany, the outcome of the war would have been vastly different, whether it be in who won or just the cost of an eventual allied victory. What if the section was titled "Historical Significance" and the section was organized around the various historical viewpoints? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Elmmapleoakpine, sorta agree: obviously the significance is historical, and such a section should show the assessment of the various historians without giving undue weight to any minority views. What I've seen is that it was a turning point in that if the UK had lost the air battle things would have been significantly different, even without an [impractical] invasion by German forces. So, back to the sources. To some extent this is currently in the Aftermath section, but it's really a different topic from that heading. . . dave souza, talk 18:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine, the point I want to make is only that, if Britain had lost the Bob she could have played no further significant role in the war. As far as I can see, and I have taken the trouble to look, there are no sources which dispute that or present any other opinion. It is not a minority opinion, it is the only opinion on that particular point to be found anywhere in the literature on the subject. If you do know of any sources which dispute this opinion please do tell me what they are. I am not saying that Germany would have sucessfully invaded Britain that is something of a red herring, Germany may have invaded but what they really wanted at the time was a peace deal. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Silent Victory: September 1940, 1958 by Duncan Grinnell-Milne and The Royal Navy And The Battle Of Britain, 2010 by A. J. Cumming take the view that the RN mattered more than the RAF.Keith-264 (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you clarify this with a quotation and page number: do they say the BoB was significant as a turning point in the war, but the RN deserve more credit for it? . . . dave souza, talk 21:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, could we have a quote please. Does it say that Britain could have remained an effective conbatant in the war after losing the BoB? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Martin, could you please try to precisely clarify what you mean when you use the phrase "losing the BoB"? Do you mean temporary loss of daylight air superiority in the SE? The complete destruction of all airfields in No. 11 & 12 groups? The destruction of the RDF chain? The crippling of fighter production? The destruction of CC and BC in addition to the above? It seems a very vague term, and each has different "pathways" of speculation. You also mention above the additional requirement of a peace deal. Now we are in different territory. Are you linking the two concepts here? A serious attack of WP:REALLIFE is preventing me from digging out some interesting counter sources, so bear with me everyone. Simon Irondome (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I would be delighted to say exactly what I mean. Hitler had a clearly stated objective for the BoB, which was "The English air force must have been beaten down to such an extent morally and in fact that it can no longer muster any power of attack worth mentioning against the German crossing". Therefore to say that 'Hitler won' or 'Britain lost' would mean that Hitler achieved his objective. This, I think, is the normal meaning of 'win' or 'lose' in a battle; to achieve or not achieve your objective . Britain's objective was, in this defensive battle, simply to prevent Hitler from achieving his objective. So, to restate, Britain losing the BoB means that Hitler acheived his objective of gaining what we would call today 'air supremacy'. If he had done that there is no source that states that Britain could have remained a serious player in the war. Almost all sources that do comment on the matter say that a non-aggression treaty of some kind was the most likely outcome although there are those that think an invasion might have succeeded. That does not matter though, there is no scenario described in any source, or even clearly described by an editor here, in which Britain continues to be a significant force in the war after losing the BoB. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree that it's circular reasoning that amounts to "if Hitler had succeeded in succeeding he would have succeeded". It also appears to be novel synthesis. It would be better to quote actual sources on this than try to synthesize them together into an statement about an alternative reality. Let readers draw their own conclusions from the only-somewhat-similar things the sources are saying. The construction as presented doesn't come across as quite grammatical, either.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no sythesis at all, two sources, at least, say exactly what I want to add. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

An observation that amounts to "if Hitler had succeeded in succeeding he would have succeeded" is a non-encyclopedic tautology, so we don't need it, regardless of the OR question. I'm not the only one to have raised OR concerns. I ack that you don't feel you're engaging any OR, but there's enough disagreement that there's clearly no consensus to include this stuff, making that question moot.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed wording. At most, something along the lines of "Hitler said ... Some historians have claimed that..." might be appropriate. DexDor ^(talk) 07:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

All historians who have commented on the significance of the BoB have agreed with the statement. If ther was any disagreement amongst sourcs then we should, of course, reflect that here but there is not.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose due to a narrow reading of sources. Hitler's ultimate aim of moving East is VERY well-established in the majority of sources. His actual intent with the BoB is not. Cherry-picking a handful of sources which have at least some vested interest in amplifying the importance of the BoB is not the way to establish this. Intothatdarkness 17:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - we're using hindsight to equate "The Battle of Britain" with the air war. It always seemed to me that what Churchill meant by the term, ahead of the actual campaign, was the whole deal: a battle for Britain. Losing the air war did not mean defeat in the wider conflict for the nation. Even if the Luftwaffe had been unchecked over the UK, their 1940 capabilities were still miniscule compared to (say) the Allied air power that supported D-Day and the campaign beyond. The Royal Navy was still a force in being and would have made short work of any invasion fleet, even if every Heinkel in the Luftwaffe had dropped bombs on it. The British Army, though depleted after Dunkirk, was still a match for whatever the Wehrmacht could cram aboard barges. Remember that the massive invasion force landed in Normandy four years later struggled to break out of theiir beach head until Patton and Operation Cobra. We can definitely use the excellent quotes above in a speculative section, but I think that saying in Wikivoice that if Goering had defeated Dowding that was Gernan victory right there is going a battle too far. --Pete (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Martin Hogbin raised a couple of sources that made the claim in this RfC, but for something of this magnitude that is covered by this many authors, if this were the mainstream opinion I would've expected far more sources that make the same claim. I suspect other historians either do not agree with the claim, or they deem it unimportant / speculative / etc enough to not care. Either way, the sentence should not be included, at least not as a definitive statement. Something to the tune of "some historians [cite] have argued that ..." would be OK. Banedon (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting to hear people's opinions on this subject but what we write in Wikipedia is (or at least should be) based on what is said in reliable sources. This is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and without it theproject is nothing but a babble of random people's opinions.

A challenge for those who oppose the addition: can you find just one relaible source which says that if Germany had obtained air supremacy over England, Britain could have remained an effective combatant in the war. From what you are all saying it should not be hard. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

As soon as you find a reliable source that says there isn't a London Bus orbiting Jupiter. (Hohum ^@) 17:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but your analogy is not very apt. I have two sources which say exactly what I want to say. I have made clear that I would be happy to use a verbatim quote from either source to avoid (bizarre) accusations of synthesis.

