Battle of Britain
Introduction
Battle of Britain was the aerial conflict between British and German air forces in the skies over the U.K in which the RAF defeated against the German Luftwaffe in southern England in an attempt to eliminate Nazism. The battle was very important as this time as Germany tried to crush the British fighter power by targeting the air fields, if Germany had won this battle than Britain would have been wide open to German attacks with little resistance The battle took place from July to September of 1940. The myth of the battle was the importance of the pilots and these 'few' saved the world from Nazism, but was the pilots the sole reason for defeat? Could the importance of radar, spitfire, and great leadership from Dowding contribute to it? Whatever the reason, this battle certainly had a long-term significance and it re-shaped the outcome of the 2nd world war.
What was the popular interpretation and why did it become so quickly established during the early part of the war?
All of the early interpretations of the Battle emphasize greatly on the popular myth i.e. the battle saved civilization from Nazism and the brave few pilots who fought in them, and without those pilots the battle wouldn't have been won. From my knowledge I know that well over 500 soldiers died in this battle, this suggest that there is a core of truth in the myth of the battle.
Interpretation 2, a speech given by Churchill in the summer, the message talks about the popular myth, i.e. saving the world from Nazism and the 'few', I think the purpose of the message is for propaganda, and was an effort to boost morale, and maintain peoples beliefs, and keeping the spirit up, as the speech was given during the battle when the outcome was not yet known. At this stage I know that Churchill was fairly new as prime minister, so this speech was properly used to also to boost his leadership. Churchill cleverly mentions America, which was an attempt to draw them into the war, it was a form of emotional blackmail, especially as Churchill was half American, so he had strong tides with America. There are many strength to this interpretation, it was a speech by the prime minister, so it must've been well informed, and also making it an eyewitness account as he was witnessing the Battle at that time. However, the greatest strength is the use of Propaganda, as this was very effective at the time and people were inspired by the speech and Churchill clearly reached out to his audience very successfully. However, on the other hand, there are many weaknesses to this interpretation. The interpretation itself is very biased, as it is a form of propaganda; it is also very nationalistic, showing the importance of Britain in this battle. The key weakness in this interpretation is the fact that it is very selective, Churchill talks only about the Christian civilisation, not mentioning other religions and nationalities who fought in the battle, i.e., the Jews. He doesn't tell us about the casualties, the damage done by the bombing and the raids and how close Britain was to defeat, (24th Aug-6th Sept).
Similarly interpretation 3, a book entitled 'The Last Enemy' by Richard Hillary also shows the popular myth, particularly stating the importance and the heroism of the pilots and how their sacrifice won the war. This interpretation was published in 19472, after the battle, when the outcome of the war was unknown. I think the main purpose of this book was for propaganda use, it creates strong sympathy for the pilots, and also to boost morale, showing there is hope to beat evil. It also portrays Germany as a villainous country compared to that of Britain The content of the book is very heroic, probably wanting more people to get involved with the war, it was certainly very nationalistic in its tone, in order to maintain peoples morale. In terms of its strengths, it's an eyewitness account of what happened. The extract itself is very open and personal, making it an emotional piece; therefore there is no point in lying. Because of this emotional content, it is very effective in reaching its audience and getting people to understand what the pilots went through. However one of its main weaknesses is the fact of personal aggrandisement and is glorifying himself, because he has been injured very badly, he wanted to say that his sacrifice was important, which is his way of coming to terms of what had happened. This interpretation lacks judgement, it's written immediately after the war, so the perspective was still very bitter and emotional.
Interestingly, interpretation 4, a Newsreel of the 1940, reinforces the popular myth; it demonstrates the desperation and hardship of war. Again, the main reasons for this is for propaganda, and it is designed to re assure people about what's going on, although dramatic, but accurate which will reach out to its audiences and shows real fights between Britain and Germany, its also an attempt of justifying the hardship of the war. It is based on a British assessment of what was going on, and the government must have worked closely with the film. The main strength of this is the fact that unlike many early interpretations, in shows the reality of the war, its produced at the time so it has a real authenticity of what's going on, therefore making it accurate. However its completely biased, it project what British people wanted to see i.e. showing only German aircraft being shot down, and the upbeat nationalistic tone of the film portrays Germany in the worst possible light. Because of propaganda, it gives a slight distortion to the myth. It is a very simple one-sided account of what happened and does not mention the causalities, only German ones.
