Alan Allport in his Liverpool top - great! If you have enjoyed this show, please don't forget to click like, leave a comment for other viewers and if you have not done so already please SUSBSCRIBE so you don't miss our next streams. You can also become a member of this channel and support me financially here ua-cam.com/channels/UC1nmJGHmiKtlkpA6SJMeA.html. Links to any books discussed, WW2TV merchandise, our social media pages and other WW2TV shows to watch can all be found in the full UA-cam description. Lastly, my own book Angels of Mercy is always available online - more info here www.ddayhistorian.com/angels-of-mercy.html
"The battle of Britain" (1969) is in my top 10 best war movies of the sixties! So many famous actors and just like the Longest day, Germans also speak German. Good show this one!
Its unrealistic propaganda, but as a movie ist is good. In 1969 it was failure, but year by year it earn more money on TV. Biggest errors/mistakes are results of air fighting and all German aircraft exploding like in the Battle of Phillipine sea. Real results in the air and on the ground were 1:1 in terms of destroyed machines and really passive for RAF when you add severely damaged machines by enemy fire. If you combare RAF "battle casualties" and Luftwaffe combat/operational casualties, that contains accidents(!), result was 1:1 (few aircraft in German favour).
My first exposure to the subject was from watching "The Battle of Britain" (1969) with my Dad and my brother. I was 10 years old at the time, and it immediately led me to the public library where I borrowed every book on the subject. One was a story about the "Eagle Squadron" of American pilots who volunteered to fly for the RAF during the battle. I can't remember if it was a fiction or not, but I was hooked. Fascinating show that led me down memory lane. Thanks WW2TV for the journey. I have always been impressed with the "Lone Britain" idea, even if it was a bit of myth.
Woody/Allan, Late viewing this presentation but well worth it. A very fascinating different angle of the Battle. Very interesting and informative! Thanks. Bob
Another brilliant talk. Thank you Alan and Paul. In my opinion, Alan is one of the best revisionist (in the literal rather than pejorative sense of the word) historians of WW2, of our time.
I attended the Battle of Britain movie and sat beside a number of ex pilots who fought through it . Every mintake was pointed out and they were viscious about the big wing. The Sargents and officers situation was of the types of squadron full time or part timers The Sargents were treated as equals in most stations except in ground crew and Upper non flying ranks. There was an interval in the film and the talk and stories was fascinating.
Just an update on this excellent show, which was a brilliant, informative presentation. As a result I bought Alan's book " Britian at Bay" . It is an absolutely fantastic read which looks at the run up to WW2 in great detail and a lot of people will find it to be an eye opener. The attitudes of British society to foreigners, the treatment of those seen to be of a 'lower class', the rank stupidity of certain politicians is all dealt with. Is it a long read? Yes. Is it something that some may find tedious? Possibly, but if you are serious about understanding WW2 history then you need to know the why's, where's and who's of one of the major Allied protagonists at the start of the war. A definite must buy for a serious WW2 buff.
As an American big on WW2,I agreed with basically everything you both said. Every country has it's myths bout WW2. Some might be more creative than others-Russia-but everybody uses the myths to make their side look more heroic. You did an awesome job of spelling this out for us...I learned a lot.
I always took the “Britain stands alone” phrase to mean the Island itself; i.e. if Britain falls the war is over, which is true in 1940. It was never meant to be micro-interpreted to be England blindly ignoring the Commonwealth, French, Poles, Czechs, Norwegians, etc fighting in the last place they could to turn back the Nazi tide. When you look at the actual news articles, newsreels, radio commentary and political speeches from that time it routinely talked about Englands brave freedom fighting allies and the contributions of the Commonwealth nations
Replying because your post set me thinking so respect for that. We often forget that the entity "Britain" at that time is not the UK but the UK + commonweaths + empire + dominions. So the BoB can validly be seen as the Battle for England, less clearly as the Battle of the UK, the less validly as the Battle of the Empire and so on. If The BoB led to a surrender, then that would be "Britain" at all levels for sure, but invasion might only affect the mainland - arguably.
For a lot of people when they say Britain they mean the UK or even just England. Rarely do they count in the empire as it was, even British politicians of that time drew that distinction, talking about England or Britain's fight then separately mentioning the support coming from the empire. Even the Germans frequently referred to fighting the English rather than fighting the British.