It's entirely apt. Also, you need consensus, and clearly don't have it. Please stop beating the horse; it's dead. (Hohum ^@) 19:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

If it does turn out that I am beating a dead horse then that horse will be Wikipedia. Either we base what we say on the fundamental principles that what we write is verifiable from reliable sources or we let it become a page for everyone to state their personal opinions as fact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Commentary based off speculation, despite the sourcing. Speculation that is not completely supported (per the above comments and sources, and the arguments made further down), speculation that raises questions it cannot answer.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by speculation? How could Britain possibly remain as an effective combatant in the war and a base from which the liberation of Europe could be launched after losing the BoB? No source describes such a scenario and no editor here has either. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The Battle of Britain was won. Anything that describes what would could or may happen after a defeat, is pure speculation despite such comments being attributed to sources.

[EnigmaMcmxc, re “speculation”: may I invite you to read my comment dated 18:22, 5 November 2015 PeterColdridge (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)]

Furthermore, at least two sources were provided that made the point that the United Kingdom was no longer an effective combatant (as in unable to directly take on Germany or undertake a cross-channel invasion, and forced to a strategy of indirect approach, bombers, and raiding) once the Battle of France ended. So that kinda pokes a hole in your argument there.

Not to mention, the speculative sources do not describe how the defeat of the RAF (retreat north or completely wiped out?) would stop the British military (increased by over 300,000 men during the BoB on top of a re-equipping BEF and expanding TA) would be stopped from engaging in it's policy of indirect approach (i.e. knocked out of the war).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

What is not speculation is that the Britain did win the BoB and that the Allies did liberate Europe from a base in Britain. I presume that you agree those facts.

In the clear opinion of at least two high quality sources, if Britain had not won the BoB and Germany had therefore gained air supremacy over England, the Allied liberation of Europe could not have taken place. No source proposes a scenario where this happens. No editor here either has described a scenario in which Britain loses the BoB but the Allies liberate Europe. If you want to have a go please do try. Better still present a reliable source that says exactly how this could have happened. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, since you do not seem to comprehend: how can a source describe something that did not happen? The sole basis for your argument for inclusion is that there should be a source out there that describes a fantasy to contradict speculation. This line of argument has failed to achieve consensus and the majority of editors here have rejected it.

It is also the opinion "of at least two high quality sources" that the British position was essentially hopeless after the Battle of France; that they could not liberate Europe, or directly engage the German military. Hindsight (the fact the liberation of Western Europe occurred from a base within the United Kingdom) should not replace facts: Britain did not engage in such a policy after the Battle of France, the United States had not yet entered the war (the British had no way of reading the future), engaged in a strategy of indirect approach in and around the Mediterranean, balked at the idea of Operations Roundup and Sledgehammer (cross-channel assaults planned after the US entry into the war, and did so because the British Army had to provide the main force for said operations and their commanders knew they could not pull it off since they did not have the strength to face the Germans), and chased the idea of a strike into southern Germany via Italy for years to come (pretty much the only goal of defeating Germany that was followed until the Americans became the leading power).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources often discuss what the effects would have been had the result of a particular battle been different, in fact that is the only way that the significance of any battle can be assessed; by comparing the final outcome after the actual battle result with what the outcome would have been had the battle result been different. Without that comparison no battle has any significance at all.

I do not dispute what you say about Britain being forced to take an indirect approach until full US and other Allied support was available. Britain's role during that period was one of 'holding the fort' but, if the BoB had been lost, even that would not have been possible. How could a Britsh fleet have been effective with the home ports and repair and resupply bases, and any ships within range, open to undefended air attack? How could the Battle of the Atlanic have been won with no Britsh air forces? How could Churchill have remained in power after a humiliating defeat on land followed by a total defeat in the air? Just like the US, Britain had no need to fight and many in the UK already saw Chrchill as unreasonably belligerent. Have you read what Ismay had to say about what defeat in the BoB would have meant? Defeat in the BoB for Britain would have been 'game over' in continental Europe. It is not me who is saying that but several reliable sources. No sources either suggest a different final outcome or even criticise the sources that I have cited. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Another arbitrary section break

• Support

The significance of an event is determined by the impact of the alternative outcomes. A bet on which a man places his life savings, his house and extensive borrowings can be assessed as a hugely significance event even if he goes on to win the bet. The fact that he did not lose the bet does not make it impossible to examine the consequences of loosing the bet. In this case some combination of severe financial difficulties, bankruptcy and homelessness. The two alternative outcomes in this case are riches or abject poverty. It is not “speculation” to predict the outcome that did not happen nor is it impossible to assess the significance of an event because one of the two alternative outcomes happened and the other did not. Let me pose the following question. Scenario one: a man places his life savings, his house and extensive borrowings on the spin of a coin. Scenario two: a man places the value of a cup of coffee on the spin of a coin. One of these two events is hugely significant for the man and the other is not. We can say this without knowing which outcome did or will happen because we can assess the impact of the alternative outcomes.

We know the outcome of the Battle of Britain. That does not mean we cannot assess the consequences of the battle had it been lost. Assessing the alternative outcomes is not “speculation” or “alternative history”. It is an assessment of the alternative outcomes. From this assessment of the alternative outcomes comes the ability to assess the significance of the event. This exact assessment was made before the battle by Churchill and Dowding, the British cabinet, military and Parliament. It was made by Hitler, Göring, the German military and political establishment. All were of the opinion that, had the Battle of Britain been lost, Britain would have been indefensible. All military doctrine and historical fact, at the time, and since that time is that a navy cannot operate under a regime where an enemy has achieved air supremacy. A vastly superior German army would then have been able to cross the Channel and brush aside the small British army that had already been heavily defeated and lost all its equipment in France. This is why the 1940 “Battle of Britain” was a battle fought in the air. Britain would have been lucky to have been able to accept whatever terms Germany demanded from her. Had Britain been able to accept terms rather than occupation the very first condition would have been on the size and capacity of domestic and foreign (ie Commonwealth or US) military that would have been allowed to be stationed in Britain. Britain would, one way or another, been permanently out of the war. This would have left Europe to be fought over by Hitler and Stalin.

