This essay will consist of a number of Interpretations some agreeing with the popular myth that the Battle of Britain was won "by the few" and the second part of the essay will be why Interpretations written after the battle do not follow the myth.

Battle of Britain

Craig Umbleja 11r

Battle of Britain

Introduction

This essay will consist of a number of Interpretations some agreeing with the popular myth that the Battle of Britain was won “by the few” and the second part of the essay will be why Interpretations written after the battle do not follow the myth.

In July 1940 Hitler offered a negotiated surrender. Which consisted of Britain being allowed to keep their empire. The Germans considered this very generous considering after World War I, Britain, took all Germanys colonies off them. But the proud Winston Churchill turned the offer down and Britain prepared to be the next victims of blitzkrieg. The South coast of Britain was deserted, with road signs being taken out. Cars and oil barrels where placed in fields to prevent enemy planes landing.

With the U.S.A still not playing an active part in WWII, and all of Britain’s Europeans allies crippled, Winston Churchill was left alone to fight the Nazi onslaught. It was clear that air superiority was going to be a key part in the Battle of Britain. If the Nazis managed to gain the air superiority over the English Channel that would be leave the nazi boat the freedom of the water and an Invasion of Britain would inevitable. But if the R.A.F managed to keep control, of the skies, the Germanysnavy would become under heavy fire, and with a high risk of many ships being lost Hitler would probably not risk the heavy loss, and he would divert all his focus on the to invading Russia.

Part 1

What Was The Popular Interpretation And Why Did It Become So Quickly Established During The Early Part Of The War?

In this part of the essay I will be evaluating the Interpretations that are from the early part of the war that agree with the popular myth. All theses sources where produced during the time when the battle was taking place. The popular myth during the battle of Britain was that the Battle was won by the few and that Britain winning the battle would save the rest of the world from Nazism. The prime minister spoke about both of the popular myths in his famous and Nationalistic speeches,

“If we can stand up to him, all of Europe will be free”

“Never has so much be owed to so few”,

The popular myth was established due to propaganda. However there is some truth in the myth The Germans, who had 1,100 fighters, out numbered the Royal Air Force who had 850 fighters. But Britain had a Jewel in the crown with the spitfire, which was the best of all fighters.

Interpretation 2. Is extracts from two famous speeches made by Winston Churchill. In the first paragraph he builds up emotion by mentioning Dunkirk. Churchill is trying to boost morale by saying,

“We will win” and “We will save the world from the Nazis”

By saying this it makes the public feel confident that Britain would be victorious and also it makes the jobs of the Military especially the R.A.F. seem more valuable. The strengths of this source are the Prime Minister has all the information available to him so his facts should be accurate, the speech shows me how propaganda works. Also the Prime Minister is the pillar of the country and he should be relied upon to tell the people of Britain the truth. However the weaknesses of the speech are Churchill states the Battle has been won even before it is over. The speech is also very biased towards Britain. he wants to boost the morale of the public and the military. Churchill is being very nationalistic. This speech is part of propaganda so facts are exaggerated to favor Britain. Churchill says that,

“British pilots are turning the tide of the War”

This quote is an example of propaganda, he is exaggerating how important the Battle of Britain and the pilots were to the outcome of the War.

Interpretation 3.This interpretation is extracted from a book by Richard Hillary a pilot who was fighting against the Luftwaffer. The book “The Last Enemy” was written whilst the pilot was recovering from horrific injuries, which were sustained whilst fighting the Germans. In the book he states that the pilots of the R.A.F. won the Battle of Britain and the British pilots were heroic people fighting against evil. I feel he is writing the book to try to put across the significance of the Battle to the people of the time, because he feels if Briton lost the battle the world would have been conquered by the Nazis. Also I feel he is trying to justify to himself why he suffered such horrific injuries, by saying the battle was so important it makes him feel like he got injured fighting for the survival of the world as we know it.

