Why did Britain Fight the Battle-of-Britain?

what would we do now, in the same situation? European state goes rogue, overthrows and occupies most of Europe, then offers the UK terms?[/QUOTE]

We’d tell the Americans that Al Qaeda are behind it….

:rolleyes:

Don’t know, I am at work. Hmm.. That’s worse, isn’t it?

But to get a bit more on-topic – what would we do now, in the same situation? European state goes rogue, overthrows and occupies most of Europe, then offers the UK terms?

(Yawn.) – There must be a dearth of repeats on the TV.

Removed as I realised I was being a bit ‘unnecessary’ – with apologies to all.

Wasn’t it fought so there could be a great film made about it in 1968?

Come on….

I’m beginning to understand why the Battle-of-Britain was fought…..a common external enemy!

Edgar’s post that caused my reply has been removed for some reason, but to clarify, Edgar was claiming that the British public got rid of the post-war Labour government at the first opportunity, hence my correction.

Yes, Edgar, they subsequently lost the 51 election despite garnering more votes. Again, I am not making any kind of political statement, just suggesting we all stick to facts

Edgar, once again you have waded in without arming yoursef with facts. I have nothing against you personally, but it is beginning to grate.. you remember suggesting someone look up the 1945 election result? Now take a look at 1950. .

I do apologise; I’d forgotten that landslide victory, when their majority went from 146 seats to 5

Also worth bearing in mind that in the 1951 election Labour polled a majority (48.8% as against 48.0% con), and secured the highest popular vote of any party to date, having again campaigned upon their immediate post-war record

And lost.

Edgar, once again you have waded in without arming yoursef with facts. I have nothing against you personally, but it is beginning to grate.. you remember suggesting someone look up the 1945 election result? Now take a look at 1950.

This is a point of fact, not politics.

Also worth bearing in mind that in the 1951 election Labour polled a majority (48.8% as against 48.0% con), and secured the highest popular vote of any party to date, having again campaigned upon their immediate post-war record.

Creaking Door, do you really think that Nazi Germany could be trusted to honour the terms of any armistice? Really???

Britain wouldn’t have to trust Nazi Germany.

For Britain to sign an armistice the terms have to be acceptable to Britain; if they are not then Britain fights the Battle-of-Britain. So the options for Nazi Germany are:

a) Fight the Battle-of-Britain.

b) Sign an armistice and keep to it.

c) Sign an armistice, break it and fight the Battle-of-Britain.

Remember, the military purpose of the Battle-of-Britain is to stall the Nazi invasion until the winter weather in the English Channel makes invasion impossible until the summer of 1941. If an armistice achieves that why risk fighting, and possibly losing, the Battle-of-Britain?

I’m glad we won anyway.

We have a great deal to thank Mr Churchill for. But Hey, that’s old news. The whole country knew it in 1945…

The whole country knew it…..and kicked Mr Churchill out of office at the next opportunity!

I think there is a very simple answer to the original question.

Churchill knew, that after the fall of France, and the loss of so many men and equipment, and the obvious strength of the German war machine, that the future outcome for Great Britain was bleak indeed.
He knew from the Great War, that a modern war was one of resources, and only by immense effort and engagement by every citizen, in every factory, and every workshop, could the situation be turned. More planes, more tanks, more guns, more soldiers, and urgently.
The British, (in my view) only excel when their backs are against the wall, and Churchill knew it. he needed, effort, money and momentum from every walk of life.
An Armistice in 1940 would have been a disaster. It would have sent a message to the British people and the Americans, and worse, the British Parliament, that we were ok, and the result would have been widespread mediocrity, inactivity, limited spending, and ultimately certain defeat.
We could never have pulled out of the bag, what we went on to do, and we probably would never have got the Americans on board.

I believe the idea of signing an Armistice, and still managing to go hell for leather in the war effort, to be wholly incompatible politically.

We have a great deal to thank Mr Churchill for. But Hey, that’s old news. The whole country knew it in 1945, and it is only modern people who forget it.
Guy

Creaking Door, do you really think that Nazi Germany could be trusted to honour the terms of any armistice? Really???

I wonder if the terms would include the shipping of all British Jews to Germany for slave labour or rendering down for usable parts such as clothing ,gold teeth and spectacles?

I have no idea, but SS boss Heinrich Himmler was in Finland sometime in 1942-1943 for a visit and asked our 2000 jews ( they had counted them ) to be send to camps in Germany or Poland. Our chief kindly ( Finlands marschall Mannerheim ) refused for this offer saying we have no jewish problem in Finland. I am really happy Carl Gustaf had balls enough to refuse.

Thank you, Beermat.

And Edgar, nothing to do with “the old standby of 20/20 hindsight”.

I was making a statement of fact about the treatment of Poles and Czechs at the end of the war. Nothing to do with hindsight.

I’m afraid people are judging those times by todays softer standards. The general public did not want a war, they had strong memories of the last one which had only finished 20 years earlier. But they did not trust the jerries, as the Germans were derisively called. As a child of 8 at the time, I had been raised on the mantra that “the only good german is a dead one”. We had also been scared by the prospect that we would be bombed and gassed immediately the war started, but that had not happened, the jerries were not going to win in a few days. Living as we did some 7 or 8 miles from Dover we had been warned that they would invade when we had to abandon France. I well remember the general air of defiance, and being told. “When (note when, not if) the jerries come, you boys are to put sugar in their petrol tanks. The village had a fairly well organised, and armed, Home Guard, and I learnt later, a squad of determined veterans with a well stocked bunker in the woods, ready to resist any invasion.
If it had come we were also told that on no account must we leave the village, in order to keep the roads clear for the army.
I suppose if they had it would have been very rough for us, but we didn’t think of that. We were going to win!

Read CJ Sansom’s ‘Dominion’; a work of fiction ’tis true. Nonetheless it makes for a good read about what could have followed such an armistice. I recommend it.

Events had already shown that any terms of an armistice would bear no relation to what would then happen.

At the risk of thread creep, on the Polish question it wasn’t so much any military ‘pushing back’ of Stalin’s forces that would have had any bearing, it was the secret agreements made to keep Stalin happy at the conference table that were so shameful. No need to be a mindreader to understand that this is what was referred to, just a common level of knowledge on the subject before jumping in to shoot anyone down. I would also recommend a little reading around the subject.. Olsen and Cloud is a good place to start.

Because the British are one of the most bloody-minded nations on earth, and some screaming foreigner, with a straggly moustache and funny hairdo, is not going to tell us what to do (Angela Merkel take note.)

I believe that in June 1940 the Ministry of Information did warn the Government about possible public discontent. Churchill’s gave his “Fight them on the Beaches” speech on June 4th which caused an immediate sensation: One MP wrote “It was as if the British people had been given a password.. that bound us in a great secret understanding.” Oddly, the “Battle of Britain” speech that followed wasn’t as well regarded. However – by July Churchill had an 88% approval rating – which I think rose even higher during the Blitz