Great show. I find when I'm trying to "acknowledge my bias" and discount a certain strand of pop culture. I usually find I'm relying on another pop culture strand. e.g. the Gary Oldman film, versus the 1969 film versus - it is incredibly difficult
Disappointed in this episode. The Commonwealth were the major partners not in a "supporting" role in Normandy 1944. The Poles were not deprived of combat until late in the BoB, Polish pilots were in several squadrons in August 1940. A Polish squadron needed more training because of language problems and adoption of RAF procedures and tactics. However lots of good stuff too, and the references to books to read are invaluable.
i think hes right britain did change during ww2, empire type thinking had changed, many commentators often state brits are obsessed with empire and returning to it ive never met any
Time 46.28. Churchill didn't accepted Dowdings resignaition. He sacked him. It was his decision after some pressure. He was the Minister of Defence! It was his responsibility.
It's not quite that simple is it though? Dowding had been OIC Fighter Command for 4 years by 1940 and was due to retire. His time as OIC Fighter Command was extended by 9 months at the request of (and with approval from Sir Cyril Newall (CAS)) Sir Kingsley Wood, Secretary of State for Air. This was subsequently extended by another 3 months which covered the Battle of Britain. So, his future was already decided. To me sacked means gone, thrown out, discarded. As we know Dowding was made part of the British Air Mission to the US
Paul, interesting topic for you to consider. When English talked about GB, they mean and say 'England.' I believe when most Americans, not sure on Canadians, talk about GB, they mean Great Britain. I suggest we see the overall empire fighting, your English myth is England stood alone. GB largely stood alone. It's surprising that you have not renamed the battle to: The Battle of England, cira 1940 Keep up the good work,
This is an excellent discussion. I always thought that Churchill's speeches were broadcast from the Commons, but of course, they were not because there is none of the background noise associated with the Commons. You are both correct that many of his comments are directed at America where an election was underway. I hope that you are going to mention American journalist Edward R. Morrow who broadcasted from London live during the Blitz. This even more than Churchill's speeches impacted American public opinion giving Roosevelt more freedom of action in his efforts to aid Britain. I would take issue with one idea, that the strategic bombing campaign was a result "of a lot of the misery" [25:40] This was true in Germany and Japan, but not in the rest of the world. Well over 50 million people were killed in World War II--civilians were 90 percent of the casualties. An even if you add in the Germans and Japanese, the bombing was a relatively minor part of the casualties. And if you exclude Germany and Japan, the Allied strategic bombing campaign was a negligible cause of death and destruction. (Even if you add in German bombing and Japanese bombing it is still true. Just look at the British deaths in the Blitz--something like 40,000. The Germans killed more than that in less than a week at any of the death camps) ) Civilian casualties in World War I were only about 10 percent of total deaths. They were so high in World War II because both the Germans and Japanese had large-scale killing operations. For the Germans killing various groups of civilians was a MAJOR war goal and not just the Jews. This emphasis on the bombing is phony history, I am surprised you would contribute to it.
I think you're disregarding that this show was about Popular Memory rather than the history as such. The perception of the blitz and bombing is what we were addressing. I also take issue with your suggestion we are contributing to phony history
@@WW2TV Fair enough. I got that. But you not only discussed Popular Memory during 1940-45, but after the War and how Bomber Command and Harris were deemphasized and the emphasis placed on Fighter Command in the Post War history which is what I was referring to. The idea that the bombing was a major factor in the horrendous death toll ios phony history. Which is why I was surprised that you suggested it. Usually, your programs are quite facual. It is an indisputable fact that most of the killing occurred outside Germany and Japan and there bombing was a small factor.
First point, I think you're missing the point somewhat. The discussion wasn't about the impact, results or casualties of the bombing campaign but more the public perception of it. Surely you would agree that this is part of the reason for the increased attention on Fighter Command? Second point. "usually your programs are quite factual" is about the most passive aggressive comment I've ever received. Can I just remind that great majority of my guests aren't just random people, they often have PhDs, are professionnel educators and published authors. May I politely ask your experience and history background?