The strengths of this extract are that it is primary, first hand evidence from someone who actually experienced the Battle of Britain. Because he experienced the battle he is able gives an insight into the emotions of the pilots during the turbulent times of the battle.

The weaknesses of the interpretation are that it is a one-persons account of the Battle and because he was involved on the battle and lost friends during the war, so his view may be affected by emotion so he may omit key facts. Richard Hillary was injured during a large part of the battle so his book omits a lot of information. He is also affected by propaganda an example of this is,

“It is a battle between good and evil”

This was a popular slogan used by the British Government during the time of the war. He will also ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

“It is a battle between good and evil”

This was a popular slogan used by the British Government during the time of the war. He will also be biased against the Nazis due to the amount of pain and suffering they inflicted on him and his fellow R.A.F. pilots.

Interpretation 4.Is about newsreels that were screened at cinemas across the country, they where produced by the British government to inform the public of the Battle. The newsreel shows R.A.F. spitfires shooting down a lot of Luftwaffer. The newsreel says how heroic the British pilots were beating the Nazis against all odds. The newsreel creates a patriotic feeling by playing British orchestral music in the background whilst the clips are being played. The strengths of this piece are that the source is primary evidence therefore all the facts are fresh and have less chance of being misinterpreted

The weakness of this newsreel, are that the clips where part of the propaganda used to boost the morale of the British public. Bits of information maybe omitted or exaggerated. The newsreel is biased towards Britain, it only shows Luftwaffer planes being shot down and omits R.A.F. planes crashing.

Interpretation 5. Is an article extracted from “The Daily Express” August 13th 1940. The article would have been edited before it went on sale the editor would be biased towards Britain so facts that make the British Military look bad maybe left out. This article confirms the Battle of Britain myth,

“A few young men”

The paper encourages people to join in with the war effort. It pleas for men to join the home guard. The article is boosting the morale of the public it says that a few young men are beating the Nazis.

The strength of this extract are that the article is based on facts realeased by the British Government. The article also reflects on the public’s attitude towards how well Britain is doing in the Battle. Also the extract is primary evidence so all the facts are clear and not misinterpreted by the journalist.

The weaknesses of the article are that the paper is biased towards Britain omitting facts that make Hitler’s men look good. The paper is also very nationalistic and sensationalizes the part young British men are playing in the war,

“Young men whose heroism stirs the heart and thrills the imagination”

The paper is part of propaganda and his stirring the emotion of the public. It is trying to get them involved in the war.

Interpretation 6.Is a poster, which was put up all over Britain during WWII as part of propaganda. The slogan,

“Never was so much owed by so many, to so few”

Was extracted from one of Winston Churchill’s speeches. The British government as a part of propaganda produced the poster. It confirmed the popular myth. The poster shows pilots smiling, they look like they are enjoying the war, this makes the public think that the R.A.F. are beating the Nazis easily with very little casualties. The poster shows that the morale in the R.A.F. is positive the government produced the poster to encourage people to join the R.A.F.

The strengths of the poster are that it is based on facts. The poster is primary evidence and is a very persuasive.

The weaknesses of this interpretation are that is very biased towards Britain, it gives only a British side of view. The poster is also propaganda so it may miss out important facts and exaggerate facts, which favor the British.

Interpretation 7. Is written by Sir Arthur Bryant a very popular and patriotic British historian. The piece was written in 1944 with the Battle of Britain over but World War II was still in progress. Therefore he is still surrounded by the myth, he writes what people want to hear that is why he is so popular.

He wants everyone to remember the Battle of Britain. The article is supremely confident because with the war in its final stages he knows that the allies are going to become victorious. This enables him to be cocky towards the battle of Britain. This a piece of propaganda it misses out the bad points of the battle, therefore it is very one side and pleasing on the eye for the British people.

He has the benefit of hindsight that previous interpretations didn’t. This peace gives him the chance to be patriotic; he also shows his genuine sadness for all the people that died during the battle of Britain.

