The second interpretation is an extract from Richard Hillary’s book ‘The last enemy’ 1942. He wrote this book in the long months of his recovery from the terrible injuries, which he received as a pilot during the Battle of Britain. The general message is that the British Pilots are heroes and being a pilot is difficult. He is also making the Germans sound bad he also confirms the idea of ‘The few’. He may have written this book to justify his injuries, and to justify the killings of both British and Germans. After all he is a pilot and he wants to tell his story. He says that pilots had months of training, but I know from my own knowledge that some of the pilots had only two weeks training at the height of the battle. He may want to simply remind/confirm the significance of the battle of Britain to the public and to future generations. This book should be quite reliable because it is a very popular book, one of the best books about World War 2.
The interpretation is first hand, therefore it is primary data. He gives an insight into the pilot’s feelings. This interpretation helps us to understand why the myth spread so quickly, because when Hillary died his book became a best seller. But his book could be biased because he is British, another reason for him being biased could be because he is injured therefore he may be demoralised because he went through a dramatic experience so this will affect the way he writes and his reliability. He also may be nationalistic and his book could be used as a form of propaganda, after all it is only one person’s account and only a few pilots got hurt in such a terrible way.
The next interpretation is a number of newsreels. They would have lasted for about ten minutes. They were very popular with the public because they were the only source of moving pictures. The message of these newsreels is to show the nation how they are winning. Some of the phrases used in these newsreels were ‘hurtling to their doom’, ‘two hundred enemy planes destroyed’, ‘we are winning’ and ‘victory is in our hands’. These short clips are a form of propaganda, because they boost morale and encourage people to help in the war effort because some parts of the clips show the damage the German’s had done e.g. destroyed buildings. These clips also confirm the myth by mentioning ‘The few’ who are ‘winning’ the battle for air superiority. They are very nationalistic, because these newsreels have been made by British people. This is a very easy way to spread the myth between the nation, because these clips are a good way of getting through to the people.
The clips are bound to be biased, because the newsreels co-operated very closely with the Ministry of information, which was in charge of government propaganda.
The next interpretation is an extract from ‘The Daily Express’ newspaper on August 13th; this was at the start of the battle, when the outcome of the battle was not known yet. Newspapers were very popular, because they were one of the main sources of news. This newspaper confirms the myth ‘a few young men, outnumbered at least 3:1’. This newspaper encourages everyone to do their bit in the war effort and it boosts morale. The newspaper makes the public nationalistic, it also encourages people to join home guard, this is reinforced what is shown in the newsreels. The newspaper has to attract an audience therefore has to reflect public opinion. At the end of the day the newspaper is trying to sell and make money. The newspaper has all these messages because its editor is Lord Beaverbrook, who was a good friend of Churchill, and this will affect the reliability of the newspaper and what Churchill wants is written in the newspaper e.g. the myth. This is a good way of spreading the myth. The good thing about this newspaper is that it encourages British men to help in the war effort, also it is very persuasive. The newspaper is written at the time and spreads the myth, it contains facts and should be well informed, because Churchill tells Lord Beaverbrook what to put n the newspaper. But it is a newspaper after all, so it wants to make money, so it is biased, sensationalized and most newspapers exaggerate. The newspaper is used as a source of propaganda for the public. Also the newspaper does talk about fighter pilots, but it does not say how much they were. I know from my own knowledge that there were 1,500 pilots at the start of the battle.
The last interpretation that confirmed the myth was a wartime poster, this poster appeared all over Britain in the months following the battle. Churchill probably guides the poster, because once again this poster reinforces Churchill’s myth about ‘the few’. The pilots look happy, proud, smiling and looking at the sky meaning they are looking to the future. This poster suggests that the Battle of Britain was a great victory. The blue sky and the fluffy clouds in the background indicate happiness. The way the camera is angled at them makes them look tall and strong. It also gives a sense of security for the people knowing that these pilots have been protecting them. On the poster after Churchill’s well know phrase it says ‘the Prime Minister’ this is so that the public will believe the poster because they trust the Prime Minister. The poster boosts morale and it is a good form of propaganda also it backs up the myth. It is like a recruitment poster, it encourages more men to join the R.A.F. and they will be proud like the men in the poster. This poster helps us to understand why the myth spread so quickly, although the poster was put up after the battle. The poster is biased, nationalistic. Also this poster appeared after the battle on Britain when the outcome of the battle was known, at the end of the day they did win the battle of Britain.
