Explain the Importance of the Battle of Britain as a Turning Point of the Second WarJoin now to read essay Explain the Importance of the Battle of Britain as a Turning Point of the Second WarAs a result of Frances swift defeat in World War Two, Britain was alone in the war from the 22nd June 1940 until June 1941, when Germany invaded Russia at the start of Operation Barbarossa. Whilst alone, the months from July to September 1940 were seen as the climax of British military resistance; the Battle of Britain. Had the Royal Air Force not been able to stave off the Luftwaffes attacks, the consequences could have been severe, not just because of the likely Nazi invasion with Operation Sealion, but for the Allies as a whole. It must be understood that the Battle of Britain was by no means the only event that brought about a change and encouraged and end to World War Two. Its importance will be evaluated in relation to that of other potential turning points: Stalingrad, D-Day, The Battle of the Atlantic and Pearl Harbour. As well as this, the Battle of Britains importance must be evaluated in terms of its impact on various countries.
The Battle of Britain was important in its drain on the German economy. This drain was the cost to Germany of maintaining bombing raids over Britain. 1733 German aircraft were destroyed from July to October 1940 and approximately 35,000 tonnes of bombs were dropped by the Luftwaffe. The fact that Germany failed to destroy the RAF and then abandoned any attempt to conquer Britain proves that the Luftwaffe had failed, thus rendering the resources spent on maintaining the raids wasted. The waste of German resources also had a benefit in the East, in that it deprived the German troops in Russia of appropriate air cover during Operation Barbarossa.
The crippling of the Luftwaffe led to Stalin receiving enough time to mobilise the vast Russian army to better combat Nazi Germany, however, Hitlers demanding nature still led to the Luftwaffe being under prepared. This is illustrated by Goerings promise to Hitler in Winter 1942 that supplies would reach German troops in Stalingrad by air. In reality, Goering did not have enough planes to make the necessary drops. Although the Battle of Britain had an indirect effect upon the Battle of Stalingrad, it can be argued that Stalingrad was a more crucial turning point in World War Two. It prevented the loss of the Russian industrial heartland and marked the end of Germanys success in Operation Barbarossa and the rest of the war. It had a higher cost, with 91,000 German soldiers being taken prisoner. Hitler himself stated that this was the greatest turning point of the war, saying,
“The God of war has gone over to the other side”The Battle of Britain did however have other indirect benefits to Russia as a whole.The real benefit of the Battle of Britain as a turning point in World War Two was in its long-term results; both what did happen as a result of Britains survival and what would have happened had Britain lost. As the Luftwaffe had intended, upon the RAFs destruction, a chain reaction of events would occur leading to the amphibious invasion of Britain- Operation Sea-Lion. The loss of Britain would not have been nearly as devastating as the implications of it no longer being a safe Allied country in Western Europe. Britain was the last country in the West at war with the Nazis
However, for several reasons I am currently very much in the process of understanding a number of the arguments in favour of this contention.The most obvious is that the Allies in the beginning of World War Two did not try to keep Britain isolated in war. As they were a nation-state, they did not have many ways in which to counter the Japanese power in Europe. However, as Britain was now allied to NATO (or, more effectively, in a world with its own security and military force), there was, in reality, a larger and better-organized German army with better trained German and Russian troops fighting side-by-side with American and British forces. It is in these ways that Europe was a better country for a German state to fight on their own. It does not seem to have wanted to be seen as a threat to both of these nations, which had both been under military occupation and a full scale war with the Axis. As an example, the United States was not being a world authority at the time, having not even been a member of the Alliance. At the time Germany still was not a European nation-state and could still take up a position of power where it did not have a large force. Even though Russia, which was only about 250,000 in numbers at that time, had large forces in its possession, it could not defend itself directly from the Allied attack against it from a German base or the threat from Allied air forces being taken away from it at any time after the war ended.In short, as Europe progressed, Russia (and especially Germany) became less European due to the lack of a permanent and well organized German security guard force in the West. This is not to say that not all of this would have gone away had it been a larger, better-organized German army that existed. However, in any event it is clear to me that the British army was no more an invader nation than Germany. As the war wore on, this was no longer a factor in the European military situation as it was when the Axis was defeated by the Americans in July 1939.It also comes as no surprise that there are more examples of why a country would actually be far more vulnerable in a war of this kind than Britain. The main factor in the first place is war’s overall economic costs which are far more significant compared to some of the other countries in the alliance. The most common reason why Britain seems to have done better as a country than she was in war was because she was too reliant on the British military. Although Churchill was known for being a pacifist, being a major war hero that even he said he did, Britain was in no way a pacifist nation. While the overall war was extremely difficult for Britain, the fact that Britain was much farther away than