He is a respected historian therefore he should be relied upon not to be biased. He also has the benefit of hindsight; he can actually put the battle of Britain into perspective. He is also less affected by propaganda because the article is written 4 years after the event.

However I know that this particular historian is very patriotic and therefore biased towards Britain so he may omit facts that make the British military look bad. He is also very popular with the British people because he only writes good things about the British, therefore this piece is very one sided.

The popular myth was that the Battle of Britain was the turning point of the war and “the few” saved Britain and the rest of the world from Nazism. The myth spread so quickly due to the British governments propaganda machine going into over drive. Churchill may an endless amount of passionate speeches, saying,

“If we fail the whole world, including U.S.A will sink into the abyss of a new dark age”

Such comments like this from the always optimistic and Nationalistic Churchill mad people think that if Britain won the Battle of Britain the Nazis would soon be defeated and the war would be over. There were also many posters, newsreels and radio shows produced by the government thanking “the few” for saving the world. Posters were quickly put up all over Britain with slogans quoted from Winston Churchill,

“Never was so much owed by so many to so few”

Slogans like this imbedded into people’s minds that the heroic R.A.F. pilots whom the Germans outnumbered, beat them against all odds. The myth came around so quickly due to government putting a lot of effort into the propaganda. They did this to keep the spirits of the British people high during desperate times. Spreading this myth also encouraged the pilots of the spitfires to work harder because they believed that if they beat Hitler’s men they would be heroes because they saved the world from Nazism.

Why Have Later Interpretations of the Battle of Britain Not always

Followed the popular Myth?

In this part of the essay the interpretations do not follow the popular myth that the Battle of Britain was won “by the few” and Britain winning the battle turned the tide of the war. All these essays were written after the wall so they had the advantage of hindsight, which the interpretations in part one did not have. The writers of each interpretation were able to look at the facts of the whole war and decide how important the Battle of Britain was. They all come to the conclusion that the Battle had little out come on the war.

Interpretation 8. Is a book “Grand Strategy” written by J.R.M. Butler, an historian in 1957. The government authorized the book as the official history of WWII; therefore the book should have all the facts. Because the book is written in 1957 therefore the author has the advantage of hindsight and he can put the battle of Britain into perspective.

He reveals that Britain was not the key objective in Hitler’s plans. Hitler wanted to invade Russia. Russia was his main priority; he would have rather made Britain agree with the negotiated surrender. Butler also says that the Battle of Britain had a very little effect on the outcome of the war. Hitler was not that disappointed that the Nazis were unable to capture Britain.

The book is written to inform other historians and students the facts of the Battle of Britain. This book was not written for the general public, and therefore he does not have to be sensitive on the issue of casualties during the war.

The writer has all the facts of the British government available to him therefore they should be accurate. He also has the advantage of hindsight; he can look back on how the battle of Britain affected the war.

The weaknesses of this piece are the writer is getting his information from a biased source, the British government. Also his book is not specifically on the battle of Britain so he may not go into great detail about certain parts of the battle.

Interpretation 9.Is a book “Europe Since Napoleon” written by a popular Cambridge historian David Thompson. His book became a very successful and well know textbook.

The book was released in1957 so he has the advantage of hindsight and can put the Battle of Britain into perspective. He also has all the facts available to him, however the book is covering a lot of historical topics so detail on the events of the Battle of Britain may be thin.

The book is factual and gives people and account of the war. He states that Hitler was occupied with plans to take over Russia, but he still kept bombing the United Kingdom and especially London during the Blitz. He also said that the Luftwaffer would have to control the skies for the invasion, Operation Sea-Lion to be successful. Thompson states that the R.A.F. superior fighter planes the spitfire and radar systems were the main reasons behind them defeating the Luftwaffe.

The book was written to educate people of the events that happened during the battle of Britain, there is no need for propaganda. For the book to sell it has to be interesting so it may wash over some facts

Even though this historian is British he does not seem to be biased, he can put the battle into perspective. He has all the facts available to him. The book is used as a textbook for students. He is a respected historian so I expect this interpretation to be reliable.