From evaluating all the early interpretations above we can say that the myth could have been part of a propaganda campaign to keep the nations moral high and to convince the people that they are wining, although they were very near to defeat at one stage, when the Luftwaffe constantly bombed the airfields and the radar systems which were very vital for the British at this point Britain was on it’s knees, but the Germans did not relies it and it turned its bombing on London, which gave Britain enough time to get back on it’s feet.
Evidenced above in the interpretations that I have studied we can see that the myth was spreading very quickly through posters, newsreels, newspapers, radio, books and Churchill’s famous speeches. Everyone alive at the time believed the myth because it was always there, the people kept on being reminded of it, they were not aware of what was really going on because the Churchill and the government made sure that the people did not hear the truth, this was easily achieved by them because they controlled all the forms of media. There was no reason for the nation to not believe what they constantly saw and heard. The myth was ‘the few’ young brave pilots that saved the world from Nazism and that the end part of the war, when the outcome was know it was ‘their finest hour’.
Part 2
Why have later interpretations of the battle of Britain not always followed the popular myth?
Towards the end and after the battle of Britain the outcome of the battle was known-the British have won. People’s ideas started to change about the battle and the myth started to fade away. Before the myth was used to convince the nation that they were wining and to keep their and the pilots morale high, but now since Britain is going to or has already won then the myth is not needed. Later interpretations do not totally disagree with the myth, but they make other facts more clear (that were not mentioned in the earlier interpretations). The later interpretations say that the radar systems helped the British win the battle, they mention Dowding (leadership), they make it clear that the British planes were better than the German planes, they notify the German mistakes and they also say that Hitler only wanted a peace treaty with the British not an invasion and that Hitler wanted to invade Russia (operation Barbarossa)
The first interpretation that I will look at is a few extracts from an article, written by Sir Arthur Bryant in the ‘Daily Graphics’ in 1944, in the final years of the war, when it was clear that the British were going to be victorious. He still mentions parts of the myth that is ‘the few’ and that the Allied troops saved the worlds freedom, he also mentions the ‘flawless training of the R.A.F.’, this is not part of the myth but it is stated in some earlier interpretations. He mentions Dowding and says how he could not defeat the enemy. He says that the British plans were better than ‘anything the Germans had produced’ which I know is true. Lastly he mentions the radar systems in an in direct way. All of these were not mentioned in the earlier interpretations.
He has mentioned all of the above so that his article appeals to its readers. Maybe he wrote this article for propaganda, but this is unlikely because the outcome of the battle is known and there is no need for propaganda. This article should be quite reliable because it is written by a historian, meaning that his writing should be well researched, but he had very traditional and patriotic views and was not afraid to include his own personal views in his writing of history, which makes his writing unreliable because some of the things he says may only be his own view of what happened, also he is nationalistic and biased because he is British, and therefore he probably would have exaggerated, although by reading some of the things he has mentioned, we can see that he has done good research. He has the benefit of hindsight, which means that he could look back at the earlier war events.
The next interpretation is by J.R.M. Butler in 1957, this was after the war, when the government authorized the official history of the Second World War and invited distinguished military historians to write a book. This interpretation shows how the British had success. It mentions that Hitler was defeated, but he did not intend on invading Britain, he really wanted to invade Russia. Hitler’s plan was that when he invaded Britain and crumbled the British morale, he would then go on to ‘operation Barbarossa’ which was a codename for the invasion of Russia and then he would go on to invade the rest of Europe. But Hitler underestimated the British and it was a German mistake.