Interpretation 5, an article from the Daily express, in published in 13th August 1940, which was during the Eagle attack when the situation was really bad for the British. The message conveys the evilness of Nazism and how this magnificent battle will determine the outcome of the war, and it's the brave few who made the greatest sacrifice. The obvious reasons for this message is for propaganda use, to encourage war effort at such a crucial period, to boost peoples morale, keeping the spirit of the people up and overall trying to sound positive. This is what the ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Interpretation 5, an article from the Daily express, in published in 13th August 1940, which was during the Eagle attack when the situation was really bad for the British. The message conveys the evilness of Nazism and how this magnificent battle will determine the outcome of the war, and it's the brave few who made the greatest sacrifice. The obvious reasons for this message is for propaganda use, to encourage war effort at such a crucial period, to boost peoples morale, keeping the spirit of the people up and overall trying to sound positive. This is what the people wanted to hear, perhaps this is the reason for this interpretation, and it's very upbeat in its tone. The glorifying of 'the few' who made a great sacrifice encourages the nation to join the war effort. The article also sounds very isolated, and nationalistic, as if Britain is the only country defending against Nazism, and perhaps it's appealing for American help. There is also a clear link between the paper and the government, i.e. Beaver brook, who was Churchill's friend and the owner of this newspaper; he was the minister of Aircraft Production. There are many strengths to this interpretation. It revels the mood of this time, as it's partly an eyewitness account, which shows how the popular myth was conveyed to the people, thus making it very effective in reaching its audience. This interpretation extremely knowledgeable and well informed as this newspaper has a good link with Churchill, i.e. Beaver brook. However, this would make the article very biased as Beaver brook is Churchill's friend and together, they are boosting the war effort, and providing a one-sided view. This article was probably for propaganda use, as it is not a straight article of events, this is also demonstrated by the fact that it doesn't tell you the causalities and doesn't express how desperate the situation were for Britain at this time of the Eagle attack. This article is also very exaggerated, it dramatises the role of the pilots in order to get through to the reader, i.e. using poetry.
Interpretation 6, a wartime poster, produced after the battle, 1940 but before the outcome of the war was known. The message that is put across is the pilots essentially won the battle, and the battle was in order to save the world from Nazism. The poster confirms all of the other wartime interpretation. The main purpose of the message is that it symbolizes the sacrifice of young pilots, which seems to more effective in targeting other pilots, as youth is of these young pilots would encourage other pilots to join with the war effort, and other pilots could relate to them. This therefore makes this poster a propaganda source, although this poster was made after the battle was won, but there was a long way to go before the war is won. This other reason for this poster is perhaps to show how isolated Britain was at this time, as the poster only shows young British pilots. There are many strengths to this poster, i.e. it's a very effective piece of propaganda which will inevitably encourage people with the war effort, it is produced by the government, therefore making it well informed, however most importantly it is factual and it contains a core of truth to the myth, as we know that pilots sacrificed their lives for the war. However, this poster is highly selective and biased as its is for the purpose of propaganda, because of this it is very selective, showing a view of the battle and its very nationalistic. However most importantly, it is very palatable, and avoid showing the reality of the war, which was very different, therefore making this poster highly sanitized, i.e. talks nothing of the causalities, making the war sound clean and pure, because of the selectiveness of the poster, it fails to mention other factors which contributed to the victory of the battle, i.e. the invention of radar.
Why do these early interpretation all say the same thing?
I think the main reasons are, it need to boost the spirit of these people, especially during the Eagle attack, it had to encourage war efforts, and if mentioning ht causalities, or any aspects of defeat, people would be resistant to join the war. All of these interpretations reflect the moods of the people and therefore they are also afraid to upsetting people, seeing the time was so close to the war, especially to the people who got injured, pessimistic messages would be hurtful, and most importantly disrespectful for the families who lost their kids through this battle. As the battle was so close to home, the battle needed to be won, and morale, needed to be maintained, I have noticed that all of the interpretations express the battle as fighting against evil. These interpretations are clearly a part of an orchestrated propaganda effort, and that all these interpretations coincide with each other, i.e. the mail say the same thing as Churchill. Despite these reasons for the message, all of the interpretations I've looked at has got an inescapable core of truth to them and does reflect what happened during the battle.
Why have later interpretations of the Battle of Britain not always followed the popular myth?
The later interpretations all tended to express different views about the battle, and they all began to question the myth.
Interpretations 7, article in the newspaper Daily Graphic produced in 1944 and interpretation 15, an article written for A level students produced in 1997, both interpretations were produced when the outcome of the war was certain or near enough, and both interpretations are suggesting other reasons which contributed to the victorious battle.
