Talk:The Blitz/Archive 2
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Change in strategy
The air raid against Berlin (august 25th 1940 ) needs to be mentioned here.--93.218.136.160 (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
the name
who gave the name Blitz to the operation? I'm pretty sure it's not the Germans as in their version of wikipedia it says "English name of the attacks...". The name is similar to Blitzkrieg but these two strategies have almost nothing in common. Errarel (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting point. And indeed there seems to be great doubt about whether Blitzkrieg itself was very that much of a German terminology at all. But as for this use, whilst the actual strategies are not similar it maybe in the public (or journalists') minds was similar enough in being a scary new way of German forces attacking other countries ... if you'd seen the Netherlands overrun then they started bombing the city you lived in then maybe you would see at as a linked case. And journalists love a buzzword, after all. What is clear is that it IS a contemporary English usage - for example OED has these:
- 1940 Daily Express 9 Sept. 1 Blitz bombing of London goes on all night.
- 1940 Daily Express 10 Sept. 1/1 In his three-day blitz on London Goering has now lost 140 planes.
- 1940 Daily Sketch 21 Sept. 8/3 Neighbourhood Theatre braved the blitz and yesterday presented a new play.
- so however it was derived it was clearly already in the public psyche enough to be used immediately after the operation started. Can we get good enough refs for a note on the terminology to be included, I wonder? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
"Armed in depth?"
I have deleted the phrase 'armed in depth' and replaced it with 'was not armed or equipped for large-scale long-range strategic bombing campaigns'.
I am querying the usage in the introduction section where in the final lines it describes the Luftwaffe as 'not armed in depth...' I have certainly seen the military strategy term 'in depth' (e.g. defense in depth) used in myriad creative ways to usually indicate 'expanse' or in the most common 'defense in depth' understanding, to defend by withdrawing through one's own held territory, and aggregating losses against an enemy's supply lines, forces, etc.
I have also seen it used as a kind of reference to an Organization Chart - where for instance, a corporation that is vertically integrated might have mining, production, refinery, and distribution elements of bringing a product to market, like metals mining companies. So I have seen it used as 'they are integrated in depth,' presumably referencing the style of an org-chart where a vertical line might show the 'rise' of raw materials to a finished consumer product, versus say, the horizontal integration of a company, which might just own lots of metal whole-sellers.
So here where it say the Luftwaffe was "not armed in depth," I am presuming the meaning to be, essentially, that it was not a fully equipped/complete Air Force with strategic long range bombers, long range fighters, refueling capacities, and perhaps ammunition advances - that is, I believe the author is trying to say they were not a sustainable long-range air force, but were essentially a close-air-support air force mainly assistant to the Heer/Army.
Other than that though, I'm unclear what the 'armed in depth' term might mean, and in either case, I do think it could be confusing, especially since the Wikipedia article on the (usually) military term 'depth' is not well written and itself is confusing (c.f. Strategic depth). Commissar Mo (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- You're right in your assessment here. It's about lack of aircrew, lack of instructors, low production of aircraft, inadequate munitions production, laughably bad intelligence, dismally bad BDA.... It's not only about wrong types, it's about a detailed & comprehensive lack of preparation. It might be put better... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
-- Since the 'armed in depth' phrase was reverted... and I have really no personal reasons to oppose it per se - I have linked it out to the article on 'strategic depth.' Since this as it currently stands is VERY confusing (which was why I wanted it changed to begin with), hopefully this will now make the necessity of editing the Strategic depth page more obvious and necessary (since it needs it anyway)... Commissar Mo (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
British air craft losses
These figures should be also added mentioning British plane losses and Royal Air force Causalities.Ovsek (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Olga, Regal, and Upstart
If a link to the article Olga, Regal, and Upstart cannot be worked into the text of this article in an appropriate way, might one be added into the "See Also" section? Chrisrus (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- The article currently doesn't seem to link to any of the few dozen human George Cross recipients awarded for actions during the Blitz (though one is mentioned in passing when talking about archive recordings.) Are the three horses more significant & relevant? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'd agree with that. There are plenty of deserving people omitted already. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Reason for Blitz
Per WP:DENY, please do not interact with socks of banned user HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It's important the article should mention that the Blitz happened because the RAF was bombing civilian areas in Germany from 31st March 1940. (MrFalala (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC))
It wasn't just Germany that invaded Poland in September 1939. However, the fact is the RAF bombed Germany first, which is why the Blitz was ordered in retaliation. The introduction to this article is misleading. (MrFalala (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC))