However the book is not specific to the Battle so the author may not go into great detail about the battle of Britain and some facts maybe glossed over.

Interpretation 12. Is a book called “From Germany’s Past” written by a German Klaus Schulz and published in 1971.This particular historian is writing from the side of the Germans and he gives a common German view point, that Hitler should have never broke the German-Russian Agreement. He feels that Germany invading Russia in 1941was a mistake. The Germans were halted just outside Moscow and Schulz considers this as the turning point of the War .He omits the Battle of Britain completely and he does not consider it important to the out come of the war. This book was written in 1971 long after the war had finished so the writer had the advantage of hindsight. He has written this book to get across the common German viewpoint that losing the battle of Britain had no outcome on the war. The strengths of this piece are that the book is written from the losers’ perspective and gives me a different type of view on World War II. He is an Historian therefore he should be reliable. He also has the advantage of hindsight and is able to look at the outcome of the war before deciding were the turning point of the war occurred. He is also able to look at a wide range of information. The weaknesses of his book are that the book is a general history book and is not specific to the war so he may omit a number of facts. He may also be biased towards the Germans. He may not want to admit the fact that the allies beat the Germans; he would rather say that Germany lost the war through one bad decision from Hitler.

Interpretation13. This interpretation is extracted from an Introduction to the book “Fighter” written by A.J.P. Taylor and published in 1977.Taylor is a popular British historian. The book was written in 1977 so Taylor has the advantage of hindsight. He is able to look at all the facts before passing judgment on whether the Battle of Britain was important to the outcome of the war. Taylor message is that the battle of Britain was a small event and had little outcome on the war. He is says that the Germans did not take the battle seriously. He also mentions how important Dowding was to the British winning the battle. He is writing this book to show that the myth is not true that Britain winning the battle of Britain turned the tide of the war.

The book is written thirty years after the war so there is no need for propaganda or sensitivity to the number of men Britain lost during the battle. However the weakness of this piece are that Taylor wants to make and impact on the readers’ sensitivity.

Interpretation 14. Is a book called “We Remember the Battle of Britain” and is written by Johnnie Johnson and published in 1990. Johnson was a pilot in the battle of Britain so he was involved in the war. He says that the battle was won due to the high moral of the pilots and the good leadership that Dowding and Churchill gave them. He has written this book so future generations remember the Battle of Britain. He is writing down his recollections of the Battle. He also says that it was the operation that saved Britain from the Nazis. The strengths of this interpretation are that he has the advantage of hindsight he is able to take all the facts into consideration before making a decision. The source is primary evidence so there is less chance of facts being misinterpreted. Also even though he was a pilot in the battle he is not entirely biased towards Britain. The weaknesses of the book are that it is one person’s account of the battle and also the book is based on personal recollections, so Johnson may have forgotten important facts.

Interpretation 15. Is an article by Christopher Ray entitled “The battle of Britain-her finest hour or Hitler’s greatest hoax.”. It was published in 1997 in the “History Review” intended for “A” level students. It was written in 1997 and therefore has the advantage of hindsight. He says that the battle of Britain was just a smoke screen for Hitler’s interest in Russia. He wrote the article to educate students. He is also an up and coming Historian and is trying to make a name for himself. The strengths of this piece are that he is writing his article in hindsight, therefore he can take in all the facts before deciding how important the battle of Britain was to the outcome of the war. Also there is no need for sensitivity because the article was published fifty years after the battle. Also the facts should be reliable because the book is published to educate students.

However he may want to be controversial because he wants to get himself known. Also he may be Nationalistic and therefore a bit biased towards Britain.