This is the received wisdom. Vast, and one may repeat, vast amounts have been written about the Battle of Britain accepting this received wisdom. (I note that seven sources have been explicitly quoted in these talk pages.) Writers may legitimately question this received wisdom but this is the received wisdom and questioning it requires more than assertions, it requires evidence and sources that compete with those provided by writers accepting the received wisdom.

The arguments put that this battle had no significance appear to be:

(1) It is not possible to assess the impact of two alternative outcomes if the event is in the past where one of the two alternative outcomes happened and the other did not. This is logical nonsense. Is playing Russian roulette more or less of a significant event than discovering one's coffee had or had not had sugar added. The answer to this question does not change were we to know the outcome. The outcome that did not happen does not become “speculation” or “alternative history” nor does the event become meaningless.

(2) Seelöwe was impossible. An interesting theory. But a retrospective analysis is of absolutely no consequence. Decisions were made based on understandings and beliefs of the time. The question is did the British and German military and political establishment believe at the time that Seelöwe was impossible. Still and interesting theory. The first thing to point out is that the implication is that the British and German military and political establishment fought an industrial scale battle that both of them believed was of no significance. Presumably there has also been a massive cover-up by all subsequent British and German governments to hide this fact. Churchill and Dowding, the British cabinet, military and Parliament believed Seelöwe was possible and the Battle of Britain would be decisive. Hitler, Göring, the German military and political establishment believed it was possible. If you know better please provide the evidence. Note this is evidence that they believed this at the time. More to the point this conflicts with the received wisdom on which vast amounts have been written. Nothing wrong with that except it does put the pressure on you to produce the evidence to support this idea. I note no contributor has done so. In fact I believe not one single source has been offered to question this received wisdom.

(3) Seelöwe had “no chance of actually happening”, “was never going to happen”, “ there was no damn chance of Germany achieving the notional goal”. See 2 above. Again, perhaps everyone at the time was wrong or knew better and pretended. Perhaps you know better. Convincing evidence for this needs to be provided. I have seen none provided. Otherwise assertions like this are meaningless.

(4) It is all a “fringy” theory / it is “like the Pear Harbor conspiracy”. I am slightly lost for word here. So the British and German military and political establishment at the time and since and the vast amount that has been written about this has been miss-directed into a “fringe” theory? Lucky the writers on this page are able to correct all these deluded people.

(5) There appears to be some sort of argument that asserting that an opposing view is “speculation” removes the requirement to provide sources: “sourced speculation is still speculation. I don't give a damn how many sources say it”. Yes, that's right: “The Earth is flat and anyone who says otherwise is speculation and sourced speculation is still speculation. And I don't give a damn how many sources say it is spherical”. Self evidently not true.

Lastly I note that no sources or evidence has been provided to support the view that at the time Britain and Germany did not believed this was a crucial battle, that Seelöwe was impossible or that Britain could have fought on after losing the Battle of Britain. There have been promises of sources flourished but no sources provided. “I will dig up two sources for every one of yours to say how impossible Seelöwe was.” I would be happy to hear one. Over to you. PeterColdridge (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree in principle that there are sources discussing the significance, and we should cover briefly the main points they raise. On the specific point of Seelöwe, the information I'm finding is that neither the Nazi OKW nor Churchill thought it had any chance of success in 1940, but with continued Nazi air supremacy it could have been feasible in the longer term. Hitler wasn't much interested in it, but it increased pressure for a peace settlement. The outcome of strategic bombing was an unknown with potential for breaking UK morale, and a significant proportion in the UK were ready to agree the neutrality that Hitler wanted, provided UK and the Empire retained independence. Am slowly working towards improving coverage in the article. . dave souza, talk 21:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible misunderstanding?

Although Britain is part of Europe, when the British refer to 'Europe' they usually mean continental Europe, that is to say, excluding the British Isles. That is the meaning that I intend. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• weak support it's true but wikipedia tends to have little commentary. Hiwiki123 (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Many articles on important battles do have a section on singificance. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Message for the closer

WP:RfC says [my bold], 'The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome, though a closer should not ignore numbers entirely. See WP:CLOSE and WP:CONSENSUS for details.

The most fundamental policy of WP is that everything that we say should be verifiable from reliable sources. The proposed addition is fully supported by at least two high quality reliable secondary sources. This fact is confirmed by the arguments of supporting editors here. Many editors have given personal opinions as to why they oppose the proposed addition but not one single source has been quoted that states an opposing view on the subject or in any way challenges the supporting sources.

It is of fundamental importance to the credibility and future viability of Wikipedia that what we say continues to follow the fundamental principles laid down at the start of the project and that it does not become just a mouthpiece for unsupported personal opinions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE and WP:BLUDGEON come to mind. (Hohum ^@) 23:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It has been a very entertaining read for the past three weeks+. However it has done absolutely nothing to improve the article. Consensus is strongly opposed, and it is beginning to read like a speculative forum. I think we should close this. Irondome (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I can only hope that the closer applies the long-established and fundamental policies of WP:V and WP:RS rather than promoting mob rule. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Lets hope they do indeed follow the principles of RS, and utilize the various RS provided by numerous users that you have chosen to ignore and contradict the position you are pushing.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There are no sources which say that Britain could have remained as a base for the liberation of Europe after losing the BoB. If you disagree please name one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yet again a call for a speculative source, which describes fantasy and an argument that again misses the sourced point that Britain was not able to liberate Western Europe, did not want to conduct a cross chanel invasion, had no way of knowing if the United States would activley join the war and subsequently use the UK as a springboard, and ignores the Soviet Union was not down and out (since we keep talking about events years after the BoB)...and this happened when the battle was won. Yet we should speculate otherwise because there is no other possible way to show why an event was significant (keeping a nation in the war and fighting, forcing Germany to divert resources and attention, garrison Western Europe etc.). Overlord was not the end result of the BoB, the article should not be worded to reflect that.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Just above, you refer to 'the various RS provided by numerous users that you have chosen to ignore and contradict the position you are pushing'. The view that I am 'pushing' is simply 'Britain could not have remained as a base for the liberation of Europe after losing the BoB', yet you cannot cite one source that says that 'Britain could have remained as a base for the liberation of Europe after losing the BoB'.