The UK chose the start World War II by only declaring war on Germany. The UK bombed Germany first, and Hitler ordered the Blitz because the RAF was bombing civilian areas in Germany beginning with Emden on 31st March 1940. (MrFalala (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)) The Blitz was because Goering could not defeat the RAF in the Battle of Britain. It was intended to break the spirit of the British, so the populace would demand the goverment would sue for peace. 'The UK chose the start World War II by only declaring war on Germany' sounds very much like the propaganda Goebbels told the Polish. The British and French did all they could to avoid the war look at what happened with the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia. Bevo74 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The Blitz was in retaliation for the RAF bombing German civilians. The UK had no right to object to Germany and the Soviet Union invading Poland. The German government was not objecting to the British military presence in Palestine, Egypt, Malta, India, Hong Kong, Gibraltar, the Sudan etc. (MrFalala (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC))
|
This article is apparently written by British nationalists
The article is full of false information and based on imaginations rather than facts. Nobody likes the nazis but when you write history you should tell the truth even if it is bitter and humiliating to Britain. It is Britain who started bombing German cities killing civilians, hitler was strongly opposed to the idea of attacking civilians, hitler warned Britain in his speech that he doesn't want innocent civilians to get involved and the blitz was retaliation of four month of British bombing of German cities at night after failing to attack German military target daytime. This is true if you like it or not. The blitz wasn't a strategic plan to invade Britain and cannot be called German strategic failure. Hitler made it very clear that air bombing. Is only used to pave a path for land troop not to kill civilians. Hitler wasn't interested in Britain, his paranoia was Jews and communism in the east. This article is falsification of the truth made by a number of British nationalists who find it humiliating to accept britain's inferiority compared to the germans. A good book is called BOMBING VENDICATED written by Spaight the British air minster in 1944 admitting German superiority. Please do not tell lies to people and stop inventing the history you like to hear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.253.80 (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- See the "don't interact" discussion above for reasons this is nonsense... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hull vs Liverpool
An anonymous ip keeps coming on and claiming that Hull was the second most heavily bombed city in the blitz. The problem is is that this contradicts several sources which clearly show Liverpool as being the second most heavily bombed, both in terms of tonnage of bombs dropped, and in terms of casualties. Any idea how to solve this? G-13114 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- At this diff I have removed competitive claims and clarified that some figures refer to the whole period of the war, while most figures in this article refer only to the period of the Blitz as defined, that is, between 7 September 1940 and 21 May 1941. I hope that solves the problem. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Blitz template
A while back I created a template to put on pages related to the Blitz. Any suggestions or comments about it or how to improve it would be welcome. G-13114 (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Britain bombed Germany first
Closing discussion started by a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The RAF had been bombing Germany since 3rd September 1939, more than a year before the London Blitz began. This should be mentioned in the article, as the Germans were only responding to what the British had started. (XavierKnightley (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC))
To quote the Bomber Command diary entry for 1939 "Within hours of the declaration of war, 28 aircraft...were despatched to locate German warships. ...That night, 10 Whitleys dropped leaflets over Hamburg, Bremen and The Ruhr. ...anti-shipping operations on the following day told a very different tale. 29 Blenheims and Wellingtons attempted to bomb German warships in Wilhelmshaven and Brunsbüttel". Later for March 1940 "Such was the concern that civilian casualties were to be avoided ...that the remote base at Hörnum of the island of Sylt was chosen." By comparison Germany was less careful about in the Bombing of Wieluń. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Without good references to discuss this is just becoming expressions of personal opinion - see WP:NOTAFORUM. Looking further up the page, I see "Reason for Blitz" and "This article is apparently written by British nationalists" and cannot help but wonder if they are related. I don't see much point in continuing this until/unless XavierKnightley produces the references to support their idea and attempts to build consensus for the changes they would like to make. Simply repeating the claim will not build consensus. With best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Hull vs Liverpool, again
Following on from the edits mentioned above, the article has acquired the same contentious claim that Hull was the most heavily bombed city after London. This was shoehorned in between the existing text and it’s sources, so there’s no guarantee that it is supported by them at all. But even if it is, the claim is contradicted elsewhere, as has been pointed out before.
It has already been discussed (here, and here) that this claim for any city is unhelpful, and impossible to substantiate without a common criterion.
