English Histree

[Ban-jani]

Pedantic chat or proper reflection of historic fact. Everyone gets to choose which.
When you talk about Britain, do you mean the British Empire or the UK?

Well the UK in the European theatre in 1940, the Empire in the wider context of the whole war.

I think the argument you’re making is like me saying “City have been flawless for 16 games” and you replying “well no, they’ve conceded x amount of goals”. Whilst you’re strictly correct, the perception of the world is with me.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Well it's not the latter one but I don't know what you mean by "British exceptionalism" so can't say if that's accurate either.

You seem a clever fellow, equally capable of understanding the term British exceptionalism as I am, and for the record I'm not accusing you of that. Why would I, I dont know you and there is nothing you have said overtly which suggests it.

There is nothing to prevent you from saying more about why you would prefer 'alone' to 'with our allies' as a historical reflection of 1940 though.

For my part, I just think a truthful and accurate reflection of history is a very positive thing in a forward looking democracy.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

You seem a clever fellow, equally capable of understanding the term British exceptionalism as I am, and for the record I'm not accusing you of that. Why would I, I dont know you and there is nothing you have said overtly which suggests it.

There is nothing to prevent you from saying more about why you would prefer 'alone' to 'with our allies' as a historical reflection of 1940 though.

For my part, I just think a truthful and accurate reflection of history is a very positive thing in a forward looking democracy.

I think it gives a more faithful description of the situation at the time and how the people of Britain/UK would have been feeling. Those allies were brave people as were the British fighters BUT they were fighting for Britain's survival, not directly for their own countries (except those who came from occupied nations). If Britain fell, then Canada, Australia, US etc would still have existed (at least for a while). Of course they saw the bigger picture of why Nazi Germany needed to be stalled until firstly Britain could boost its supplies and then hopefully get support from the only other nation able to do that. Making it sound like there were many multiple forces at play at this point diminishes the feat to me and the nature of the threat.

 

[metalblue]

You seem a clever fellow, equally capable of understanding the term British exceptionalism as I am, and for the record I'm not accusing you of that. Why would I, I dont know you and there is nothing you have said overtly which suggests it.

There is nothing to prevent you from saying more about why you would prefer 'alone' to 'with our allies' as a historical reflection of 1940 though.

For my part, I just think a truthful and accurate reflection of history is a very positive thing in a forward looking democracy.

I think you’re missing the point of what it meant to “stand alone” in 1940 (and why it has stood the test of time as a truism - despite not being so in the literal sense of the phrase).

In 1940 Britain was the last credible nation refusing to accept fascism left in the old world. A rallying point for those likeminded individuals from both vanquished nations and those believing in the cause coming from the empire and commonwealth laying their lives on the line to save her. So Britain (the island) stood alone, the vanguard of the old world, the British didn’t.

And she was facing invasion. She needed men, she needed equipment but above all she needed time. Churchill had to stir both the nation and the empire/commonwealth, he needed to tap in to the psychology of “Britishness” (also felt in the empire/ commonwealth) and rouse the masses, but above all he knew he needed the US to get involved because they alone could provide the equipment and manpower to tip the balance.

So once the French capitulated this idea of Britain being alone in the war was born, and in reality not having allies to curtail to was a blessing, the country and the empire/ commonwealth rallied to the call. Churchill’s speech “fight them on the beaches” speaks of the collective. Not just the British.

This was the mindset of the time, I have a book published in 1941 that said the reason the RAF would be victorious against the Luftwaffe was because we played cricket and worked as a team whereas the Germans didn’t and were setup to allow their aces to score more kills at the expense of their fellow airman. True? Who cares it gave this nation a “fact” to hang on to in their darkest hour and some will have gone to their graves believing that is why we won the Battle of Britain. British exceptionalism they call it now? Like it’s something to be ashamed of? Well I won’t apologise for my grandparentsparents (and yours) having it wherever they came from in our hour of need - it was needed to defeat the Aryan master race.

 

[Saddleworth2]

I think it gives a more faithful description of the situation at the time and how the people of Britain/UK would have been feeling. Those allies were brave people as were the British fighters BUT they were fighting for Britain's survival, not directly for their own countries (except those who came from occupied nations). If Britain fell, then Canada, Australia, US etc would still have existed (at least for a while). Of course they saw the bigger picture of why Nazi Germany needed to be stalled until firstly Britain could boost its supplies and then hopefully get support from the only other nation able to do that. Making it sound like there were many multiple forces at play at this point diminishes the feat to me and the nature of the threat.

Those allies were brave people as were the British fighters BUT they were fighting for Britain's survival

In fact the British Empire and its retention was a central goal of WW2. Churchill referred to it many times.

The “we shall fight on the beaches” speech is Churchill’s prediction that if Britain “were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, would carry on the struggle”. And forgotten from the “finest hour” speech are the word’s directly leading up to those two, magical words, “if the British empire and its commonwealth last for 1,000 years, men will still say ‘This was their finest hour’”.

In fact, many of the pilots from our commonwealth allies believed they were fighting not only for GB but for their own (Canadian, Australian) security within the world.

Polish airmen played a significant role in the Battle of Britain and you recognise that they would have been fighting for the future liberation of Poland.
You might find this article of interest. It covers all nations that contributed to the Battle of Britain and I found it quite helpful.

Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Saddleworth2]

I think you’re missing the point of what it meant to “stand alone” in 1940 (and why it has stood the test of time as a truism - despite not being so in the literal sense of the phrase).

In 1940 Britain was the last credible nation refusing to accept fascism left in the old world. A rallying point for those likeminded individuals from both vanquished nations and those believing in the cause coming from the empire and commonwealth laying their lives on the line to save her. So Britain (the island) stood alone, the vanguard of the old world, the British didn’t.

And she was facing invasion. She needed men, she needed equipment but above all she needed time. Churchill had to stir both the nation and the empire/commonwealth, he needed to tap in to the psychology of “Britishness” (also felt in the empire/ commonwealth) and rouse the masses, but above all he knew he needed the US to get involved because they alone could provide the equipment and manpower to tip the balance.

So once the French capitulated this idea of Britain being alone in the war was born, and in reality not having allies to curtail to was a blessing, the country and the empire/ commonwealth rallied to the call. Churchill’s speech “fight them on the beaches” speaks of the collective. Not just the British.

This was the mindset of the time, I have a book published in 1941 that said the reason the RAF would be victorious against the Luftwaffe was because we played cricket and worked as a team whereas the Germans didn’t and were setup to allow their aces to score more kills at the expense of their fellow airman. True? Who cares it gave this nation a “fact” to hang on to in their darkest hour and some will have gone to their graves believing that is why we won the Battle of Britain. British exceptionalism they call it now? Like it’s something to be ashamed of? Well I won’t apologise for my grandparentsparents (and yours) having it wherever they came from in our hour of need - it was needed to defeat the Aryan master race.

I think that argument might hold some merit. Churchill also reflected that “were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, would carry on the struggle”. Which might suggest he acknowledged their ability to fight on even if the UK had been defeated. Of course Australia, NZ and Canada also declared war on Germany independently but around the same time as the UK.

Anyway, I'm happy that their is a recognition that the UK did not factually stand alone during the Battle of Britain even if that phrase understandably has made its way into the fabric of the nation.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

In fact the British Empire and its retention was a central goal of WW2. Churchill referred to it many times.

The “we shall fight on the beaches” speech is Churchill’s prediction that if Britain “were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, would carry on the struggle”. And forgotten from the “finest hour” speech are the word’s directly leading up to those two, magical words, “if the British empire and its commonwealth last for 1,000 years, men will still say ‘This was their finest hour’”.

In fact, many of the pilots from our commonwealth allies believed they were fighting not only for GB but for their own (Canadian, Australian) security within the world.

Polish airmen played a significant role in the Battle of Britain and you recognise that they would have been fighting for the future liberation of Poland.
You might find this article of interest. It covers all nations that contributed to the Battle of Britain and I found it quite helpful.

Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Think you're going in a totally different direction to the discussion now, regarding the 'empire'. It's what conquering nations try to do, hold onto their conquered lands, I wouldn't say it was a 'central goal', certainly not at the period we were discussing, I'd say survival was uppermost. The first quote you made would have been the rallying call that @metalblue referred to, and the second quote sounds like a reposte to Hitler's 1000 year reich speech from earlier, but I've never studied it.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Well the UK in the European theatre in 1940, the Empire in the wider context of the whole war.

I think the argument you’re making is like me saying “City have been flawless for 16 games” and you replying “well no, they’ve conceded x amount of goals”. Whilst you’re strictly correct, the perception of the world is with me.

No, I don't think that at all.

I certainly believe that there will be a national pride in Poland reflecting their contribution to the Battle of Britain.

'
On 11 June 1940, the Polish government-in-exile signed an agreement with the British Government to form a Polish Air Force in Great Britain. Finally, in July 1940, the RAF announced that it would form two Polish fighter squadrons: No. 302 Squadron and No. 303 Squadron were composed of Polish pilots and ground crews, although their flight commanders and commanding officers were British.[37] The two fighter squadrons went into action in August, with 89 Polish pilots. Another 50 Poles took part in the battle, in RAF squadrons.

Polish pilots were among the most experienced in the battle; most had hundreds of hours of pre-war flying experience and had fought in the Invasion of Poland or the battle of France. The Polish pilots had been well trained in formation flying and had learned from combat experience to fire from close range. By comparison, one Polish pilot referred to the close formation flying and set-piece attacks practiced in the RAF as "simply suicidal".[38] The 147 Polish pilots claimed 201 aircraft shot down. No. 303 Squadron claimed the highest number of kills, 126, of any Hurricane squadron engaged in the battle of Britain.[39]

Witold Urbanowicz of No. 303 Squadron was the top Polish scorer with 15 claims. Antoni Głowacki was one of two Allied pilots in the battle to shoot down five German aircraft in one day, on 24 August –the other being New Zealander Brian Carbury. Stanisław Skalski, became the top-scoring Polish fighter ace of the Second World War. With their combat experience, Polish pilots would have known that the quickest and most efficient way to destroy an enemy aircraft was to fire from close range, which often surprised their British counterparts: "After firing a brief opening burst at 150 to 200 yards, just to get on the enemy's nerves, the Poles would close almost to point-blank range. That was where they did their real work. "When they go tearing into enemy bombers and fighters they get so close you would think they were going to collide."[40] In all, 30 Polish airmen were killed during the battle.


Personally, I think that is worth reflecting in any discussion about the history of the Battle of Britain.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Think you're going in a totally different direction to the discussion now, regarding the 'empire'. It's what conquering nations try to do, hold onto their conquered lands, I wouldn't say it was a 'central goal', certainly not at the period we were discussing, I'd say survival was uppermost. The first quote you made would have been the rallying call that @metalblue referred to, and the second quote sounds like a reposte to Hitler's 1000 year reich speech from earlier, but I've never studied it.

Churchill did though.

 

[Ban-jani]

No, I don't think that at all.

I certainly believe that there will be a national pride in Poland reflecting their contribution to the Battle of Britain.

'
On 11 June 1940, the Polish government-in-exile signed an agreement with the British Government to form a Polish Air Force in Great Britain. Finally, in July 1940, the RAF announced that it would form two Polish fighter squadrons: No. 302 Squadron and No. 303 Squadron were composed of Polish pilots and ground crews, although their flight commanders and commanding officers were British.[37] The two fighter squadrons went into action in August, with 89 Polish pilots. Another 50 Poles took part in the battle, in RAF squadrons.

Polish pilots were among the most experienced in the battle; most had hundreds of hours of pre-war flying experience and had fought in the Invasion of Poland or the battle of France. The Polish pilots had been well trained in formation flying and had learned from combat experience to fire from close range. By comparison, one Polish pilot referred to the close formation flying and set-piece attacks practiced in the RAF as "simply suicidal".[38] The 147 Polish pilots claimed 201 aircraft shot down. No. 303 Squadron claimed the highest number of kills, 126, of any Hurricane squadron engaged in the battle of Britain.[39]

Witold Urbanowicz of No. 303 Squadron was the top Polish scorer with 15 claims. Antoni Głowacki was one of two Allied pilots in the battle to shoot down five German aircraft in one day, on 24 August –the other being New Zealander Brian Carbury. Stanisław Skalski, became the top-scoring Polish fighter ace of the Second World War. With their combat experience, Polish pilots would have known that the quickest and most efficient way to destroy an enemy aircraft was to fire from close range, which often surprised their British counterparts: "After firing a brief opening burst at 150 to 200 yards, just to get on the enemy's nerves, the Poles would close almost to point-blank range. That was where they did their real work. "When they go tearing into enemy bombers and fighters they get so close you would think they were going to collide."[40] In all, 30 Polish airmen were killed during the battle.


Personally, I think that is worth reflecting in any discussion about the history of the Battle of Britain.

I completely agree with on that point.

My entire point is that on the world scale, the narrative at the time and now is that in Europe, it was only the British state opposing the German state, which is true, whilst there was help from elsewhere.