@@WW2TV Agreed. I should have said. "normally". This is an important point for me. You must be aware that there is a pronounced attempt in modern discussions to minimize the Allied war effort, especially the British effort. The Russians and the left-wing voices that dominant academic tend to say that the Soviets won the war virtually singled handedly and the war in the West was aide show. And the Allied bombing strategic bombing campaign was a war crime. The Japanese tend to ignore what they did and focus exclusively on the atomic bombs. I react to all of this And I did not mean to say that your programs are not factual or excellent=examinations. I was focused on one very small part of the discussion --notice that I left a time tag. I certainly did not mean to suggest that this or you other programs I listed to are phony history they are not. But to suggest that the bombing was a major cause of the misery is just not factual. It was in Germany and Japan, but not in many countries victimized by the Germans and Japanese and was a small part of the more than 50 million deaths those two countries and the Soviets to a lesser extent caused.
In terms of the importance of the Battle of Britain. I think a bit more could be said. 1) You mention the German invasion and the debate there. 2) I don't think you mention the importance of the all-important American attitudes concerning Britain's ability and willingness to resist. It was vital. 3) Another matter not mentioned is how it weakened the Luftwaffe--not fatally, but significantly. This affected the level of air support German forces had in Barbarossa. This is something I think is totally absent in the popular memory. Something that people like Michael Foot just ignored when he complained in the Commons that Britain was not doing enough to aid the Soviets. (Rather forgetting that in 1940 the Soviets were not only doing nothing to aid Britain but a great deal to aid the Germans.)
Sure, but as with every show I do there's only so much you can say. There are are lot more talking points we could have explored and maybe we will in a future show
@@johnburns4017 Where do you think the Germans got the oil and other critical materials they needed for the invasion of France and Battle of Britain? The Soviet Union did not declare war, but until June 1941 they were a vital NAZI ally.
@@WW2TV Fair enough. But as I m sure you know, a lot of people believe that the War in the west was a sideshow and the real war was the Ostkrieg. I enjoyed your presentation. As usual, they're very good. But I did not come away from your presentation understanding the vital importance of the Battle of Britain. Or the huge impact it had on America. I don't understand how you could do a show in popular memory and not mention Edward R. Murrow. After all Britain's survival depended on America.
@@johnburns4017 I suggest you read some of Churchill's writings. Even before he became prime minister his number one objective was to get America mic into the War. A few key facts: 1 Britain was bankrupt (December 1940) 2. Both the RAF and Royal Navy depended on o oil from Amicva or American-controlled countries. 3. Except for the Battle of Britain, the British never won a single battle without American involvement or substantial material aid. With the Americans, they never lost a single battle.
@@johnburns4017 Sweden did not have much choice. Did you not notice that Norway and Debnark were invaded by the Germans. And I might point out that Sweden was not invading other countries. The NAZIs and Soviets were allies. I suggest you read the secret codicil to the Molotiov-Ribbentrop Pact (August 1939). You also seem to have missed that World War War II began a week after the Pact was signed and both the NAZIs and Soviets invaded Poland (September 1939).
This comment in the sidebar is a disgrace: '...Bader's involvement in what happened to Park & Dowding was a disgrace, dishonourable , and he should have been cashiered...' 1) Does the person think a S/Ldr could remove someone of Park's rank? Ludicrous! And Dowding had had his retirement deferred 3 times before a final date was agreed for October 1940. After that, his retirement was granted. Some people haven't a clue as to what actually happened!
@@WW2TV Please understand, I am not criticising the interview, it was excellent. I was taking issue with the comment about Park, and particularly about Dowding's retirement, in the sidebar.
@Pokafalva, clearly you know very little of the events which led to the removal of Dowding and Park. Try reading Vincent Orange's excellent Park autobiography, Wright's book on Dowding and the Battle of Britain, and John Ray's Battle of Britain, First victory 1940. They will do for starters. Having a relatively junior, inexperienced officer at such a meeting, and allowing him to come out with the utter nonsense he came out with, was a disgrace. His using same to curry favour with senior officers was a disgrace. His willing involvement in such antics was wholly inappropriate, a serious disciplinary breach, and should have been dealt with within normal RAF disciplinary procedures. If you don't understand that latter concept then don't bother reading the books.