He had this message because firstly there was no needs to mention the myth know that the war is over. Therefore there is no need for propaganda. This means that the book is quite reliable. This book is written by distinguished historians, meaning that these historians are well known. Also having more than one historian write a book means that the book has been well reaserched, well informed, specific and detailed, although the book is based on the whole of the second world war. Also the book is by military historians only, so maybe they will leave some un-military information out, for example on morale. As well as this the book is authorized by the government and he is an official historian, which affects its reliability, although the information seems to be usefull** because if the book contains something the government is not happy about, the historians will be asked to take this information out.
The next interpretation that we meet is a book called ‘Europe since Napoleon’ written in 1957, by David Thomson. This book does mention the myth ‘a few hundred young fighters. He also mentions Churchill’s famous phrase ‘Never, in the field of human conflict, was so much owed by so many to so few’ which is part of the myth.
This interpretation shows us that Hitler wanted to compromise peace with Britain, but Hitler became distracted by thoughts of invading Russia. This interpretation also points out the fact that the radars helped the fighter planes by telling them when the Lufwaffe was coming. This shows that the radar systems played a very important role in bringing the British to victory. This interpretation tells us that it was not only the British pilots fighting for Britain. There were men from other nations ‘Dominion, Czech, Polish, Belgian and French’ but I know from my own knowledge there are more, there was quite a large number of fighters from New Zealand and Canada. There were fighters from**.
Because the book is written for students (and the public) we would expect the book to be quite reliable and useful and to have done good research. But it seems that this book is not very heavy on facts. Although we can see that the author has given a balanced story (for students) also he has the benefit of heinsight, so he can look back on the whole event.
The book was written some 17 years after the battle, this is when people started to recognize that Hitler was more interested in Russia. I think that this interpretation tries to get the facts right and to show people that Britain was insignificant, but Russia was more important. But this does not mean that he does not support Britain, because he confirms part of the myth and describes the British fighter pilots as being brave.
This book is popular, well recognized and balanced. I know that this book is not a source of propaganda because there is no need for propaganda anymore. This book is well read by pupils. Although the book is written about 17 years after the battle, so people from the time of the battle are still alive. This maybe why he mentions part of the myth, to keep his popularity up and make these people, that still remember the battle, buy his book because the things in this book (myth) is what they believe in and want to hear. But this book is broad, because it is based on the history of Europe, from 1815-1950s, so it is a general book, not based on the battle of Britain, this means that some important facts maybe missing.
The next interpretation is by Winston Churchill, called ‘Memoirs of the second World war’ written in 1959. In his piece of writing Churchill complements Lord Beaverbrook. But I noticed that he still does not mention Dowding. This was because he did not agree with him on many things. I know from my own knowledge that Dowding alienated Churchill. Although Dowding played a significant role in the battle. Churchill does mention part of the myth, ‘their finest hour’, he also brings other facts in e.g. about the increase of plane production. He gives the people that helped on the ground (observer corps) more importance. He tells us that the Germans had mistakes which was to turn their bombing to London (this is what differs from the earlier interpretations). He mentions the anti-aircrafts and says that they gave skillful and ever-ready support to the air fighters.
Churchill mentions these facts partly to be more popular, because by mentioning the people that helped in the Battle, in this way he is thanking them and they will like this. He maybe simply preserving his memoirs of the war for later references. By mentioning the battle all the time, the people would remember the Battle and remember Churchill as being the ‘great war leader’ of this amazing Battle. I noticed that this book is very different to his speeches in the 1940’s, which were totally about the myth, this is because there is no need for a myth any more. This Interpretation is well reaserched; because as well as being the Prime Minister, Churchill is a historian therefore his writing should be well informed and detailed. He has the benefit of hindsight and the war is know over, so there is no need for propaganda, which makes his writing more reliable. Although it is one sided and it is self-glorification for Churchill. Also he writes what the people want to hear. He is biased towards his friends and mentions little about Russia, which shows that the Battle of Britain was a turning point in the Second World War.
