Talk:The Blitz

Blitz on London

The 1953 RAF book (Richards) is quoted here as stating that the city of London was bombed by the Luftwaffe for 76 consecutive nights. I have just read that London was bombed for 57 consecutive nights - according to the Imperial War Museum http://1940.iwm.org.uk/?page_id=18 This is more recent research and maybe should be the reason for using this figure. Also, I would not use the term "city of London" as that could be misconstrued as City of London - the square mile. I would use "the capital, London," as Wikipedia and Wikipedians have established London UK as the default London and the fact that it is the country's capital is paramount.--User:Brenont (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Would Greater London be better? Or is that covering too much area? Does that account for the difference in the number of days: that is, IWM & Richards are counting differently? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Just doing a Google search [1], multiple sources give "57 consecutive nights". E.g The Guardian: [2] “They came for 57 consecutive nights between mid-September and mid-November and then regularly for another six months until May 1941.” Mathew5000 (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think I found the explanation for why some sources give 76 consecutive nights. Look at this page from Museum of London: “As the blitz continued for 76 consecutive nights (with one exception) many East Londoners sought to escape the bombs by camping out overnight in Epping Forest, despite protests from nearby residents.” So London was bombed every night from September 7 to November 2 (57 nights consecutive), and then every night from November 4 to November 23. Mathew5000 (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio

This recent edit suggests (erm, I think) that all the "sprawling cities" stuff introduced here at 12:53 on 20 March 2011 was a "blatant copyvio". May we know from what, please? I am confused, having failed (on admittedly a quick look) to find the original. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The entire section was taken almost word for word from the Field article. Dapi89 did a lot of abridging, but by removing sentences rather than rewriting everything in his own language. Ylee (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Thank you for the clarification. How depressing. :( Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

Reason for Blitz

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 would need some references from reliable sources for that. At the moment the body text, which is well-referenced, does not seem to support this view, so it would be odd and unreferenced to just put it in the lead in isolation. For the moment, please discuss it here and do not just revert to your preferred version - see WP:BRD. On BRD: you (or someone) were Bold, I Reverted, and now we are Discussing it. That's how it is meant to go, and leads to civilized collegiate editing: I very much hope that we will hear from other editors on this topic. To revert it again would not help the discussion and might start edging close to edit-warring, which would not be a great idea. :) Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The Blitz happened because the Germans wanted to defeat Britain & thought this was the way to do it. It's not like Germany had bombed no cities before.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The RAF bombed Emden on 31st March 1940, and began bombing civilian homes in the Ruhr on 15th May 1940. It's important that the article should note the UK, which started the war in the first place, was bombing Germany long before the Blitz started. (MrFalala (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC))

When you have reliable sources for that, why don't you bring them here to discuss? At the moment these just feel like assertions - surely there is some sourcing for them? All you've done so far is to repeat your previous assertion, and add that that the UK started the war. You can surely see that these are contentious and would need discussion here, and proper sources, to be included in the article. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"the UK, which started the war in the first place" Really? What part of Poland did the British invade 1 Sept '39? (And were there Jewish conspirators involved?) Are you genuinely so ill-informed? (Do you also believe FDR arranged Pearl Harbor?) If this is the best you've got, stop now. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• While the idea that the UK is the instigator of the war is delightfully odd, the OP does have a point - the article briefly alludes to the existence of earlier bombing (first para, "Change of strategy") but never explicitly mentions it. However, the official history does explicitly connect the August raids to the start of the Blitz, even if they weren't the sole reason:

It would, of course, be too much to see in these raids on Berlin the whole cause of Hitler's next move; but they unquestionably added to his anger at the activities of Bomber Command. it would not be long now before D-day. What better policy, then, for this final phase, than to enjoy a swift and sweet revenge by hurling the Luftwaffe in force against London. For if the British capital could be reduced to chaos, the task of the invading armies would be enormously simplified (...) 'The British', he screeched, 'drop their bombs indiscriminately and without plan on civilian residential quarters and farms and villages. For three months I did not reply because I believed that they would stop, but in this Mr. Churchill saw a sign of our weakness. The British will know that we are now giving our answer night after night. We shall stop the handiwork of these night pilots.' Three days later, on 7th September, the Luftwaffe abandoned its offensive against the sector stations and began the assault on London. From the point of view of winning the battle, Dowding himself could not have made a more satisfactory decision. (pp. 182-183)

Omitting to mention the British bombing through August, and the theories of a "revenge for Berlin" motive, seems a bit strange. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

♠I'm by no means suggesting it should be omitted, let alone actively redacted.

♠As I understand it, the issue isn't as simple as that. It appears it all started with a German bombing of the London docks which went astray. This led the Brits to attack Berlin & Hitler to retaliate.

♠So, who actually started it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:11, 1 May 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))

I restored your comment so that it can be countered, and the issue of it addressed. As has already been explained, at this point the war is between the UK and Germany. The USSR did invade Poland, but since the UK (and others) did not declare a state of war with the Soviets that is not a relevant argument, and German did invade Poland. The linkage between British bombing activities and the Blitz needs to be referenced to reliable sources. Finally just adding the same statement again and again is not-constructive, as you are not engaging in the discussion with reference to policy of sources. Further repeats can be removed as non-constructive. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted the addition of text in the lead which blandly attributed the Blitz to being a response to British bombing. It doesn't reflect what the main article says which WP:LEAD would require, and doesn't have a source either. (Hohum ^@) 17:45, 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)

If I may be so bold, the origins of the war are undisputed and summarised thusly "Yes you did, you invaded Poland!". GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:50, 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))

♠"Hitler ordered the Blitz because the RAF was bombing civilian areas in Germany beginning with Emden" As I recall, Hitler didn't order the bombing of London (i.e., "the Blitz") until after the RAF bombed Berlin, which was after the docks bombing in error, so this is factually wrong.

♠"The UK chose the start World War II by only declaring war on Germany." The UK came to the defense of Poland after a German invasion. (That the UK didn't also declare war on the SU was a policy decision not germane here. I happen to think HMG should have declared war on the SU, too, but...)

♠"The UK had no right to object to Germany and the Soviet Union invading Poland." Really? The UK had a treaty of defense with Poland, a sovereign country.

♠"The German government was not objecting to the British military presence" Notice: all those places were part of the British Commonwealth, not sovereign countries that had been invaded. (Leave off how Britain invaded them decades before, won't you? And how the natives objected? I seriously doubt the Nazis had deep sympathy for Indians & Africans.)

♠This has the smell of trying to blame the British & exonerate the Germans. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:20, 1 May 2013 (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)