@@patm8622 Well I'm not going to disclose who I am, but with 42 years of doing research into the Battle of Britain, albeit covering the German side but my research ranged far and wide on both sides, with books published into double figures and many magazine articles published, and being one who has given talks to many aviation groups on the Battle of Britan over many years (and still doing so), I believe I understand exactly what went on at the end of the Battle of Britain. I am also a Specialist Contributor to the Red Kite series of books currently in production titled 'Battle of Britain Combat Archive' (there, that narrows it down for you if you have any of that series!). Orange & Wright's books are heavily biased in one direction; try reading 'Flying Colours by Laddie Lucas re the Duxford Wing, and its CORRECT use (which Park patently did not do during the Battle!). And if you know/knew anything of civil service practise (the military comes with the overall ambit) you would know that on occasions, junior staff are brought into meetings for their specialist expertise. That happened to me (I was a civil servant for 32 years) both in a lower grade, and when in a Management grade I did the same, bringing a member of my staff to a Management Meeting when speciialist knowledge was required on a particuler subject. And do you, or anybody else REALLY believe Bader had Dowding sacked? I will repeat this again, as you clearly did not read it first time: '...And Dowding had had his retirement deferred 3 times before a final date was agreed for October 1940. After that, his retirement was granted. Some people haven't a clue as to what actually happened!...' That retirement was agreed and granted by SENIOR officers with NO input from Bader. Go read Stephen Bungay's excellent book, 'The most dangerous enemy' if you don't believe me. And to say the Bader carried out a serious disciplinary breach is a load of bollocks. Do you seriously believe that? Simply because he stated his views? Are you serious? Please don't post crap against me...
Alan Allport in his Liverpool top - great! If you have enjoyed this show, please don't forget to click like, leave a comment for other viewers and if you have not done so already please SUSBSCRIBE so you don't miss our next streams. You can also become a member of this channel and support me financially here ua-cam.com/channels/UC1nmJGHmiKtlkpA6SJMeA.html.
Links to any books discussed, WW2TV merchandise, our social media pages and other WW2TV shows to watch can all be found in the full UA-cam description. Lastly, my own book Angels of Mercy is always available online - more info here www.ddayhistorian.com/angels-of-mercy.html
"The battle of Britain" (1969) is in my top 10 best war movies of the sixties! So many famous actors and just like the Longest day, Germans also speak German. Good show this one!
Its unrealistic propaganda, but as a movie ist is good. In 1969 it was failure, but year by year it earn more money on TV. Biggest errors/mistakes are results of air fighting and all German aircraft exploding like in the Battle of Phillipine sea. Real results in the air and on the ground were 1:1 in terms of destroyed machines and really passive for RAF when you add severely damaged machines by enemy fire. If you combare RAF "battle casualties" and Luftwaffe combat/operational casualties, that contains accidents(!), result was 1:1 (few aircraft in German favour).
Anda young Ian McShane.@@ondrejdobrota7344
My first exposure to the subject was from watching "The Battle of Britain" (1969) with my Dad and my brother. I was 10 years old at the time, and it immediately led me to the public library where I borrowed every book on the subject. One was a story about the "Eagle Squadron" of American pilots who volunteered to fly for the RAF during the battle. I can't remember if it was a fiction or not, but I was hooked. Fascinating show that led me down memory lane. Thanks WW2TV for the journey. I have always been impressed with the "Lone Britain" idea, even if it was a bit of myth.
Great commentary. Thank you.
Woody/Allan, Late viewing this presentation but well worth it. A very fascinating different angle of the Battle. Very interesting and informative! Thanks. Bob
Another brilliant talk. Thank you Alan and Paul. In my opinion, Alan is one of the best revisionist (in the literal rather than pejorative sense of the word) historians of WW2, of our time.
I agree about Alan, he's an outstanding historian
I attended the Battle of Britain movie and sat beside a number of ex pilots who fought through it . Every mintake was pointed out and they were viscious about the big wing. The Sargents and officers situation was of the types of squadron full time or part timers The Sargents were treated as equals in most stations except in ground crew and Upper non flying ranks. There was an interval in the film and the talk and stories was fascinating.