The next interpretation is very different to all the other interpretations. It is a film, named ‘The Battle of Britain’; this film was made in 1969, about 28 years after the Battle. This is a very long time after the Battle, but many people from the time of the Battle are still alive, therefore the myth is partly indicated by ‘the few’ (film mentions that the British were always short of pilots) because this is what the people from the time of the Battle would want to hear. The film shows Dowding (who wants the troops to stay at home), the radar system and the German mistakes. These three factors are the main part were this interpretation differs from earlier interpretations, because it is showing these factors that helped the British win, it was not only the myth. The film shows us that at one point the British were on their knees, they were loosing, they really did need a miracle. The film is very dramatic and gives a great impact to the viewer (that there is no chance of the British being victorious), but then came the German mistakes, which was to start bombing London. Also other pilot nationalities were mentioned, Australian, Czech, Polish, New Zealand and Canadian. The film show us that some pilots only had around 7 to 10 hours of training time in an aircraft, I know that this was true.
The film stared very well known British actors, which made it very popular. Which was good for the producers, because the main thing they wanted from making this film is money. So the film maybe sensationalized, to make it more interesting to attract viewers. The film producers had the benefit of hindsight, so they could look back on all the events. The film was not used for propaganda campaign because there is no need also not a lot of the myth is mentioned, because by now other factors apart from the myth that made the British win. I think that the film was made just to show the people not alive at the time what really happened and to show the nation that despite the difficulties they still came out victorious. There was good research put into the making of this film and it is reliable because it is based on the Battle of Britain. There is no need for sensitivity because people know the other factors that made the British come to victory (not only the myth). The kind of music used in this film makes it sound nationalistic. The film is biased towards the Allied troops.
The next extract interpretation is an extract from a book called ‘ From German’s past’ written by Klaus Schulz, (he is a historian so we would thing that he is reliable), in 1971, many years after the Battle. Schulz says that German troops had great victory at first and he names all the countries they had invaded in just two years. He says that the Germans had the upper hand, when America entered the war, and this was the main turning point of the Second World War. The extract mentions Hitler, but nothing about the Battle Britain, this maybe because they see it as not very important, or they may only want to remember their victorious side of the Second World War.
This extract was written to show people that Germany was on its way to winning. He says that the invasion of Russia was a mistake, but he does not mention other mistakes that Hitler did (e.g. turning to bomb London). He does not mention the myth because the myth is British. The only thing that does differ from earlier interpretations is that he says that Hitler wanted to invade Russia. This interpretation is by a German historian, so he tells us the other side of the story, which is important, but he probably knows nothing about the myth (but he does have the benefit of hindsight). This book is a general book about Germany. So firstly it is not based on the Second World War and secondly it is not based on the Battle of Britain. It shows other parts of victory for the Germans in the Second World War. This book is nationalistic and biased, it is not balanced because it is one sided. It has nothing mentioned about the Battle of Britain, although this Battle is very important. This extract is from a loser’s point of view and is not detailed; therefore it is insufficient and not useful.
The next interpretation is written by one of the most known and respected historians. A.J.P. Taylor in his long introduction to a book entitled ‘Fighter’ by L. Deighton, 1977. Taylor mentions Dowding and he says the Dowding knew what he was doing. He says that a practical Operation ‘never existed’ and that the invasion was never taken seriously. And that a direct attack on Britain was not considered because Hitler believed that Britain would agree on a peace treaty and if it did not it would soon surrender. Hitler had underestimated the British. Also Taylor says that Hitler mind was set on the invasion of Russia. He says that the aircrafts were very important in the Battle, he says that with Germans amazing aircrafts, they ought to have won, but they did not, so this shows us that the British air force was better than the German Luftwaffe. All the above factors are the things that differ from earlier interpretations. Also other factors that Taylor mentions was that the Germans did not know what they were doing because Operation Sea Lion was a rushed affair. Also Churchill’s famous phrase is mentioned, which confirms the myth of ‘the few’, this maybe because this book was written about 37 years after the Battle and people still remember it. An important factor for writing this book is that there was no need for propaganda and he has the benefit of hindsight. Another reason maybe to be controversial and to attract lots of readers, to keep his popularity going and to promote himself. He is nationalistic because he is British. This interpretation is not all his thoughts because he is only introducing someone else's book. We do know that he was the best-known British historian of the second part of the twentieth century. This writing is reliable and useful.
