Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

I think this quote is inadvertently (or possibly deliberately?) proving the point about relying on one primary source.

On the face of it this is evidence of how the US ambassador saw things developing in the Battle of Britain.

On the other hand, in context, it's the letter of a notorious anti-semite and Nazi-Sympathiser, doing his best to push the anti-British line he had become known for, and written shortly before pressure from both London *and Washington* (where he was out of step with the presidency) ensured his removal as ambassador.

 

Absolutely.

 

Fascinating, possibly can a new thread be started and the relevant posts moved to it?

 

I'd have said (others may vary) that my comment might have involved Joe Kennedy, but was actually about use of historical sources, so not really a digression so much as reinforcing the importance of historical scholarship in getting the record right. If that doesn't go in this thread then it would be something of a surprise...

 

Thanks for this. Shows that there was a notable shortage during the big battles of August and September. I'm looking for a similar table for pilots but haven't found one yet. What these figures don't show is the effect of battle fatigue with some pilots being scrambled up to five times a day. I think that any narrative that says we were never in danger of losing is wrong, that certainly wasn't the view of those fighting the battle at the time.

 

But British strength in both men and machines went up during the second half of 1940, in contrast to German strength which declined. The replacement pilots may have been initially inexperienced, but even so, they still had the better of the enemy: there were only five days during the whole Battle of Britain in which British losses exceeded those of the Germans. So it is clear to me that the statistics show that not only did the Germans lose the Battle of Britain, but they were losing it right from the start: there wasn't some turning point from which we snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. Yes, there were British losses. Yes, our pilots were dog-tired through the Battle. But I don't believe there was ever a significant risk that the Battle could have been lost, at least not to the point where the Germans could have launched a cross-channel invasion, which was their objective.

Tom

 

It's funny, but you are doing precisely what I have been doing with the Thompson story - looking for the stats, understanding the context and trying to ascertain the "truth" as it was were.

The narrative that says the Thompson rebuilds of the A2/2s were poor is wrong, it certainly wasn't the view of those running the locomotives at the time in WW2.

 

Also large numbers of German pilots developed 'Kanalcrank' (?) becoming phobic about crashing in the sea as the battle drew on.

But its funny how a significant thread drift illustrates the original point under discussion

 

Whatever.

 

I think it's delightful. Nothing like another topic being done exactly the same way to illustrate the similarities in approach.

 

The 1974 wargame at Sandhurst makes interesting reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)

 

August was a close run thing. The 11 Group airfields were getting a hell of a pounding and had the Luftwaffe continued with that strategy, they may just have got the air superiority they desired. Some RAF strategists wanted the fighters pulled north of the Thames but Dowding refused to go along with that. Once the Germans turned their sights on London though, it became a different story. It's from then on that I'd argue that the RAF wasn't going to lose. Prior to that, it was a different matter.

 

I'm trying to avoid jumping directly into the topic, to minimize the derailment, but I'm loathe to cite 'Battle of Britain' (wonderful and mostly accurate as it is) as evidence (for obvious reasons). Other fictional works give opposing views, e.g. the fine Piece of Cake (I refer here to the book, not the good TV series based on it - which does have some fantastic flying scenes by the Hanna father and son - no CGI back then!), but again, are not evidence.

And I echo those who point out how this discussion provides an illustrative parallel to the one over Mr. Thompson.

Noel

 

Only thrust statistic You have made Yourself.

Test pilot Eric Winkle asked Goering about the german view of BoB and he said it was a draw.The British lost more planes and this was confirmed by Eric Winkle.
Is this the officil view to day?

 

Derek Robinson's Piece of Cake may be fiction but is well written and researched (IMO). He also wrote a non-fiction book on the subject, "Invasion, 1940" which is well worth a read. However any one book is just one person's view, as with books on Thompson.

 

Goering would never admit to defeat but as the German’s failed to achieve their aim of defeating the RAF as a prerequisite to invasion, I’d say they lost the Battle.

 

But Goering was there - surely his testimony about the outcome should be trusted over and above mere statistical analysis?

Tom