Britain winning the BoB was just one link in a chain of events necessary for Europe to be liberated; that is not disputed, but the point is made by two reliable sources is that it was an essential link. Without the link, the Battle of the Atlantic could not have been won and Operation Overlord could not have been launched. The point that Operation Overlord was necessary for the liberation of Europe is not normally made because it is, quite reasonably, considered self evident. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, since you do not seem to understand the absolute absurdity of what you are asking for: do you have a source that shows before the BoB, the British military had even thought up Operation Overlord? Do you have a source that shows the British, following the BoF, considered a cross-channel invasion? Do you have a source that the British expected, in 1940, that they would house a multi-million international liberation army on its shores?

You do realize that Overlord did not result in the liberation of Europe; only France, the Low Countries, and Denmark (the Channel Islands and Norway were not liberated by Overlord, nor was the Western reaches of the Soviet Union, Greece, the Balkans, Romania, Poland etc.) Claiming more than Overlord was should not be a "self evident" conclusion to this article; a plan drawn up 3 years later, and after British refusual to conduct a cross channel invasion.

How exactly, and is the position even supported, that the Battle of Atlantic could not have been won had the RAF lost control of the skies over southern England? Liverpool was heavily bombed, but did not stop the flow of material in or out of the UK nor disrupt the command and control of the battle. Scapa Flow was not lost, or in danger of being lost due to the BoB. How were the Germans going to stop the flights out of Northern Ireland? The Canadian effort is bring wrote off due to the lack of RAF superiority over southern England? The speculation has to stop!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not speculating about any of the things that you mention. I have no idea whether the British had thought of Operation Overlord before the BoB and I do not know of any source which speculates about this subject either. I, or rather the sources that I am citing, say that if the BoB had been lost, Operation Overlord would have been impossible. No source challenges that assertion and no source, or even editor here, says how Overlord would have been posible if Britain had lost the BoB. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This being the part you seem to overlook: there is no source to challenge it, because even after a victory such an operation was already impossible and not on the cards. Britain, after a victory, were not looking to launch a cross-channel invasion (even after the American arrival, they refused to launch Sledgehammer and Roundhammer because they did not have the naval or military capability to do so or the ability to defeat the German army if they somehow managed a landing.). Sources have been provided that talk about this, there are more out there that reinforce the point.

Finding a source that would speculate if or how Britain could or would have launched 'a Overlord' had they lost control of the skies over southern England is like asking someone to find a source on Plutonian invasion of Mars which rendered Mars inhospitable to little green men...EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No one, including me, has ever suggested that Britain could have launched overlord alone. But, if Britain had lost the BoB, no one could have launched Overlord, because there would have been no base to launch it from. Again, that is not my personal opinion but that of several quality reliable sources quoted above.

The source that I am challenging you to produce is one which describes how The Allies, including the full forces of Canada and the US could have (and would have) launched Overlord if Britain had lost the BoB. Of course, Russia might possibly have defeated Hitler alone, but that would have left continental Europe in the hands of Stalin; hardly a liberation.

All the sources say was that if Britain had not won the BoB, Operation Overlord could not have been launched at all, by anyone. In fact it almost certainly would not have been attempted, because it obviously would not have succeeded, and because there would have been no political will in the US to do anything anyway. As events turned out, the Eastern European Allies were left in the hands of Stalin, simply because there was no realistic way of changing this. If Britain had lost the BoB, Western Europe would have suffered a similar (Hitler or Stalin) fate. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

EnigmaMcmxc, hopefully you have understood the point made by my quoted sources now. This is not some crazy assertion that Britain alone won WWII, the point being made is that circumstances were such that had the BoB have been lost, that is to say Germany had achieved their stated objective of gaining air supremacy over England, there was no way that anyone could have liberated continental Europe and it would have fallen into the hands of Hitler and/or Stalin. Two sources specifically make this point and none challenge it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you haven't. You have ignored two sources provided to you (aimed specifically at your position above, never mind the other sources provided by other users that have poked holes in other lines of thought), not to mention a wealth of information on there, that the UK - following the BoF - had no intent of launching a cross channel assault to liberate western Europe. Arguing that they could not have done so, despite two sources making such a claim, based off a speculative defeat is completely inappropriate for the article that should deal with what actually happened and what the impact of that were.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what you are saying. You seem to be continually arguing against assertions that neither I nor any source that I know of have ever made Where have I ever said, or even suggested that the UK - following the BoF - intended to launch a cross channel assault to liberate western Europe?

All that the sources I want to use say is that, 'if Germany had achieved their stated objective of gaining air supremacy over England, there was no way that anyone could have liberated continental Europe and it would have fallen into the hands of Hitler and/or Stalin'. I fail to see any connection between this statement and the UK intending to launch a cross channel assault to liberate western Europe. We all know and agree that this was impossible. Europe was liberated by the combined forces of the UK, US, Canada, and othe Allies, but without a base in the UK this would have been impossible. Are you disputing that?

The fact that you seem to be completely misunderstanding what the sources I want to use say makes me wonder if everyone else here misunderstands that too and we are all arguing to cross purposes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Martin, by "other Allies" i really do hope you mean the Soviet Union, who made the greatest contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany despite their abhorrent ideology and the policies they implemented as they liberated half of Europe from Nazi rule.

Since you want to clear things up, would you agree that this is your argument: two sources speculate that if Britain had of been defeated in the Battle of Britain, then a cross-channel assault would never have happened since Britain would somehow (details omitted) have been rendered incapable of hosting such forces. Correct?

The point you do not seem to get: Sources, provided here and available elsewhere, do not support the concept that the Luftwaffe had that capability or that the RAF would have fought a suicidal battle to complete destruction rather than retreating north and rebuilding.

More to the point, sources state that after the Battle of France, i.e. prior to the Battle of Britain, Britain lost the ability to even contemplate such an assault nor wanted to. Therefore, speculation on what may or may not have happened after a fictional defeat is moot because the entire argument is baseless based on what actually happened (i.e. Britain did not want to use the UK as a base to launch an invasion, since they were busy attempting an indirect strategy elsewhere since they had a reality check and knew their limitations). Not to mention, hindsight that America would eventually enter the war a year and a half later and eventually provide the largest contribution of forces and material that made such an invasion possible is rather pointless considering the vast and complex set of events that took place between the Battle of Britain and beyond it (i.e. the struggle in North Africa, which could have carried on without RAF air cover over southern England, that resulted in the loss of an entire Germany Army, and the entire Eastern Front (the sole point of the war) which degraded the German military machine more than anyone else did.).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I fully appreciate the contribution that Russia made to the defeat of Hitler, particularly in the form of human life and I have no desire whatever to downplay this but, without the UK, US and Canada, that would not have resulted in the liberation of western Europe. I have constantly made the point that, if Britain had lost the BoB, all continental Europe would have fallen into the hands of Hitler or Stalin. There was not much to choose between them.