In interpretation 7, it puts forward a different view although at one element it conveys the popular myth, i.e. the few, and saving civilisation, on the other hand it introduces other factors which contributed to the success of Britain, it mentions the importance of radars and for the first time ever it mentions Sir Hugh Dowding and how his great leadership also contribute to the success of the Battle. The main drastic reason for the change of opinion is the interpretation were written quite a long time after the war, i.e. 4 years therefore it would be less offending if the truth were written. However although written about 4 years after the battle, people were still quite sensitive of the issue, whilst the battle has been won, people were still dying during this period, and memories were still fresh in peoples mind, so therefore this interpretation cant go too much off the track, whilst mentioning the pilots, it slightly begin to bring in other factors that may have contributed. This interpretation is fairly truthful and correct as it was written for a popular newspaper, it was also written fairly close to the event, and it should be well informed. Most importantly, it considers a wide range of facts, which contributed to the success of the battle, therefore making this more balanced. However, on the other had its very biased, its very nationalistic in its tone, and it's a piece of propaganda, catering for an audience.
Similarly, interpretation 15, an article for A-level students in particular suggests strongly that Germany never intended to invade Britain, and as a result the battle was a hoax. Germany never seriously intended to attack Britain and the battle was a diversion for the later attack on Russia, this interpretation doesn't mention the few, and basically saying the myth is a myth. The reason for this opinion is because it was written so long after the war-1997 and was produced at a less nationalistic time and could say what he wanted, because people didn't care, especially as it is aimed at a very young A-level audience, who have no connection of the battle. Because of the substantial time gap between the battles, this interpretation could be reached be the result of new evidence and research on the battle. The other reasons for this message is because, this information has to fit into a short space on the article and as a result it had to be made interesting and controversial. This interpretation is unbiased, as it was written from a British perspective, yet it admits the Battle was insignificant. It's a learn age piece if work, i.e. for A-level purpose and therefore has to be historically sound. However its key weakness is the fact that it ignores the sacrifice of the pilots and therefore not making it balanced in this sense.
Interpretation 10 is from Churchill's memoirs in 1959. The message that its conveying is the fact that although pilots won the battle, Churchill at this time after being prime minister is starting to recognise that Hitler wasn't bothered about the defeat of Britain and that he had his eye on Russia, whom thousands died as a result. The reason for this message is because it was 20 years on, and he could be more open in what he was saying without the need of upsetting people. At this time he no longer have the responsibility of waging against Germany, and most importantly he wants to set the record straight. He is still staying loyal to the British people by mentioning the importance of pilots at the end. 20 years on, Churchill would have done a lot more research to draw his conclusion. Although this is a memoir and Churchill would want to place himself in the best light possible, and although this is very one sided and showing only his view of the battle, this interpretation is far more honest and open than anything he has said during the 1940's. The reason fro this is because he is not prime minister any more.
Interpretation 11, the film Battle of Britain 1969, it shows the significance of the pilots and at the end of the film it pays tribute to the pilots. It also demonstrates that this was a very important battle, as if the Germans were defeated. The reason for this message is for entertaining people and its what the audience would want and like to hear. At this period the importance of Britain had gone down, this film could remind people the power of Britain. 30 years on, it could be thought that it was a fitting time to pay tribute to the soldiers. Although this interpretation is very nationalistic, one sided and thus showing only one perspective of the battle, it is actually quite well informed and links with what we know. Overall it's an interesting representation of the battle.
Interpretation 8, a book by J.R.M Butler, entitled Grand strategy 1957, and interpretation 9, also a book written in 1957, by David Thomason, entitled Europe. Both of these interpretation are starting to question the myth, interpretation 8 is saying that the battle wasn't as important as initially thought and Germanys main target was Russia. The main reason for this message is because its written at a later date, when the outcome of the war was known and there is more evidence gathered to give an overall view of what happened. Having said that, the message still doesn't deviate too much from the truth, in case of upsetting people. The strengths to this interpretation is that its an official account, therefore it must've been well informed, however because its an official account its going to be very biased, showing a one sided view of the battle
Similarly interpretation 9, it's daring to say that Germanys main interest was Russia, and Germany wasn't serious with Britain, he actually admired the British Empire. However, the interpretation cannot dismiss everything about the pilots, seeing its only 15 years on. Therefore this is a comprise interpretation, showing both sides of the argument. The reason for this message is because it serves for a dual purpose, one audience is aimed at the students, saying Russia was more important and the other is aimed for the British public as a whole, whom probably want to hear that the pilots were most important. This interpretation is quite balanced, very well researched, from a well-known knowledgeable historian. There is also more evidence at this time to reach a firmer conclusion. However, the historian has got to get the information on Battle of Britain in a couple of pages, making this a general piece of history, so overall its quite a brief interpretation. Its also directed at a British public, therefore there is probably an element of biasness.