So I’ve removed it, and suggest, to preserve NPOV, that we refrain from making it in future. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- At the time London and Liverpool were the two largest and busiest ports on earth, and so whilst it is possible that Hull was heavily bombed, it is unlikely that the Luftwaffe placed its importance above the two previously mentioned ones.
- London and Liverpool were the two 'hubs' of the British Empire and most of the imported raw materials, and exported finished goods, went into Britain, and out to the world, via these two ports.
- IIRC, during the period 1939-1945 the total bomb tonnage dropped on the UK by the Luftwaffe was around 70,000 long tons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The Article states that Liverpool was bombed just 8 times from August 1940 up until 21 May 1941?!!!, There were over 50 raids between August and November 1940 alone. (Liverpool was the most heavily bombed, Hull was the most serverely damaged city outside of London. Bootle was the most severely damaged borough in the UK.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.196.112 (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- There were 8 major raids, where more than 100 tons of bombs were dropped. It doesn't count the numerous smaller raids. G-13114 (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Grammar
In the middle of the British Ports section is the 'sentence' "Some 50 Junkers Ju 87 Stuka dive-bombers and Jabos (fighter-bombers) officially classed as 'light bombers' (Leichte Kampfflugzeuge) sometimes called Leichte Kesselringe (Light Kesselrings)." This makes no sense. I assume that it should end something like "...were pressed into service"? Or perhaps not.
It would be helpful if someone with more knowledge or better sources could amend this. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Figures for British casualties
In the infobox there are figures for British civilian casualties, but none for any soldiers or airmen killed in combat. Are any figures available for that? --jftsang 01:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
11 May 1940, not 15 May 1940
Closing discussion started by a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The official RAF records show the British were bombing Germany on 11 May 1940: http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/rafhistorytimeline1940.cfm (FairleighJ (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC))
|
Italy
Mussolini sent the Italian air force to participate in the Blitz for more than two months from 24th October 1940 until January 1941. Therefore Italy should be included as a belligerent. (79.67.123.132 (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC))
- Dozens of countries contributed, but we're not listing them all as they all fell under the banner of either Britain or Germany. Wait for consensus before adding significant changes like yours.--Dmol (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- After 1931 the white Dominions were independent in foreign policy and were no longer considered part of the British Empire. Canada should be listed separately. (79.67.123.132 (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC))
|}
Sock of banned editor HarveyCarter
| ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Questionable claim in leadThe lead currently includes this claim:
The citation is to Andrew Roberts's The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War. The most glaring issue is that in the accepted 7 September 1940 to 21 May 1941 timeframe of The Blitz, Hull actually suffered more than forty attacks in which bombs were actually dropped, resulting in the region of 700 fatalities. It was the case that there were three raids on Hull defined as "heavy" with fatalities of around 100+. Perhaps someone with access to the Roberts book can clarify what it says exactly. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
German aircraft lostUnder "Aftermath" the article states: "the OKL recorded the loss of 2,265 aircraft over the British Isles, a quarter of them fighters and one third bombers." A quarter plus a third = 58%. This seems unlikely, since it's difficult to think of other types of aircraft the Luftwaffe were sending over Britain in 1940-41. I'm going to remove this dubious statement. 199.168.151.164 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
spelling errorThe article says:
The correct spelling is:
Start of the BlitzThe first Nazi bomb to land on British soil occurred on 16th October 1939 near the Forth Rail Bridge, Edinburgh - Luftwaffe bombing raids (sporadic and otherwise) then continued until the end of the war in May 1945. 'The Blitz' is not a well-defined period and there were many lethal raids on UK cities well after May 1941 where survivors would now be surprised to find that they were not being blitzed as part of The Blitz. It seems wrong to exclude Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Exeter, Norfolk and a host of other cities from this article because of such an arbitrary definition of the time period - and in any case what about Swansea which was attacked in February 1941? (ifmaclean @) 03:39, 7 February 2017 (GMT)
Mistake in ledeThe Blitz began because the Germans were losing the Battle of Britain, not because they thought they were winning. 86.129.39.4 (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Continuing AftermathThe Aftermath section only talks about the immediate aftermath. It might be worth mentioning that the aftermath goes on, 75 years later:
-- johantheghost (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC) CEI've just noticed that Word punctuates in a serif typeface, which means that Luftwaffe is coming out as "Luftwaffe". I don't know what typeface Wiki uses and have asked so that I can put it right. apols Keith-264 (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