Just an update on this excellent show, which was a brilliant, informative presentation. As a result I bought Alan's book " Britian at Bay" . It is an absolutely fantastic read which looks at the run up to WW2 in great detail and a lot of people will find it to be an eye opener. The attitudes of British society to foreigners, the treatment of those seen to be of a 'lower class', the rank stupidity of certain politicians is all dealt with. Is it a long read? Yes. Is it something that some may find tedious? Possibly, but if you are serious about understanding WW2 history then you need to know the why's, where's and who's of one of the major Allied protagonists at the start of the war.
A definite must buy for a serious WW2 buff.
As an American big on WW2,I agreed with basically everything you both said. Every country has it's myths bout WW2. Some might be more creative than others-Russia-but everybody uses the myths to make their side look more heroic. You did an awesome job of spelling this out for us...I learned a lot.
Thanks Jason
I love what I’m listening to. Thank you
I always took the “Britain stands alone” phrase to mean the Island itself; i.e. if Britain falls the war is over, which is true in 1940. It was never meant to be micro-interpreted to be England blindly ignoring the Commonwealth, French, Poles, Czechs, Norwegians, etc fighting in the last place they could to turn back the Nazi tide. When you look at the actual news articles, newsreels, radio commentary and political speeches from that time it routinely talked about Englands brave freedom fighting allies and the contributions of the Commonwealth nations
Replying because your post set me thinking so respect for that. We often forget that the entity "Britain" at that time is not the UK but the UK + commonweaths + empire + dominions. So the BoB can validly be seen as the Battle for England, less clearly as the Battle of the UK, the less validly as the Battle of the Empire and so on. If The BoB led to a surrender, then that would be "Britain" at all levels for sure, but invasion might only affect the mainland - arguably.
For a lot of people when they say Britain they mean the UK or even just England. Rarely do they count in the empire as it was, even British politicians of that time drew that distinction, talking about England or Britain's fight then separately mentioning the support coming from the empire. Even the Germans frequently referred to fighting the English rather than fighting the British.
It's Dudley Moore who asks Jonathan Miller to join 'the few'.
As often, I'm a bit late to this, but glad I dialled in to listen, even if late. So much to learn, even 81 years after
Great points about the evolution of nostalgia
Great show. I find when I'm trying to "acknowledge my bias" and discount a certain strand of pop culture. I usually find I'm relying on another pop culture strand. e.g. the Gary Oldman film, versus the 1969 film versus - it is incredibly difficult
Well said!
Excellent presentation as usual.
Another superb, insightful presentation
Thank you kindly!
Disappointed in this episode. The Commonwealth were the major partners not in a "supporting" role in Normandy 1944. The Poles were not deprived of combat until late in the BoB, Polish pilots were in several squadrons in August 1940. A Polish squadron needed more training because of language problems and adoption of RAF procedures and tactics. However lots of good stuff too, and the references to books to read are invaluable.
i think hes right britain did change during ww2, empire type thinking had changed, many commentators often state brits are obsessed with empire and returning to it ive never met any
Excellent stuff!
Time 46.28. Churchill didn't accepted Dowdings resignaition. He sacked him. It was his decision after some pressure. He was the Minister of Defence! It was his responsibility.
It's not quite that simple is it though? Dowding had been OIC Fighter Command for 4 years by 1940 and was due to retire. His time as OIC Fighter Command was extended by 9 months at the request of (and with approval from Sir Cyril Newall (CAS)) Sir Kingsley Wood, Secretary of State for Air. This was subsequently extended by another 3 months which covered the Battle of Britain. So, his future was already decided. To me sacked means gone, thrown out, discarded. As we know Dowding was made part of the British Air Mission to the US
Paul, interesting topic for you to consider. When English talked about GB, they mean and say 'England.' I believe when most Americans, not sure on Canadians, talk about GB, they mean Great Britain. I suggest we see the overall empire fighting, your English myth is England stood alone. GB largely stood alone. It's surprising that you have not renamed the battle to: The Battle of England, cira 1940
Keep up the good work,
In my experience lots of Americans and French BTW say English when they mean British, and lots of English say English when they mean British too
Thought provoking stuff.