Interpretation 12 is a German account of the 2nd world war, and its main message is that the Battle of Britain wasn't important, and there is no mention of Britain throughout his account. He does however mention Russia as their main interest, and mentions the intervention of U.S.A. The main reasons for this message is that it's written for a German audience, and possibly doesn't want to admit defeat in Battle of Britain. The main strengths the this interpretation is that it's a non-British point of view of the Battle, and that it's a balanced interpretation as it mentions and recognizes defeat against America, when they intervened. Often, history is written by those who won the war, but this is written from a losing point of view. However, it's not a detailed, but a general piece on the war, but overall its very telling in what it does and doesn't say.
Interpretation 13, an introduction to a book entitled 'Fighter' written in 1977 by A.J.P Taylor, a famous historian. The message for this battle, similar to interpretation 8+9 is that the Battle was a 'small affair' and that Hitler didn't have any intention in invading Britain and Germany didn't see the defeat as a massive setback. A.J.P Taylor is also saying that without the aircrafts the battle couldn't have been fought, i.e. not the heroism of the soldiers. The reason for this message is that by this date, it is published a long time after the war; therefore people are less sensitive to the issue and thus less likely to be offended. This book may be an attempt to provide a much more accurate account of the Battle, rather than the simplistic pilot version. This book is written by an excellent historian, and perhaps he wanted this message to be different so that it would attract a wider audience and would buy the book. Bearing in mind that this is an introduction to the book, not the book it self, it would want the readers attention and make a controversial view. Most importantly, this message is appropriate to the book, and it ends with the pilots. This book is probably written for a specialized audience and therefore it comes up with this message. The strengths to this interpretation are that it's quite balanced, looking at both sides of the argument. It is well researched, and because it's a later interpretation more evidence could be gathered to reach this conclusion. It is also well informed, as it was written by a famous historian. However, it's an introduction to the book, and probably wants to attract attention, and making this a bit biased.
Why are the later interpretations different?
All the later interpretations began to question the myth. The reasons for this is they are all written some time after the war, when the people are less sensitive to the issue, and therefore the interpretation could be much more open in what it says, without the need of upsetting people. These interpretations are written for a different audience, perhaps a younger generation, when they have no direct link to the battle. There is also more evidence gathered at this stage to produce an overall view of what happened. The other reason for this message is that it's written in different forms, i.e. some are novels, film, and other autobiography etc.
What is your opinion of the popular myth and what is your interpretation of the battle?
My view opinion of the popular myth is that there is a great view to and the myth contains a core of truth to it.
I think one of the most important factor that brings out the core of truth to the myth is the training and the risk these pilots had to take when fighting, especially those inexperienced pilots, whom training shortened to a couple of weeks as oppose to a year still carried on fighting knowing that they are at a greater risk of facing death, this factor took guts and great determination, and unfortunately, this inexperience would show and reflect the number of causalities lost. The desperation and determination in beating Nazism for such inexperienced pilots makes the achievement even greater.
Having said that, I believe other factors like A.J.P Taylor said in interpretation 13, the production of Spitfires also contributed to the battle and that victory wasn't due mainly to the single factor of 'the few'. The power of organisation and leadership cannot be undermined. Lord Beaverbrook for example, a newly appointed minister for air production began to turn things round by reorganising airplane production and repair units, which proved vital in winning, there is Dowding, chief of fighter command, whom encouraged the development of radar, which was a great advantage to Britain as it meant it could track the German raids more efficiently, thus destroying it at a faster rate. I think all these factors intertwined together makes up the building blocks for the myth. Without the invention of Spitfires, the pilots would have nothing to fly in, without the training programmes the pilots would have been killed in seconds, without the strategic plan and encouragement radar from Dowding, the battle would probably have been lost. Therefore overall, although there is an element of truth to the myth about the pilots, I believe all these factors together are essential in winning the battle, and without any one of them, the outcome of the battle would've been different.
As to the battle, so often considered not such an important piece of history, especially to the Germans i.e. interpretation 12, but I think the battle was very important for the British, if least, it was a psychological victory for them. It took sheer gut, determination; true fighting spirit, and organisation for them to become victorious and the death of pilots a marks this victory. The battle certainly had long-term implications for the Germany, and although again, there is a core of truth to the battle i.e. how Britain saved the world form Nazism, but I don't think compared to war, the battle was significant. The 'insignificant' factor has been revealed by several of the later interpretations, and this opinion cannot be ignored, i.e. interpretations 8,9,10,12,13,15,and 16 all suggest that Germanys main interest were of Russia. I think the battle was even though by regarded as of much importance for many countries later on, I think at the time it was a psychological victory for Britain. Lives were lost in that battle, no one can fault that, and it was Britain first ever attempts in destroying Nazism and I think every one should bow their heads just for that.