You seem to be trying to speculate about what would have happened if Britain had won the BoB. There is no need to do that because we know exactly what would have happened in that case because Britain did win the BoB. Whatever Britain's motives and strategy might have been, the facts are that America did enter the war and Overlordand the subsequent liberation of western Europe were sucessful. It is possible to speculate about what might have happened if America had not joined the war, or Britain had opposed an invasion but that is not relevant to this article.

How do we assess the significance of any battle? We can only ever do that by comparing what actually did happen with what the final outcome would, have been had the battle had the opposite result. That is exactly what the sources that I quote do.

So, your only relevant argument is: 'Sources, provided here and available elsewhere, do not support the concept that the Luftwaffe had that capability or that the RAF would have fought a suicidal battle to complete destruction rather than retreating north and rebuilding'.

The short answer to that is, 'yes they do'. Both the quoted sources clearly state that had the BoB been lost Britain was effectively out of the war and Europe would have come under the control of Hitler or Stalin. On the other hand, no sources criricise these assertions ar show how Britain could have remained in the war after losing the BoB. If you know of a source which says this the please do quote it here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not speculating about anything! The British did not want to do what the speculation assumes they would not be able to do had they lost. Once more you are asking for speculative sources that contradict speculation, and assume one cannot measure the impact of event without speculating what may have happened otherwise.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Aguments against the opinion expressed

I have so far refrained from addressing the opinions of users expressed here because Wikipedia is not (or should not) be based on users' opinions but what is said in reliable sources. However as all the 'oppose' comments seem to be based purely on personal opinion it seems necessary to comment on them.

There is absolutely no source anywhere that describes a scenario in which Britain loses the BoB but remains an effective belligerent in the war and a base from which the liberation of Europe could have been launched. Not only is there no source describing how Britain could have carried out this remarkable feat but no editor here has done so either. I am left, therefore, to guess at how editors here believe that Britain could have remained effective in the war after a BoB defeat. I can only guess what people are suggesting, but if I am wrong please do tell me how Britain would have made any material difference to the war in continental Europe. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this is hopelessly OR and should be discussed in the academic literature instead of on this talk page. Banedon (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It is discussed and the conclusion is that after losing the BoB Britain would have been out of the war. No source contradicts this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but no source I've seen explicitly deals with it either. An essay, book, chapter, etc that deals entirely with "would losing the Battle of Britain have knocked the British Empire out of the war?" would qualify, but at the moment, I'm only seeing small mentions in paragraphs that are focusing on something else. I don't exactly see the 'discussion' aspect either in the sources you gave. A discussion would involve setting out the evidence and considering any contrary evidence. This talk page for example is a discussion, but not the sources you gave. Banedon (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you read this quote from a source cited above [my bold], ' 'It is still all too clear what the result of destroying fighter command would have been - the removal of Britain from the war, either by invasion or, more likely, by some kind of time-winning armistice'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Palliative actions

After a defeat at the BoB, Britain could have moved the remnants of the airforce north, to be temporarily out of range of the Luftwaffe, she could have moved the Royal Family and the government to a place of safety, and sailed the home fleet somewhere out of range. But then what? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There would have been be no invasion

Probably not, but the fear of invasion was immense. It is still quite possible to talk to people who were alive at the time and they will all tell you that everyone at the time was expecting Hitler to arrive in the UK at any moment.

Although the British people in general did not like Hitler much, nobody at that time has a clue as to just how bad Hitler really was. Churchill was seen by many as being unreasonably belligerent in his relentless opposition to the Nazis. On the other hand, there were many in high places who sympathised with Germany and who would have gained much from a peace deal. This is considered by many historians to be the most likely outcome. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

While the common person may have expected the German Army to land, the British military did not realistically believe it to be the case (although they continued to prepare for such an event until, at least on paper, 1942) as can be seen by the following examples:

The Air Ministry, in early August, made plans to ship/fly out at least 156 front line air craft during the August-September period (as well as replacements) (OH, Med and ME, V. I, p. 195). As part of this, the Takoradi Air Route was established with the first disassembled aircraft arriving on 5 September (OH, Med and ME, V. I, p. 197). It took three weeks for ships to arrive at Takoradi. Hurricane ships were only suspended during September, after many had already been dispatched.

The War Office and CIGS were able, on 10 August, to brief Churchill on want they were about to dispatch out to the Middle East: one regiment of light tanks, one regiments of cruisers, one regiment of infantry tanks, 48 anti-tank guns with 40,000 rounds, 20 light AA guns with 30,000 rounds, 48 artillery pieces with 24,000 rounds, assorted small arms, one million rounds of .303, 50,000 anti-tank mines, and 300 tons of spare parts. (OH, Med and ME, V. I, p. 190)

These are not the moves of a country that believes there is to be an invasion, nor the moves of a country willing to settle for a peace deal (the military was reinforcing the Middle East, partially in anticipation of German intervention).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you do not stop preparations for war until a deal is done. What do you think Britain could have done to save Europe after losing the BoB? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

What I think is irrelevant. The sources indicate that even when faced with the threat of a German invasion, the military was sending vital war material elsewhere (such material that would be needed to fight the battle raging, or be used to counter a landing). It somewhat reinforces the point made further up, by another editor quoting Cummings: "Cumming says that Churchill said inspiring things to the British people but his actions in placing his forces show that he did not believe that there was ever any real threat of German invasion."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that what you and I think is irrelevant so let us stick to what sources say. That is quite clear. At least two sources, cited above, say that Britain would not have been able to play a significant part in the war in continental Europe after losing the BoB. No source contradicts this and no editor here has been able to suggest a credible means by which Britain could have made a significant contribution to the war after losing the BoB. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