Thanks. Alan puts across his ideas eloquently
This is an excellent discussion. I always thought that Churchill's speeches were broadcast from the Commons, but of course, they were not because there is none of the background noise associated with the Commons. You are both correct that many of his comments are directed at America where an election was underway. I hope that you are going to mention American journalist Edward R. Morrow who broadcasted from London live during the Blitz. This even more than Churchill's speeches impacted American public opinion giving Roosevelt more freedom of action in his efforts to aid Britain. I would take issue with one idea, that the strategic bombing campaign was a result "of a lot of the misery" [25:40] This was true in Germany and Japan, but not in the rest of the world. Well over 50 million people were killed in World War II--civilians were 90 percent of the casualties. An even if you add in the Germans and Japanese, the bombing was a relatively minor part of the casualties. And if you exclude Germany and Japan, the Allied strategic bombing campaign was a negligible cause of death and destruction. (Even if you add in German bombing and Japanese bombing it is still true. Just look at the British deaths in the Blitz--something like 40,000. The Germans killed more than that in less than a week at any of the death camps) ) Civilian casualties in World War I were only about 10 percent of total deaths. They were so high in World War II because both the Germans and Japanese had large-scale killing operations. For the Germans killing various groups of civilians was a MAJOR war goal and not just the Jews. This emphasis on the bombing is phony history, I am surprised you would contribute to it.
I think you're disregarding that this show was about Popular Memory rather than the history as such. The perception of the blitz and bombing is what we were addressing. I also take issue with your suggestion we are contributing to phony history
@@WW2TV Fair enough. I got that. But you not only discussed Popular Memory during 1940-45, but after the War and how Bomber Command and Harris were deemphasized and the emphasis placed on Fighter Command in the Post War history which is what I was referring to. The idea that the bombing was a major factor in the horrendous death toll ios phony history. Which is why I was surprised that you suggested it. Usually, your programs are quite facual. It is an indisputable fact that most of the killing occurred outside Germany and Japan and there bombing was a small factor.
First point, I think you're missing the point somewhat. The discussion wasn't about the impact, results or casualties of the bombing campaign but more the public perception of it. Surely you would agree that this is part of the reason for the increased attention on Fighter Command? Second point. "usually your programs are quite factual" is about the most passive aggressive comment I've ever received. Can I just remind that great majority of my guests aren't just random people, they often have PhDs, are professionnel educators and published authors. May I politely ask your experience and history background?
@@WW2TV Agreed. I should have said. "normally". This is an important point for me. You must be aware that there is a pronounced attempt in modern discussions to minimize the Allied war effort, especially the British effort. The Russians and the left-wing voices that dominant academic tend to say that the Soviets won the war virtually singled handedly and the war in the West was aide show. And the Allied bombing strategic bombing campaign was a war crime. The Japanese tend to ignore what they did and focus exclusively on the atomic bombs. I react to all of this And I did not mean to say that your programs are not factual or excellent=examinations. I was focused on one very small part of the discussion --notice that I left a time tag. I certainly did not mean to suggest that this or you other programs I listed to are phony history they are not. But to suggest that the bombing was a major cause of the misery is just not factual. It was in Germany and Japan, but not in many countries victimized by the Germans and Japanese and was a small part of the more than 50 million deaths those two countries and the Soviets to a lesser extent caused.
I disagree about Piece of Cake, its more than worth a watch, l'd not seen it before.
It's a good series, but with some flaws
In terms of the importance of the Battle of Britain. I think a bit more could be said.
1) You mention the German invasion and the debate there.
2) I don't think you mention the importance of the all-important American attitudes concerning Britain's ability and willingness to resist. It was vital.
3) Another matter not mentioned is how it weakened the Luftwaffe--not fatally, but significantly. This affected the level of air support German forces had in Barbarossa. This is something I think is totally absent in the popular memory. Something that people like Michael Foot just ignored when he complained in the Commons that Britain was not doing enough to aid the Soviets. (Rather forgetting that in 1940 the Soviets were not only doing nothing to aid Britain but a great deal to aid the Germans.)
Sure, but as with every show I do there's only so much you can say. There are are lot more talking points we could have explored and maybe we will in a future show
@@johnburns4017 Where do you think the Germans got the oil and other critical materials they needed for the invasion of France and Battle of Britain? The Soviet Union did not declare war, but until June 1941 they were a vital NAZI ally.
