[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Lancer44

I don't think modern historians are right separating services and suggesting that Navy was "more important" in repelling possible German invasion.

The whole thing is childish... without air superiority Royal Navy would not be as dangerous for German invasion fleet as with RAF at full strength.

No one even a bit serious about history of WWII can raise such questions and topics.

It is equal to saying: "Soviets managed to capture Berlin not because of
their brave infantry but because T-34's.

For any member of military Forum like "WWII in Color" such statements are very unprofessional.

Another "sensation" for end of summer? Gunter Grass story died already?


Cheers,

Lancer44

I'd have to disagree with your characterization of the question as "childish" though not necessarily with your conclusion. I haven't taken a position on that.

From the text of the original article in History Today:

It is not mere revisionist history that puts this question, and indeed offers the suggestion that it would be at least equally fitting if, on this Battle of Britain Day, the Royal Navy were to send its ships in procession along our coasts – for it was the navy, not the RAF, that prevented a German invasion in 1940. This is the contention of three senior military historians at the Joint Services Command Staff College. Together they run the High Command course that teaches the past to the air marshals, generals and admirals of the future. What today’s senior officers learn of Britain’s military history they learn from this trio – and some of what they may be told goes against many popular beliefs.

Another comment made was:

We had a need for heroes in 1940, the process of myth-building was absolutely necessary – myths are facts which circumstances needed to create. At that time they enabled Britain to feel stronger than it was – producing the men who stopped the Nazis in their tracks. So who now wants to know that the Luftwaffe lost fewer men in fighter aircraft than did the RAF? If it was necessary in 1940 to believe in our military heroes, later it became doubly necessary as our colonies fell away.

The article goes on to point out that while Hitler blamed the cancellation of Sealion on the failure of the Luftwaffe to gain absolute air superiority, the idea that a convoy of barges would be a match for British destroyers is laughable, and that the whole assembly was designed to bring Churchill to the table to end the war. But most texts still argue that was due to RAF fighters' successes in the skies. So...to me it is a somewhat different argument than whether Soviet tanks or riflemen won the war in the east. The Soviet army won the war in the east, and having superior air power in the later years played a big role, as did US shipments of food, motor vehicles, and raw materials. But it was the soldiers on the ground who paid with their blood and stormed positions. Similarly, the RAF "won" the Battle of Britain. The question here is "Why was Sealion cancelled?", and I would add as a follow up, "Was Hitler really ever serious about Sealion in the first place?".

The full article from History Today is attached as a pdf.