Churchill and the Battle of Britain

When the Operation Barbarossa – the invasion of Russia – began, the Battle of Britain wasultimately over, the effect for the German Luftwaffe was dreadful; over 1.877 aircrafthad been destroyed . When ‘Hitler’s empire’ came to an end, there was a great lament overhaving lost all those machines and the Germans were unable to defend themselveseffectively against the allied air force. The great raids on Dresden and Cologne wouldnot have been feasible with a working German air force. The Battle of Britain was one ofthe most important battles in the history of mankind, even if we can only speculate aboutChurchill’s dismal predictions of a German victory in case of a British break down. Butit is a clear fact that without Britain as an operation territory for the U.S. troops thelanding at the northern part of Europe would have been much more difficult. The Red Armyprobably would have conquered the whole of Germany, and maybe the Cold War would havebeen much worse for Germany, Europe and the whole world. The Luftwaffe was weakenedessentially in this Battle, and the German achievements were made worthless. A directresult of Britain winning this fight was that the RAF gained superiority over great partsof Europe and thus had the possibility to attack the continental Europe from the air. TheGermans were neither able to prevent the allied side from landing in the north of France,nor to destroy the U.S. paratroopers which actually prepared the D-Day. Though most ofthe achievements can be attributed to the RAF’s pilots and the Dowding System in thiscombat, Churchill’s speeches were the foundations for the British will to defy the Naziterror strategy and finally win this war. Of course, the ability of holding greatspeeches, if it stands alone, is no prerequisite to win a war, but in this case it wasvery important because of the Nazis’ attempt to break the public’s morale by usingbombers to raid cities.

The origin of ‘Britishness’ – England’s fate
The Comission for racial equality defines Britishness as follow:
“Britishness wasassociated with political and historical achievements (the establishment of parliamentarydemocracy, empire and colonialism); technological and scientific achievements (theindustrial revolution, medical discoveries); sporting achievements (the invention of manysports); and 'pop' cultural achievements.”
It is a clear fact, that the Britishpeople are proud to be British, and in my opinion, this was a significant aspect inwinning the Battle of Britain. Since the Act of the Union (1707) the Kingdom of GreatBritain has existed, and since then the British fought many battles, they defeatedNapoleon at Trafalgar and Waterloo and the British Empire included over 20% of world’sterritory and population before World War I . Surely the British believed that they wereon the right side, or even more that they represented the good side. The Kingdom of GreatBritain never had been conquered, and the British public was not willing to let the Nazisbe the first one trying this successfully.
Looking at the poem “Rule Britannia” itis possible to recognize the parallels between the Battle of Britain, and this patriotichymn.

What do you think, are the British right to be proud of their country, isChurchill really some kind of hero, or is his role within GB's history more complex?
And do you think that the Battle of Britain was important in WWII?


Touch me, trust me
savour each sensation!
Let the dream begin,
let your darker side give in...

One of the most fascinating stories is how Herman Hess was enticed to fly,
unimpeded, all the way to Scotland at the height of the war when Germany was
actually winning. From that moment on Hitler went into a paroxysm of rage and
the tide of the war turned.

@gurdjieloins

I suppose I have heard about this story before, but why do youbelieve that this was the point Hitler and Nazi-Germany began to loose the battle? Canyou provide evidence of your information by a few links? I am extremely interested.

Hmmm....now you want 'evidence'? ;)

"After Hess flew to Scotland in 1941, manyastrologers, palmists, and mediums
were rounded up, as Hitler laid the blame forHess's 'dementia' firmly at their
feet. But some individuals remained in favour.)"review of "Unholy Alliance": P.
Lavenda - though, I believe, it was more a case of'delusion' rather than
'dementia'. There was no proof that Hess was insane. He liveda long life in
incarceration without any previous attempts at suicide, so it makesno sense for
him to have done so at such a late stage. For confirmation of the samefacts
from a different source see, "Secrets of Aleister Crowley": A. Crowley.

Hitler was considered 'psychic' which gave him an advantage, but once his
confidence was shaken with the Hess affair, the tide of the war changed. It was
psychic warfare that had left Hitler shaken in his own unquestioned confidence,
and the link that exploited his weakness was Aleister Crowley. Despite all the
other nonsense that is written about him, he was an unsung hero...in my
opinion!;)

Bad luck for the crauts, I suppose;)

The tide of war would surely have changedif the german high command persuated the "Führer",to commence Operation "Seelöwe" rightafter the british defeat of Dunkirk. Even better,if the Germans would have crushed thebritish expiditon corps there,instead of letting them escape.

@Obrien

You mentioned it would have been better if the "Führer"commenced 'Selöwe' right after Dunkirk. So my question for you is the following, what doyou mean using the term 'better' in this case? Better for whom or what?
And I don'tthink the situation was that easy. The British navy was for sure, strong enough to defeatany German try of an invasion.

Kikuchi