@@WW2TV Fair enough. But as I m sure you know, a lot of people believe that the War in the west was a sideshow and the real war was the Ostkrieg. I enjoyed your presentation. As usual, they're very good. But I did not come away from your presentation understanding the vital importance of the Battle of Britain. Or the huge impact it had on America. I don't understand how you could do a show in popular memory and not mention Edward R. Murrow. After all Britain's survival depended on America.
@@johnburns4017 I suggest you read some of Churchill's writings. Even before he became prime minister his number one objective was to get America mic into the War. A few key facts:
1 Britain was bankrupt (December 1940)
2. Both the RAF and Royal Navy depended on o oil from Amicva or American-controlled countries.
3. Except for the Battle of Britain, the British never won a single battle without American involvement or substantial material aid. With the Americans, they never lost a single battle.
@@johnburns4017 Sweden did not have much choice. Did you not notice that Norway and Debnark were invaded by the Germans. And I might point out that Sweden was not invading other countries. The NAZIs and Soviets were allies. I suggest you read the secret codicil to the Molotiov-Ribbentrop Pact (August 1939). You also seem to have missed that World War War II began a week after the Pact was signed and both the NAZIs and Soviets invaded Poland (September 1939).
This comment in the sidebar is a disgrace: '...Bader's involvement in what happened to Park & Dowding was a disgrace, dishonourable , and he should have been cashiered...' 1) Does the person think a S/Ldr could remove someone of Park's rank? Ludicrous! And Dowding had had his retirement deferred 3 times before a final date was agreed for October 1940. After that, his retirement was granted. Some people haven't a clue as to what actually happened!
And some people keep rewatching a show they've already decided was awful
@@WW2TV What show is that?
@@WW2TV Please understand, I am not criticising the interview, it was excellent. I was taking issue with the comment about Park, and particularly about Dowding's retirement, in the sidebar.
@Pokafalva, clearly you know very little of the events which led to the removal of Dowding and Park. Try reading Vincent Orange's excellent Park autobiography, Wright's book on Dowding and the Battle of Britain, and John Ray's Battle of Britain, First victory 1940. They will do for starters.
Having a relatively junior, inexperienced officer at such a meeting, and allowing him to come out with the utter nonsense he came out with, was a disgrace. His using same to curry favour with senior officers was a disgrace. His willing involvement in such antics was wholly inappropriate, a serious disciplinary breach, and should have been dealt with within normal RAF disciplinary procedures. If you don't understand that latter concept then don't bother reading the books.
@@patm8622 Well I'm not going to disclose who I am, but with 42 years of doing research into the Battle of Britain, albeit covering the German side but my research ranged far and wide on both sides, with books published into double figures and many magazine articles published, and being one who has given talks to many aviation groups on the Battle of Britan over many years (and still doing so), I believe I understand exactly what went on at the end of the Battle of Britain. I am also a Specialist Contributor to the Red Kite series of books currently in production titled 'Battle of Britain Combat Archive' (there, that narrows it down for you if you have any of that series!). Orange & Wright's books are heavily biased in one direction; try reading 'Flying Colours by Laddie Lucas re the Duxford Wing, and its CORRECT use (which Park patently did not do during the Battle!). And if you know/knew anything of civil service practise (the military comes with the overall ambit) you would know that on occasions, junior staff are brought into meetings for their specialist expertise. That happened to me (I was a civil servant for 32 years) both in a lower grade, and when in a Management grade I did the same, bringing a member of my staff to a Management Meeting when speciialist knowledge was required on a particuler subject. And do you, or anybody else REALLY believe Bader had Dowding sacked? I will repeat this again, as you clearly did not read it first time: '...And Dowding had had his retirement deferred 3 times before a final date was agreed for October 1940. After that, his retirement was granted. Some people haven't a clue as to what actually happened!...' That retirement was agreed and granted by SENIOR officers with NO input from Bader. Go read Stephen Bungay's excellent book, 'The most dangerous enemy' if you don't believe me. And to say the Bader carried out a serious disciplinary breach is a load of bollocks. Do you seriously believe that? Simply because he stated his views? Are you serious? Please don't post crap against me...