Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham Boak
I think it would be very difficult to support an argument that a larger British army on the Continent would somehow prevented or reversed the German successes; whereas a weaker Navy and RAF could well have been disastrous. Nations, like individuals, must fight to their strengths, whilst minimising their weaknesses.
|
Would a weaker, or less offensive (in terms of
strategically oriented), RAF really have mattered that much in the Battle of Britain?
That's arguable.
I agree that the main defence of Britain rested upon the RN, guarding to sealanes, but I could picture a scenario where a less successfull Battle of Britain would not result in a British defeat as long as Germany proofed to be incapable of mounting an offensive.
Life in the south would have been more difficult, industry might have suffered more delays, but as long as the nation would stand behind a prolonged conflict there would be no defeat until defeated in the field, or at best at sea.
So the Battle of Britain could be defined as only the first step.
The germans needed a victory, even a draw wasn't enough.
Personally I think that Britain should have taken a more continental approach, but there are plenty of reasons (political, economic etc) why that could not be expected in 1939/40. Ironically I hold the reverse to be true in 1914, but that's off topic.
But without proper research (that is proper arguments and with source reference) I'm only spreading opinion and some of it not too strong. So my apologies for wasting a lot of time.