So ignore the sources that clearly indicate such an invasion would not have happened? Sources that show the military was somewhat weakening its position in the UK at the height of the battle? Replace all that with sources that speculate that the UK would have been knocked out the war had the RAF lost the air battle? War games contradict such a notion. Am sure a search will find a RS that talks about the 1970 games that showed a German invasion would have been defeated. A what if, showing half the picture, is not helpful for the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a misunderstanding of "Probably not, but the fear of invasion was immense"? The people of the UK expected an invasion even before Hitler decided to plan for one. It didn't need 1970 games to show a sea invasion without air superiority would have been defeated, the Germans knew that in 1939. It did need the experience of the BoB and Blitz to demonstrate that a civilian population could maintain morale in the face of massive air bombardment, and would not support Halifax in accepting Hitler's offers of peace or at least neutrality. . . dave souza, talk 14:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

EnigmaMcmx, are we back to OR now? Please, either produce a source that contradicts my quoted sources and says that Britain could have remained an effective combatant in the war after losing the BoB, or we can agree to discuss personal theories. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I love how you accuse of a return to OR! You are basing an argument for changing the article based off speculation made by historians, and a position that is not fully supported as editors have noted. Your sources do not address how this would be the case; or address how even at the height of the battle, material was being shipped to reinforce the Middle East to remain combat effective there. As others have noted, with sources, an invasion was needed and that wasn't going to realistically happen or succeed.

As for Dave's position, that the fear of invasion was so immense the population would just folded had the RAF been destroyed or retreated north had the BoB not taught the not to fear the Luftwaffe, that does not interact with the massive recruitment seen by the British Amy, the Home Guard, and auxiliary (left behind) units. People were preparing to face the invasion, one which as indicated by sources up the pqge the big wigs did not realistically belive would happen (which somewhat trumps speculaion about what may hwve happened had the RAF lost control of the skies)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources? Your speculation is not supported by the historians I'm citing, as far as I've seen. . dave souza, talk 16:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You have not seen any sources showing the massive increase in the armed forces? As everything else is sourced from my earlier eourced comments and sourced comments or other editors.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Any relation that has to the BoB looks like classic WP:SYN on your part: are you making a proposal for improvement to the article? . . dave souza, talk 17:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That is no way to back up your assertions. You asserted I was either making stuff up or conducting OR. Now I would like you to clarify.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You've produced a speculation that the supply of equipment to Egypt means the "big wigs" knew there would be no invasion. That's got a whole bunch of implications, and if it's relevant to the article needs to be properly sourced. Not synthesised. As for the issue at hand, fear of invasion and/or of bombing went a long way to persuading the Conservative government to appease Hitler, and Halifax to seek peace terms with Hitler. So, it's more nuanced than the supposition that losing the battle would have led to invasion, which I don't think anyone was saying. I'm slowly working towards improving the article's coverage of this. . dave souza, talk 21:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

EnigmaMcmxc, when we add opinion to WP it should be based on what what is said in secondary sources. What I want to add is based on what at least two quality reliable secondary sources say. The exact quotes are above. There are no sources which contradict or criticise these sources or that explain what important role Britain could possibly have played in the war after a BoB defeat. No editor here has explained that either. The sources do address why Britain would have been effectively out of the war if she had lost the BoB. Bungay explains in great detail why the most likely option would have been a deal with Hitler. Not invasion, not capitulation, not defeat, but some sort of deal where Britain agreed not to get involved with the war in continental Europe in return for a cessation of bombing. This would have suited many of the people in power in the UK and it is exactly what Hitler wanted. Many in the US already saw the war in Europe as none of their business and Britain as a lost cause. Defeat in the BoB would have consolidated this view. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Dave, no. I produced a source that shows that height of the Battle of Britain, the military was dispatching vital war material to Egypt. I also highlighted that, per already sourced content further up in the discussion and reproduced in this section, that Churchill did not believe an invasion was realistic. Neither of these positions are OR. At no point did I join together both, therefore breaching WP:SYN. So, your assertions are unfounded, as is Hogbin’s continued assertions of OR on my part.

What we do have is a proposal to include a sentence/section/summary/paragraph into the article, which is against WP:SYN as it is merging the opinions of several historians into one short sweet summary. That is the current proposal. What we have is a position that relies entirely on a 'What If' scenario, which Hogbin has repeatedly asked people to disprove. A 'What If' cannot be disproven, it can only be argued against. We have a proposal to include a 'What If' scenario that will leave any reader with more questions than it answers, and leaves anyone with an ounce of understanding of the British military at the time scratching their head at how exactly the defeat of the RAF would have removed "Britain as an effective belligerent from the war".

There are sources that show that it was following the Fall of France when Britain was removed from the war as an 'effective belligerent', unable to engage in anything other than the indirect approach (for example: Weinberg, A World At Arms, p. 150; French, Raising Churchill's Army, p. 184) thus damaging the credibility of the proposed 'What If' despite its sourcing. On the other hand, we have sources showing that the BEF - with over a quarter of a million men - was returned to the UK, that during the BoB over 300,000 new recruits were brought into the army, that the British military were up for the fight and believed they could successfully repel an invasion, that despite the likes of Halifax the Government was behind this, so was the general population, and previous peace overtures had been rebuffed (Wilmot, Struggle for Europe; French, Raising Churchill's Army). Any critical reader would be left to wonder how the Luftwaffe alone was suppose to neutralize this build-up (a keen eyed reader would also be left to ponder how the Luftwaffe, despite the lack of evidence, would have been able to cripple the British war industry considering years of heavy bomber raids did not cripple the German industry); not to mention is there a source that shows the British Government and military would have abandoned the plans and decisions made during the summer had the RAF been depleted to support the assertions being made (sourced and unsourced) that the British would have just rolled over had the RAF lost. We also have sources showing that despite the BoB raging on above, the British military still found the time to ship close to 200 planes to the ME along with material needed to repel an invasion (mines, guns, bullets, troops, tanks, artillery etc) (Official History, Med and ME series, V. I). If a critical reader is aware of such, I would imagine they would be left to wonder how they were able to do this, yet still run the risk of complete surrender because of the defeat of the RAF. Surely, such questions should be addressed instead of just being raised by 'What If' because it happens several historians/writers etc. happened to have pondered such aloud.