The last interpretation that I am going to evaluate is an article entitled ‘The Battle of Britain-her finest hour or Hitler’s greatest hoax’, by Christopher Ray, in ‘history review’ March 1997, written for A-level students. As a historian writes this article we would expect it to be reliable and balanced for students. The students were not there at the time of the myth (no need for mentioning of myth) plus Ray is a lecturer at Birmingham University; this tells us that his work must be researched. Attacking Britain fooled both the British and the Russians into thinking that Hitler was after Britain, when, in reality he was planning an invasion on Russia (operation Barbarossa), ‘camouflaged under a blanket of deception’-he could have invaded but he did not. This interpretation does differ greatly from earlier interpretations. It does say that the myth was alive, but it does not agree with it.
He writes this articles to keep the memory of the Battle of Britain. He shows other sides of the story, because there know is no need for the myth. There is no need to be sensitive, because the students reading this article were not around at the time of the Battle. But there is a bite of exaggeration and the article is sensationalized, maybe to get the magazine to sell also he may want himself to become popular and well known. This article is well researched and because it is for students it is balanced. It is also reliable because the author has access to the latest research. The article is not biased; it simply gives a different point of view.
Overall the later interpretations do not totally disagree with the myth, but they do not mention all of it. They mention Dowding. They mention that the British aircraft was better than the German, they mention the German mistakes, they show that Hitler only wanted a peace treaty with Britain and that he had planned on invading Russia (operation Barbarossa)
What is your opinion of the popular myth and what is your interpretation of the Battle?
I think that the myth was partly true because it was ‘the few’ brave young fighters and it is true that the British troops were outnumbered by 1:4. I also that it was ‘their finest hour’, because it was at the end of the Battle when they knew that they were going to win. But I think that the myth was exaggerated because I do not think that the whole of the world was saved from Nazism all thanks to the Britain. I think other countries that were involved also stopped Hitler e.g. America. The myth was a propaganda campaign by the government (because Britain looked likely to lose against Germany), for a number of reasons:
- To increase the morale of the public and to reassure them that the war was going well.
- To make the public realise that the pilots have played a role in defending Britain, and so should they.
- To boost the morale of the pilots, to make them think that they were winning even though they were outnumbered.
- Makes people want to believe they are winning even if they are not.
The people believed the myth because it was all around them (on posters, in radios, newsreels, in newspapers and in Churchill’s famous speeches) and they constantly heard it. Also the government was in control of all the means of media, so they only showed/told people what they wanted the people to see/hear.
Later interpretations differ from earlier one (how-mentioned above in part2) because know the outcome of the Battle is known- the British have won. The German side of the story was being hared, they were written not for propaganda, they are aimed at different people e.g. students.
At the early stages of the war all they wanted to do is to distract people with the myth, they did not care about anything else. But when the war was over, historians only then had the benefit of hindsight and only then did they realise other factors that bought Britain to victory e.g. radars.
Also I think that Hitler had not really intended on invading Britain, he really wanted Russia but when Britain rejected the peace treaty made him angry and he also used the Battle of Britain as a cover up of his secret planning of an invasion on Russia (operation Barbarossa). Also he admired the Britain, whose empire he believed powerfully reinforced his ideas of racial domination.
The help o all the other nations pilots helped win the Battle, because the British were already outnumbered. The nations that sent their fighter were, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, South African, Southern Rudician, Irish, American, Polish, Czech, Belgium, French and Israeli.
All the factors that were mentioned above helped the British win the Battle of Britain.