ResultTemplate:Infobox military conflict
Altered result but open to discussion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I've had a skim of the books on my shelves and will list their verdicts later, they're quite variable. Keith-264 (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
TablesDoes anyone else agree that there's too much white space to the right of the first table? I'd lift it into the text. Keith-264 (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Article structureIt seems awfully detailed in places, is this because it's here pending completion of the sub-articles? PS have I asked this before? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Italy
Recent editsI wonder if piecemeal edits have gone as far as they can? Parts of the article look top-heavy to me and I think that perhaps sections can be separated in new articles with a paragraph or two in this article with a link? Do we really need a potted history of strategic bombing theory and practice here, rather than a summary paragraph or two and a link to the appropriate article? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Later attacksThe is article implies that the bombing of London finished after 8 months. Whether or not the Bliz only occurred for those 8 months is debatable. If one toured the bomb-sites after World War II people would have said it occurred in the Blitz. They would not have said "oh Rotherhithe town hall was bombed in the Blitz but latter destroyed by a V1". So I think this edit by user:Dapi89 that removed a whole section called "Later attacks" did not keep to the policy directive of WP:PRESERVE because, if indeed one thinks that the Blitz was only that short campaign, the section was a prime case for:
-- PBS (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Comment on German bombing theoryAdded by R Davidson, unsigned and possibly spam.Keith-264 (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on The Blitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Fire in the London docks![]() ![]() ![]() I have altered the wording on the image of the fire in East London to that which appears in the caption on the first image For those not familiar with the geography of London the Surrey Commercial Docks were located where the old map says "Halls of Companies" and in the boxes south of that banner. The photographer must have been standing no further away than London Bridge (otherwise it would show up in the photo). The fires in the foreground are just behind the turrets of the White Tower (Tower of London) this means it is probably close to the old Royal Mint and north of St Catherine's Dock (plan of the right). Due to the bends in the river the more distant fires towards the right of the picture could well be in Surrey Commercial Docks, but to label the picture "Smoke rising from fires in Surrey docks, following bombing on 7 September" was misleading. -- PBS (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Luftwaffe losses in May 1941The article currently says, in reference to April 1941: "In the following month, 22 German bombers were lost with 13 confirmed to have been shot down by night fighters.[166] On 3/4 May, nine were shot down in one night.[166] On 10/11 May, London suffered severe damage, but 10 German bombers were downed.[166] In May 1941, RAF night fighters shot down 38 German bombers." In the first sentence, 22 bombers are said to have been lost in May, with 13 confirmed as shot down by night fighters. In the last sentence, the night fighters are said to have downed 38 bombers. I don't have access to the quoted source - maybe someone who does could check. Scartboy (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Recent edits@Eric Corbett: Hello Eric, if you're altering the order of citations to make them alphabetical, that will interfere with citations which are in the order they're being used to cite. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2018
It is called Blitzkrieg, not The Blitz. Blitzkrieg means Lightning Strike. 76.94.25.129 (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletionThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Italian involvementItalian planes bombed Felixstowe and Harwich. (109.153.101.46 (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)) mapCan't we make a map of the UK with the position of the bombed places like in Baedeker Blitz? ※ Sobreira ◣◥ ፧ (parlez)⁇﹖ 21:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Bombing raid statisticsIn the section Bombing raid statistics (currently 9.1), the cities are ranked by total bomb tonnage; however, Exeter stands out with very low tonnage (which also doesn't meet the inclusion criterion of 'over 100 tons'). I'm assuming the number is wrong, and probably should be in the 800-900 range (possibly 875?). Does anyone know the correct figure? DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Death tollThe lead paragraph makes the following claim: 'More than 40,000 civilians were killed by Luftwaffe bombing during the war.' Well, yes, it was more than 40,000. Quite a lot more. Like 50 per cent more. Richard Overy, in The Bombing War: Europe 1939-1945, Penguin, London, 2014, ISBN 978-0-141-00321-4 (not cited in the article's bibliography despite being the current standard work on the subject, which tells you a lot about Wikipedia), p.194, says, 'Total wartime casualties from all forms of bombing were 60,595 killed and 86,162 seriously injured.' Overy's table on p.187 (cited from the same source, the National Archives file Home Office 191/11, Ministry of Home Security, 'Statement of Civilian Casualties in the United Kingdom from the Outbreak of War to 31 May 1945', dated 31 July 1945) gives a total 44,307 men, women and children killed from August 1940 to December 1941 alone. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC) |