The search for the mythic source that specifically denies the 'What If' is ludicrous; enough sources are out there to poke holes in it despite historians/writers/ex-military etc. speculating what may have happened. Not to mention, having read your other proposed draft, you are aware that the whole point of the Second World War was a Nazi-Soviet face-off and the Western Front was pretty much a sideshow? If we are to add speculation into the article about what the Germans may have or may not have achieved or done, we might as well throw Viktor Suvorov's Icebraker allegations and speculation to complete the overall summary.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to opposition to whatiffery, and will look at removing it from the article: it should be possible to write about the significance without doing that. We should clarify for our readers that the effect of strategic bombing was a much feared unknown in 1940, and the exaggerated fears were disproved by subsequent events. As may be noted above I've not supported the over-simplistic brief statement proposed. It has, in my view, been useful in opening up points about the article. If sources specifically relate the BoB to the shipment of material to the Med, perhaps we should note that at the appropriate point. . dave souza, talk 08:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that unsupported speculation is not appropriate for WP and I a happy to work with anyone who wants to add a 'significance' section that accurately reflects what sources say on the subject.

I am a little puzzled by EnigmaMcmxc's assertion that the Battle of France was the key battle. That battle was lost by the Allies but the war was won by the Allies. The war was won because Britain retained control of the air and held on to the independence necessary for the island to become the base from which an Allied liberation of Europe could be launched. If Germany had achieved air superiority over England there was no possible way that US, Canadian, and other Allied forces could have arrived safely in the UK and built up an invasion force. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

EnigmaMcmxc (30 October 2015) says “despite the BoB raging on above, the British military still found the time to ship close to 200 planes to the ME” referencing “Official History, Med and ME series, V. I”.
This volume (The Mediterranean and Middle East, Volume V) appears to cover “The Campaigns in Sicily & Italy, 1943 to 1944” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Second_World_War). May I invite you to check this source please.
Also the official RAF web page about the Battle of Britain says “Dowding therefore possessed [fifty squadrons]...These fifty squadrons had 656 serviceable aircraft available at 9 o’clock on the morning of 10 July 1940, the date on which Dowding considered that the Battle of Britain began”. But he sent 200 of these aircraft during the Battle of Britain to the Middle East ?!? This is an extraordinary revelation. It also appears to have been missed by other historians. Again may I invite you to check the accuracy of this. PeterColdridge (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Deighton p. 51 has Churchill telling the War Cabinet to send tanks to Egypt, as he considered SeaLion suicidal: that's six days before Seelöwe was named! Deighton continues that, had Fighter Command been knocked out, "There would have been no insurmountable problems for invasion fleets if the the air was entirely German." So worth noting in that subsection. Wings: The RAF at War, 1912-2012 by Patrick Bishop 2013 ISBN:978-1848878938 discusses supply of fighters to Operation Compass; initially Gladiators, until Hurricanes began to be shipped in via Takoradi. So, planes not significant to Dowding's position in July, and Bungay points to UK aircraft production doing well by August. Obviously pilots important, clearly Churchill didn't want to lose Egypt to the Italians. . . dave souza, talk 02:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and above there's mention of shipping out "at least 156 front line air craft", our Operation Compass article lists "142 aircraft, in two squadrons of Hurricanes, one of Gloster Gladiators, three of Blenheims, three of Wellingtons and one of Bombays, about 46 fighters and 116 bombers." So, not many of them were Hurricanes. . dave souza, talk 02:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

V.I, not v.V ;) A misuse of the shift key causing some confusion. To note, the Official Histories were produced by the Government with personal from all three branches and access to - then - classified documents. Not all are of the same standard, but Playfair's works are of appreciated quality and widely used and cited.

"Early in August the Air Ministry['s] ... short-term plan was therefore to increase the allotment of bombers and fighters during August and September so that by the end of the latter month ... a total of 84 Blenheim IVs, 60 Hurricanes, 12 Wellingtons and a small quota of replacements" would be dispatched to the Middle East. In addition, 150 Glen Martin bombers "from late French orders in America, were to be divided between the Middle East Command and the South African Air Force during the forthcoming winter" (Playfair, v.I, pp. 194-5). One notes that the Blenheims were being used to raid German air fields in northern France, and as we all are aware the Hurricanes were vital to the succesful outcome of the BoB; the planned deliveries are not second line aircraft or something to turn your nose up at. I also find it interesting, despite the late planned arrival it would seem, that the American bombers were destined for Egypt rather than reinforce Bomber Command to carry on the attacks on German airfields.

Playfair also states that a "few Hurricanes and Blenheims had reached Egypt by air in a last minute attempt to reinforce the Middle EAst before France collapsed", and by the end of August the following had been dispatched: "24 Hurricanes, shipped via the Cape ... 36 more ... nearing Takoradi. Twenty-four Blenheim IVs had reached Egypt ... 24 were at sea ... [and] six Wellingtons..." arrived on the final day of the month (Playfair, v.I, p. 195).

Only on 5 September, due to losses in the BoB, did the Air Ministry suspend Hurricane transfers to the Middle East, and due to lack of crews the same was said for the Blenheims (Playfair, v.I, p. 251). However, from September to the end of the year, Playfair notes the following dispatches to the Middle East: 41 Wellingtons, 87 Hurricanes, and 85 Blenheim IVs (Playfair, v.I, p. 254).

Finally, one should note that just because 46 fighters were assigned to Compass should not confuse the situation: material assigned to Middle East Command allowed it to be used all over it's jurisdiction. Hurricanes were sent to East Africa (and the South African Air Force), and bomber squadrons were deployed to Aden to monitor the Red Sea, these were not just deployments to Egypt. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You seem willing to speculate wildly about anything except how Britain could have remained in the war as a base for Operation Overlord after losing the BoB. There is simply no way that could have happened. No reliable source suggests that this was possible and no editor here has come up with a plausible theory either. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Martin, could you kindly note what part of the above (all clearly sourced) is speculation and not engaging the point at hand (a question raised about the statistics i provided earlier).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The Empire fights back

Forces from the Empire did make a great contribution to the Allied war effort but there is no conceivable way that they could have changed the war in Europe on their own. (UTC) Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If the UK had been invaded the Royal Navy would have continued the war from Canada. However that's irrelevant, as Hitler had no intention of even trying an invasion. (217.42.27.131 (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC))

The US would have saved Europe

Before the BoB, many Americans though that the war in Europe was all over and that Britain would fall just like France and other European countries had. Failure at the BoB would have confirmed that view and there would have been no political pressure or will to join the European war at all. In the unlikely event that the US had wanted to try and save Europe from Hitler, without a base in the UK, there would be no way of doing anything significant. Even with the combined forces of the UK, US, Canada, and others Operation Overlord was a close run thing. With just the US, operating across the atlantic it was clearly impossible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Everything you have written above is not only historically wrong, it displays a disturbing lack of understanding of things I think every citizen should know at a basic level. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

