I came across this article the other day: Naval Review Article on interservice cooperation in 1942 I'm not interested in starting yet another inter-service pissing contest- there are enough of them elsewhere on ARRSE. The question in my mind is a more historical one. A number of historians would argue that some periods of history conventionally thought to be exceptional are only considered as such because the period is one for which we have a comparatively high level of access to historical records. An example would be Alfred the Great (because he created a cadre of priests and monks who produces reams of documents, in English) or the Renaissance (arguably distinguished from other, earlier, renaissances by the invention of the printing press and the explosion of written sources). So my question is, are modern interpretations of the Second World War, and of the RAF's role, in fact based upon a distortion which arose from the RAF's PR effort in wartime? Given the official stats quoted in the article (I've not looked at Hansard for 1942) it seems the RAF was clearly winning the PR war at home. Was this simply a fair reflection of the RAF's contribution (given the Battle of Britain one might think so) or was it to the detriment of the other two services whose efforts elsewhere were arguably equally vital but less well publicised? Equally, does the public view of WW2 still reflect this imbalance? Do more people know of and understand the significance of the Battle of Britain than the battles of the Atlantic or Normandy?