The interpretations in this part of the essay do not agree with the myth because they are not affected by the governments propaganda because they have written their pieces years after the war. Also the writers have the advantage of hindsight, were they are able to take in all the accounts of the war and decide whether the battle was important or not. Most of the historians decided that Hitler was not really concerned with the outcome of the battle, he was concentrating on planning the invasion on Russia even if it was against many Nazi generals wishes. Historians felt that’

“Britain was a smoke screen, for Hitler’s plans to invade Russia”

Hitler invading Russia and breaking the treaty turned out to be a decisive factor in the war. This invasion in 1941 and also the attacks by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor encouraged U.S.A. to join the war. From then on the allies grew stronger and stronger and Hitler’s troops slowly retreated and defended the German Capital Berlin. These interpretations do not agree with the myth because they have all the facts available to them and they are not affected by the passionate speeches, posters and newsreels put up over Britain during the time of the battle.

What is my Opinion of the Popular Myth And What is Your Interpretation of the Battle?

After reading though these interpretations and accessing their strengths and weaknesses I have come to the conclusion that the popular myth,

“The few”

Is not the sole reason why Britain was victorious against the Nazi. I believe the main reasons why Britain won the Battle of Britain was due to Britons superior radar system, the fact they had a better fighter plane and the Nazis decision to stop bombing the air fields in the south of England and bomb London.

Robert Watson Watt had developed Britons radar system in 1930s. It was an effective system of radar across the South Coast, which alerted Britain to approaching Luftwaffe. Under the leadership of Sir Hugh Dowding the R.A.F. used this vast amount of information quickly and effectively. This system was of vital importance of winning the Battle. The R.A.F. had the best fighter plane, the spitfire. It was far superior to the Germans Messer Schmitt 109s and 110s. The Spitfire was very fast and very maneuverable, it was able to increase and decrease its speed and turn more rapidly than others. A key factor was also Gorings decision to stop bombing the airfields in the South East of England. On the 24thof August 1940 the Luftwaffer began a round o’clock onslaught on to British air bases for two weeks. It almost brought Britain to its knees. The R.A.F began to lose many planes and pilots and airfields such as Hornchurch and Biggin Hill were crippled. There were only two fields left and the end of the siege. However on the 7th of September Germany changed tactics and began to bomb London in retaliation to the R.A.F. bombing Berlin. This tactical error saved the R.A.F. and in the end cost Hitler the Battle of Britain. However some parts of the myth are correct. Young and somewhat untrained pilots did take the skies and even though they were out numbered by the Luftwaffer, they were victorious.

There is also another myth that was broadcasted in Churchill speeches that,

“If we stand up to him all of Europe will be free, and the World may move forward into broad, sunlight uplands.”

The other myth was that Britain saved the world from Nazism by winning the battle of Britain. However I do not fully agree with this myth. I feel that the Battle of Britain had very little impact on the outcome of the war. Britain could not do anything against Italy and Germany alone and they needed help of either Russia or U.S.A.I feel Hitler’s decision to break the German-Russian agreement and invade Russia was when the war turned in favour of the British. America finally joined the war after being bombed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. Hitler had made a mistake he could not fight a war on three fronts against three of the world’s major powers. America and Britain attacked fought Germany from the west and Russia continued fighting in the east. The tide had eventually turned. As the allies grew stronger and stronger, Hitler’s army got weaker and weaker in May 1945 with Germany captured the war was over. The interpretations that back up this view are 8, 9 and 12 these interpretations state that the outcome of the war was not affected by the Battle of Britain.

However I do feel the Battle of Britain was important to the war The interpretation that agree with my point of view that the Battle of Britain affected the outcome of the War is interpretation 3. Even if Hitler considered the Battle to be a smoke screen of his plans to invade Russia It gave the British army a much-needed boost of morale after the events of Dunkirk. It also showed that Hitler’s army could be beaten. If operation sea lion were victorious than America would have struggled to help the Russians. The Americans could not have traveled across the Atlantic to invade Europe. The U.S.A needed Britain as a base. Without it the Allies would have struggled to win World War II.