| Their Finest Hour? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 30 2011, 02:09 AM (402 Views) | |
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 30 2011, 02:09 AM Post #1 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I offer the following as an interesting devil's advocate argument re: Sealion and WWII. Given that Operation Sealion was a no-go from the start, we now understand that England was never really under serious threat of invasion in 1940. As that is the case, it would seem that much of the mythology surrounding the Battle of Britain is untrue, along with the attendant hyperboles of Churchill's speeches and the peak (as some of called it) of British national identity. "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few" does ring rather hollow when an alternative outcome to the BoB would not have resulted in the conquest of England. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jan 30 2011, 02:38 AM Post #2 |
|
Well I think had the BoB been lost things would have been much grimmer, especially from the perspective of an Englishman (or even, just as importantly, an American) in 1940. The war was only won when the US joined the war. Sealion in 1940 may not have been plausible, but the USSR was not in the war, and Britain did not know Russia or the US would ever would be (for according to Churchill, even he felt a great relief when the US in fact did, and, both of those actions, Barbarossa and Pearl Harbour, can be seen, to one degree or another, as something of a dangerous mistake) and with all of the German might was concentrated on Britain in time the threat could become very serious. Britain was never directly threatened only as her outer defences - one of those being air superiority over the Channel and England itself - remained intact. Had they not, things might have gone quite a bit differently. I do not subscribe to the theory that the Germans were invincible, but that does not mean it was an inevitable victory either. Things were very dire and almost over the edge, and I do not really consider much of what Churchill said as hyperbolic at all, if anything what he said was more accurate than people think. Don't discount the morale factor either. In many ways, it was the peak of our existence simply because all of our wealth, our empire, and most of Britain's future was willingly and unselfishly sacrificed for the greater good of civilised society against the threat of barbarism - when there was very little hope of success and only little sign of succour. This is something few nations or empires can claim, and that we would do it as a matter of duty without a second thought as a society, can only be admired. That we got ourselves in the position in the first place is of course reprehensible, but that does not make irrelevant the fact that, when realising what needed doing, we corrected our course, and, even if it looked as if it were half past twelve, we doggedly fought on hoping against hope that by doing so we might play a part in holding the monster long enough that the rest of the world would not be entirely unprepared, and that evil might, in the end, be vanquished, even if we ourselves were destroyed in the process. Simply put, there is only very few comparable situations in the broad bounds of history. In ways it was very much a culmination of all we had developed and stood for over the centuries, from diplomatic reasons (domination of the continent), to the defense of the smaller powers, to the basic battle between good and evil, right and wrong, Christian civilisation and barbarism. It would have been a fitting end, more fitting than what indeed actually was the end, but, to be sure, what is fitting is not always desirable. |
![]() |
|
| JBK | Jan 31 2011, 02:10 PM Post #3 |
|
I do very much admire Great Britain and the Soviet Union for saving us from Hitler. Edited by JBK, Jan 31 2011, 02:11 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Apr 23 2011, 06:08 AM Post #4 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
I missed this a while back. Essentially, it is working with the benefit of hindsight to a large extent. We know now the abject limitations of the Germans for a Channel Crossing, but much was unclear at the time. The complete supremacy of the Royal Navy was generally known, but the inability of the Luftwaffe to effectively attack capital ships or even cruisers was rather lesser known. The Battle of Britain was seen rightly as a turning point of the war, with the previously inexorable German advance completely halted. A different outcome would not have seen a successful invasion, but would have unlocked the door to it - given complete air supremacy, it would turn into a long term battle of attrition between the RN and mines, bombs, torpedoes and U-Boats. Most notably, it would have allowed a large part of the industrial heartland of Britain to be open for prepatory bombing. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Matthew puts it quite correctly, if characteristically romantically, when he says that everything was committed to the fight, including the future of the Empire. Rather than hyperbole, it was an accurate statement of what was being risked and what prices were being paid. It wasn't just the UK and Soviet Union who saved the world from Hitler, but a lot of other supporting players in the former case, and the small matter of the USA as an extra player. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Apr 25 2011, 02:59 AM Post #5 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Perhaps it would be best to split the challenge into two parts, one concerned with the finest hour and the other with collective debt. I think the point about not having a realistic assessment in hand at the time is well made, as it puts British defiance in perspective. Even if the battle was not quite the David and Goliath story it is sometimes made out to be, it demonstrates that the British were prepared to keep up the struggle, alone, regardless of costs or disadvantages. However, I am not convinced that a solid case has yet been made for the other half of the challenge -- that "never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." I am not saying I actually disagree with Churchill, but merely presenting the devil's advocate argument. His statement, so far as it relates to the BoB (few would question its applicability to the sum of British sacrifice in the war), must be either true or hyperbole. As for relying on hindsight, it certainly could be argued that hindsight is the historian's craft, his bread and butter. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Apr 25 2011, 04:33 AM Post #6 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
The second part needs to be viewed in the light of Churchill's rhetorical style, in the light of what he set out to achieve, and in the light of how he wished to present the British struggle to non-belligerent countries. It is not a zero sum equation; hyperbolic presentation of the truth was far from uncommon in wartime. Furthermore, if we look at the full context of the quote, both within the paragraph and in the whole speech, we can see exactly what is being said: "The gratitude of every home in our Island, in our Empire, and indeed throughout the world, except in the abodes of the guilty, goes out to the British airmen who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and mortal danger, are turning the tide of the World War by their prowess and by their devotion. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few. " It refers to gratitude for the sacrifices being made by the RAF pilots, and gratitude that these are successful sacrifices, creating a strategic victory. http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-of-winston-churchill/1940-finest-hour/113-the-few The full speech |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · History · Next Topic » |







2:40 PM Jul 11