That is an interesting comment. Could you be more specific. Do you have any sources to back you up? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. a citizen? . . . dave souza, talk 23:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't suppose the official position of the US Government would override a rouge ambassador: the relaxing of the neutrality laws to allow arm sales, and the Destroyers for Bases Agreement at the height of the BoB? Point being, the American situation was extremely complex, and the popular sentiment cannot be used as a rule of thumb over what may or may not have happened had the BoB been lost (which it wasnt, so discussion of what-ifs is rather moot).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

To show the significance of a battle it is always necessary to compare what the position was after the actual battle result with what it would have been had the result been different. Without this comparison a battle has no significance at all. In the case of a battle in which the attacking side wins, Operation Overlord for example, the position if the Allies had not succeeded is obvious, the liberation of Europe would not have occurred, or at the least would have been greatly delayed. In the case of the BoB it is not obvious (as is clear from the discussions here) what the position would have been had Germany succeeded, which was that continental Europe would have been permanently lost to Germany or Russia; exactly what is said in two reliable sources and denied by none.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• This is a 1978 article which mainly lists issues which arguably meant Germany wasn't in a position to win, but it does include "Britain was, indeed, the almost indispensable base for American intervention in Europe......At any rate, it can be accepted that Britain's survival in 1940 was probably essential to an Allied victory in Germany" – Loyd E. Lee (1 January 1991). World War II: Crucible of the Contemporary World : Commentary and Readings. M.E. Sharpe. p. 369. ISBN 978-0-87332-731-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Came across it in the SeaLion article, being used to support the claim that the Luftwaffe was rubbish at sinking RN ships because it only sank 4 destroyers and a few other RN ships during the 6 weeks of the Kanalkampf etc. which looks like a pretty high attrition rate to me. Anyway, seemed to have some relevance here. . . dave souza, talk 19:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I have missed the obvious

Please do tell me what it is? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The idea of a significance section is a good one, the actual significance has to be developed from an overview of sources. My current reading of Bungay, Bishop and Overy is that the Battle was created by Churchill as a defiant principle of refusing to agree an armistice or neutrality with Hitler, a peace move which a majority of his party and many in the UK wanted: from the information the UK and the U.S. had at the time, Churchill's defiance was against overwhelming odds.
Hitler's aim was such an agreement, in the opening stages of the Battle the Germans continued a strategy of blockade, and as the battle unfolded they introduced (ill-considered) plans for air war to gain air superiority, with potential for destroying British morale or possibly for an invasion even though their navy advised that this was impossible.
The significance is that the UK chose to stay in the war, and by at times a narrow margin were able to call Hitler's bluff. It paved the way for eventual U.S. assistance, Churchill thought this was essential but that's not clear.
For the Luftwaffe, there was no distinction between the Battle and the continuing Bitz, together these showed that air power and bombing alone could not quickly defeat a determined opponent. There were lessons from this that the allies failed to take on board during their air offensive against Germany.
That summary's the easy part, now to work on getting it fully sourced and incomporated in the article! . . dave souza, talk 10:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consequenses section

With reference to the above closing remarks, is there a consensus to have a 'Consequenses' section? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If consensus does indeed exist, then the rough format (which I think would be uncontroversial) would be as dave souza very neatly and succintly put it;

The significance is that the UK chose to stay in the war, and by at times a narrow margin were able to call Hitler's bluff. It paved the way for eventual U.S. assistance, Churchill thought this was essential but that's not clear. For the Luftwaffe, there was no distinction between the Battle and the continuing Bitz, together these showed that air power and bombing alone could not quickly defeat a determined opponent. There were lessons from this that the allies failed to take on board during their air offensive against Germany. That summary's the easy part, now to work on getting it fully sourced and incomporated in the article! . . dave souza, talk 10:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I would be comfortable for one with a well-sourced version of that. Irondome (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The conclusion of this comprehensive RfC, close by an uninvloved and experienced admin was [my bold], 'The result of this discussion is a consensus against including the proposed sentence, or any unqualified declarative statement in Wikipedia’s voice that the consequences of the Battle of Britain were X'. In other words, we cannot state any opinion of the consequences of Britain's winning the BoB as fact, controversial or otherwise, as fact. We must attribute what we say to the relevant historians.

According to WP policy we should therefore say things like, 'According to Joe Soap, the Battle of Britain was of little significance to the war and did not affect the final outcome in any way', or 'Fred Bloggs has said that the Battle of Britain was the most significant battle in the whole war and had in not have been won the Allies would have lost the war' to give two extreme and hypothetical examples.

We already have sone good quality sources from which we can state opinions. Of course there may be many others whose opinion we should include. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this example of a 'Significance' section, we do not need to identify individual historians in the text if they are clear from the references. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Not so. Wikipedia:Attribution contradicts that position, as would any editor reviewing the article at either the GA, A-Class, or FA level.

I would like to know, if we are now talking about circumventing the consensus reached in the RFC? What sort of opinions, from what sources are we talking about?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I read the closing statement, which I fully agree with, as being that the kind of speculative material proposed was strongly against consensus. However, the possible addition of an uncontroversial consequences section was not specifically discussed, and obtaining specific consensus on a fairly bland consequences section was not attempted at. I think they are two very different things, as I read it. I still strongly oppose any "what if" based section, but a straightforward consequences section as roughly proposed above by Dave S may be useful. As to opinions and sources, the devil is in the detail. Also how far the already existing Aftermath section already serves would need to be discussed. Aftermath could be reworked as an alternative to a separate section. Irondome (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath is a synonym of consequences, and we already have a well fleshed section for that. "Significance" seems to be the same old dead-horse. (Hohum ^@) 00:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I think current consensus would agree with that. I certainly do. Minor uncontroversial additions may be acceptable however. Irondome (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we have a section along the lines of Battle_of_Stalingrad#Significance which gives the evaluation by historians of the significance of Britain's winning the BoB. That is not quite the same as the aftermath. Several editors have supported this suggestion. The content will, of course, be decided by what is said on the subject by reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

As Hitler never had any intention of even attempting an invasion the battle was of zero consequence. (217.42.27.131 (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC))