Churchill's Finest Hour Speech - June 18, 1940

[Smithy]

There was no miracle, no danger that Sealion would succeed in spite of "what ifs" about German air supremacy, and the RAF could have easily pulled it's a/c out of range of German day fighter range, licked it wounds and come back whenever it wanted.

As I said in the BoB book thread Sealion was a threat that Hitler did not want to undertake but a threat which he wanted to keep on the table to exert pressure on Britain.

The RAF pulling aircraft back behind London was exactly what Goering wanted. This would have given the Luftwaffe free range to conduct operations over the Channel, disrupting the vital convoys arriving, and to bomb the southeast of Britain at will. It would have been very hard to maintain public support for the war if the southeast was being bombed without check.

Just saying "the RAF could have easily pulled it's a/c out of range of German day fighter range, licked it wounds and come back whenever it wanted" shows that you really haven't read much about the BoB at all. It's a factor which is mentioned in virtually every serious narrative on the subject.

 

[Kitty_Sheridan]

To be honest chas, I think you're just being deliberately provocative and if this was a topic about the (incredibly) few Americans in The Battle of Britain this would have been locked or cleaned up by now.

I don't appreciate your comments and if you have an opinion on our brave young men and women of the RAF I'd prefer it if you kept it to yourself.
Never had a cross word with anyone on this forum in many years of being on here, but you are teetering very close to the edge.

 

[Spitfire]

Bravo Kitty Sheridan. You said exactly what many of us think. Thank you.
:eusa_clap

 

[Chas]

Nothing I have said is inherently disrespectful to anyone. As long as I maintain the ROE of the forum, which I have, I am allowed an opinion.

But you can breathe easy, because you cats aren't military history types who can debate with any degree of skill or without getting your tender feelings hurt. I am done with the BoB, at least in this particular web forum. For stimulating debate on military subjects, I will have to look elsewhere.

You bore me.

 

[Spitfire]

There's debate and there's repeating oneself.
You did that in the BoB book thread - no matter what everybody else posted, you just went on and on.

And now you just do it here again - without even bothering to listen to the speech, which to your information, is NOT about the few.
But - hey - who cares? Not you obviously.
Here's your chance of repeating yourself....and upset some people.

You are bored, you say.
Well, the feeling is mutual.

 

[Smithy]

I am allowed an opinion.

Yes you are, and even if it's a particularly badly informed one.

But you can breathe easy, because you cats aren't military history types who can debate with any degree of skill

Haha that’s bloody rich (but also highly amusing)!

Every single point you made in this thread (and the BoB book thread as well) demonstrated what an appallingly poor knowledge and understanding of the BoB you have.The reason why you can’t debate with us “cats” is perhaps more due to the fact that virtually every single post you made contained either erroneous information or a terrible understanding of what little you actually know about the BoB and so your posts were vigorously replied to and argued with.

Your comments regarding 12 Group and the RAF retreating aircraft to the north (which are very basic and well known subjects) were perfect examples of how little you know and how you must have read virtually nothing about the BoB.

I’d suggest that the one who was not debating with any skill was you. Don't expect that you can just post rubbish and people will just let it go. That's why your posts were attacked and picked apart. Helps to actually know a thing or two about a subject if you want to make sweeping statements about it.

More and more you come across as a troll rather than someone who wants to discuss a topic, especially as you have next to no knowledge of the subject. Seems you are more concerned with trying to start a shitfight (funny how quick you were to bring the ROE up eh?).

You bore me.

Well I can't say you thrill me terribly much either.

 

[Zemke Fan]

Listen up, fellas...

The name calling (e.g. troll) and the profanities, be they outright or disguised have got to stop. The rest of the spirited debate can continue, but when it gets repetitious and obnoxious, it will be brought to an end. And, that could be pretty darn soon...

Short leash. Got it?

 

[KilroyCD]

You bore me.

If that isn't the height of arrogance, I don't know what is.

Let me say that your take on the Battle of Britain is what I refer to as revisionist history. The 70 years that have passed since the Battle have allowed you to base your opinions on little more than speculation. Speculation that you find plausible because time has allowed the urgency of the event to wane. Without that urgency, all of what you put forth is out of context with the reality of the time.
Because 70 years is a lot of time to be able to reinterpret (and misinterpret) facts, what you say might make sense to some (you). But if you had espoused those very same ideas during the war people would have thought you were off your rocker.

 

[Smithy]

Fred, the thing is that this is not the first time Chas has tried to belittle the contribution of the Few. Despite demonstrating that he is not even particularly knowledgeable about the BoB or even using well based arguments, he persists in attempting to depreciate what the Few achieved.

What makes this even more suspicious is the fact that Chas got very steamed up about revisionist views of WWII and revisionism in the ”American Atrocities” thread. Yet he posts his very revisionist ideas here. His blatant double standards raise questions of his motives for posting his (albeit badly formed) revisionist comments about the BoB.

There are many myths about the BoB (victory claims, the ease with which Germany could have invaded, etc, etc) yet despite these the fact remains that a relatively small group of airmen fought a vicious engagement against a numerically vastly superior enemy, and one which had swept Europe before it.

This year is a special one for BoB enthusiasts being the 70th anniversary and the contribution that the Few made to the struggle against tyranny and Nazism is one to be celebrated. I realise that most of the members here are American and so for many the BoB is probably of little to no interest to them, but one does have to ask what the response by other posters would've been if someone had repeatedly posted (and with obvious little knowledge or without well formed arguments) comments belittling the efforts of the AVG or even the 8th Air Force.

The Few. Lest we forget.

 

[Zemke Fan]

Smithy...

I'm NOT a BOB expert. My own interests lie with the US airmen who flew with the RAF either in Europe or North Africa. I do, however, share you opinion that this was indeed one of the clear turning points in WWII. I'm simply asking you guys to refrain from smacking each other around quite so maliciously.

 

[Chas]

In your opinion, Smithy. Revisionist as you put it is intended as an insult to anyone who questions your assumptions and claims. At no point during the discussion have you tried to make a point other than to claim that I know nothing of the BoB. That too, is an assumption on your part.

Your claims that I belittle the contributions of the few is a smear tactic, an ad hominem attack that you substitute for debate. It is a fallacy, and I challenge you to produce a single statement that I have made that is openly insulting to anyone.

The study of history is a dynamic process that changes over time. It is not for those who lack the courage or intestinal fortitude to question their own assumptions. There are a number of historians that question the myths of the BoB, and my views are not singular. At no point have you provided any solid backing for your repeated claims that are intended to support your views. So I'm still waiting for your deep and complete knowledge of the BoB to present itself.

I have provided in my arguments which I believe are carefully considered and cogent claim that the BoB was not a military turning point. I am still prepared to present this claim and to support the position. If the reader chooses to be insulted and upset, rather than to consider the points I present and make some sort of counterargument to the contrary, that cannot be claimed to be my fault.

 

[Smithy]

I thought you said you were finished with discussing the BoB here Chas.

At no point during the discussion have you tried to make a point other than to claim that I know nothing of the BoB.

Wrong. I've also corrected many things which you have posted which were incorrect. Two for example were: your lack of understanding of why 12 Group were not involved earlier in the Battle; and your naive assumption that "the RAF could have easily pulled it's a/c out of range of German day fighter range, licked it wounds and come back whenever it wanted". Both of which didn't make you look terrible knowledgeable about the BoB.

It is a fallacy, and I challenge you to produce a single statement that I have made that is openly insulting to anyone.

I never said you insulted anyone. Show me where in this thread I said that.

What I said was that your comments were an attempt to belittle the Few. Statements by you such as:

"the claims that "The Few" saved Britain is something of an unintended slap in the face to the men who died in the RN, RCN, USN and the Merchant Marine in that five-year battle.

and

"Except that there was never a "few". It was more correct to refer to them as "the quite a few"

...are attempts by you to denigrate the contribution of the Few. And the last one was particularly telling considering the speech that the whole thread was about wasn't even "the Few" speech.

The study of history is a dynamic process that changes over time. It is not for those who lack the courage or intestinal fortitude to question their own assumptions.

If that's a fact that you believe so strongly in, then why did you get so upset with revisionist views in the "American Atrocities" thread?

There are a number of historians that question the myths of the BoB, and my views are not singular.

I never said your views were singular. What I posted were responses to erroneous information from your posts and very badly argued positions for your views.

 

[Chas]

re: "Except that there was never a "few". It was more correct to refer to them as "the quite a few"

How do you distill denigration from that comment? I was commenting on the speech. I consider that statment on Churchill's part to be embellishment.

...are attempts by you to denigrate the contribution of the Few. And the last one was particularly telling considering the speech that the whole thread was about wasn't even "the Few" speech.

No, that statement was made to support the assertion that the Battle Of The Atlantic was the decisive contest in the west, not the BoB.

If that's a fact that you believe so strongly in, then why did you get so upset with revisionist views in the "American Atrocities" thread?

That's a different thread. Irrelevant to the discussion regarding the importance of the BoB, Churchill's speeches, whatever. Is that supposed to be an attempt at psychoanalysis?

It is my position, among others, that Fighter Command was too well led to be destroyed, and that claims that Fighter Command was on it's "last legs" are false. Not only that, RAF command and control allowed it to choose it's engagements when and where it chose.

Here's another article written by a BoB veteran: I call your attention to.

Numbers alone in warfare confer no advantage. - Sun Tzu.

 

[Smithy]

re: "Except that there was never a "few". It was more correct to refer to them as "the quite a few"

How do you distill denigration from that comment? I was commenting on the speech. I consider that statment on Churchill's part to be embellishment.

Well apart from the fact that this thread was actually about the 18th June speech not the 20th September speech which was the one that mentioned the Few. Wrong speech Chas.

No, that statement was made to support the assertion that the Battle Of The Atlantic was the decisive contest in the west, not the BoB.

Well if that's not an attempt to belittle what the Few fought for and went through I don't know what is.

That's a different thread. Irrelevant to the discussion regarding the importance of the BoB, Churchill's speeches, whatever. Is that supposed to be an attempt at psychoanalysis?

No because I don't believe in that mumbo-jumbo.

What is obvious is that you will entertain revisionist ideas about topics that you don't really care that much about but you'll be the first one to jump up and down with disgust if it's about something that you do believe in.

The ideas of geese and sauces seem to shout loudly here.

Chas I am more than willing to discuss the BoB with anyone, I'm just not prepared to have half-truths and untruths posted as fact or to have specious arguments rallied as concrete universals.

It is my position, among others, that Fighter Command was too well led to be destroyed, and that claims that Fighter Command was on it's "last legs" are false. Not only that, RAF command and control allowed it to choose it's engagements when and where it chose.

There is no doubt that Dowding, Park, et al did a brilliant job and that the command and control structure did weigh heavily in Britain's favour. What is misleading is to say that they could not lose.

It might also be better if you start quoting from actual published sources rather than weblinks, a lot of which are complete bunkum and don't sometimes hold a lot of water. One can find sites to support any old idea on the net.

 

[Chas]

How do you distill denigration from that comment? I was commenting on the speech. I consider that statment on Churchill's part to be embellishment.

Well apart from the fact that this thread was actually about the 18th June speech not the 20th September speech which was the one that mentioned the Few. Wrong speech Chas.

Okay. I see that. Next time I'll start a new thread, perhaps entitled "The Few Were Really The Quite A Few". One point to you.

Well if that's not an attempt to belittle what the Few fought for and went through I don't know what is.

It isn't. I could, following your reasoning, claim that the assertion that FC alone saved GB denigrates the men lost in the Battle of The Atlantic. I don't believe that it was, so I don't. I just happen to believe that the BoB wasn't a turning point or decisive victory. The BoB wasn't decisive. If you are so sure that that is the case, then make your case.

No because I don't believe in that mumbo-jumbo.

That's something of a relief. Even if it was a clumsy attempt at a red herring.

What is obvious is that you will entertain revisionist ideas about topics that you don't really care that much about but you'll be the first one to jump up and down with disgust if it's about something that you do believe in. The ideas of geese and sauces seem to shout loudly here.

According to you.

Chas I am more than willing to discuss the BoB with anyone, I'm just not prepared to have half-truths and untruths posted as fact or to have specious arguments rallied as concrete universals.

Except that you don't discuss. You prefer to parrot what you have read, rather than bring anything original or concrete to the discussion. You prefer to sling mud - r.e. revisionist, denigrate, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

 

[Smithy]

Except that you don't discuss. You prefer to parrot what you have read, rather than bring anything original or concrete to the discussion. You prefer to sling mud - r.e. revisionist, denigrate, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Chas if you come out and say things such as "the Few weren't the Few, they were quite the few", things such as moving planes beyond London, etc then you will get responses.

I'm the first to admit that I do repeat what some others have written - especially those authors and researchers I agree with. But the BoB is my passion, I've been interested in it since I was a child, have been seriously researching it for over a decade, am a member of the BoB Historical Society and have over 70 books on the subject. I'm the first to admit that I am affected by what others have written.

 

[Chas]

Yeah, ok. Fair enough. I don't harbor ill will toward anyone, and not you especially. I respect your passion.

What I will suggest to you, as a fellow lover of history, in as friendly a manner as you can accept, is that you consider that passion is not always a reliable determinant of what actually happened. Sometimes it can get in the way.

 

[Spitfire]

@ Chas: I think we all know by now, that you have your own opinion on whether BoB or the Atlantic War saved Britain.
We are a lot of people who thinks diffenerently.

When it all boils down WWII was a series of battles, some small some big. Some were "tourningpoints" (whatever that is) and some were just like pearls on a string. Where one thing let to another.
I do not for a second believe Hitler would have succeded with an invasion of UK - but I do believe, that he could have starved and bombed the british population and its governement to surrender, had The Luftwaffe won Battle of Britain.
Call it a "tourningpoint" or call it - as Mr. Churchill put it: "The end of the beginning"

Dear Chas, I would suggest that you either start your own thread - and see who bites, instead of crashing in on other threads, with the risk of getting them closed down.
I do not agree with all statements and interests here in FL - especially not the ones about guns!
And I do not share the american fascination of having your own private arsenal.
I went in that door once. Posted my oppinion - but soon realised, that it only would go wrong.
So I left the subject - and left the triggerhappy guys to their fun.

This is a forum where we try to be polite and keep things civilized.
Normally I do not back down from debates - but this is not the forum for that. Like it or leave it.
Which I do not hope you will, because I read some of your other posts - on music especially- with great interrest.

 

[Smithy]

Yeah, ok. Fair enough. I don't harbor ill will toward anyone, and not you especially. I respect your passion.

What I will suggest to you, as a fellow lover of history, in as friendly a manner as you can accept, is that you consider that passion is not always a reliable determinant of what actually happened. Sometimes it can get in the way.

I'm sure it can and does occasionally with me and I have no doubt gotten my hackles up in this thread. That's par for the course if you are deeply interested in a subject.

But at the same time no one will ever convince me otherwise that the BoB wasn't decisive. Even if you believe that Britain was under no real threat of invasion, the results for morale on Britain and her allies were hugely important. Conversely the Battle was the first major stumbling block for the Germans and sowed seeds of doubt about their previously believed invincibility. Look at Luftwaffe memoirs immediately prior and after the Battle. Quite a difference. Also the Battle highlighted the problems with German High Command under stress and when strategy did not go as planned.

Another incredibly decisive and important outcome of the BoB was the affect it had on increasing US public support for Britain. This set the groundwork for increased American participation in terms of supply and increasingly transparent support.

Also without doubt, the fact that Britain did not succumb to German pressure (either militarily or politically) meant that German resources had to be split between the Western Front and the subsequent Eastern Front. This became even more of a factor once Fighter Command began offensive operations over occupied Europe on the 20th December 1940.

There are other reasons as well for why I believe the BoB was a pivotal and important event but those above I truly believe were of great value to the fight against Nazism and its eventual defeat.

 

[Spitfire]

Bravo, Smithy!!!:eusa_clap

Or to put it more direct:
Battle of Britain was the first time in WWII somebody gave the Nazis a bloody nose.
The first time somebody stood up to them and held their ground.
And - if I may add - it was a huge inspiration and moral boost to everybody in the occupied countries.

In Denmark it was the RAF roundel that became the symbol of freedom and was used as a silet demonstration against the nazis. Not the russian red, not the Stars and Stripes - not even Union jack. But the RAF roundel!
People knitted hats in the colors and very soon after the hats were forbidden by law.

Here, a danish policeman is forced by a SS officer to arrest a girl, wearing the symbol.
My father even told me of a guy who, after the hats were forbidden, instead wore a "sweatband in blue and white - he had red hair!