Talk:Liverpool Blitz

(First comments)

This page mentions that there were 4,000 deaths during the Liverpool Blitz, while the Liverpool page mentions 2,500. Which would be the correct number? Sobolak 20:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Liverpool Blitz includes the urban conurbation of Merseyside as a whole. Rather than simply the City of Liverpool. So the correct figure would be 4000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.248.31 (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Merseyside

Why does someone keep deleting the Merseyside reference? You might as well delete any reference to 'Dickie Sam's' and 'Scousers' in reference to Liverpudlians. Eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.248.31 (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just removed Merseyside from the article today as it did not exist during WW2. Merseyside was created in the 1970s, during WW2 Liverpool was part of Lancashire.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You might as well argue "Merseyside" doesn't exist today - the metropolitan council was abolished in 1986. Furthermore, "Merseyside", as a geographical term, most certainly did exist during WW2. It was in fact a commonplace description. Numerous pre-1974 books, including Churchill's "The Second World War" (1948) refer to Merseyside freely. In 1945 a government study entitled "Merseyside plan, 1944" was published by "Merseyside Advisory Joint Planning Committee, Great Britain. Ministry of Housing and Local Government, H. M. Stationery Office" What exactly are you trying to prove by the deletion of the category? RodCrosby (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven’t deleted any categories from this article or from the wiki. What i have done is remove an erroneous detail from the article. To call the area Merseyside and link to the present-day county is anachronistic; Liverpool at the time was situated in Lancashire not “Merseyside”. The removal of the metropolitan council holds no relevance as the county exists to this day following the creation of it in the 1970s. I am a born and raised scouser and i have no problem with this, there is no need to be pedantic about this issue.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Not forgetting the booklet 'bombers over merseyside' published by the Echo and the Daily Post in 1943 and republished in 1983 by Scousepress. It would seem it is you who is being "pedantic" over this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.248.190 (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

References

Inconsistency with the 'Hull Blitz' article

Both the Hull and Liverpool blitz articles claim that their area was the most heavily bombed outside of London. I'm not regular poster but surely somekind of ammendment should be made. It would seem Hull is the more likely candidate as it is also termed to be the most heavily bombed city outside London on the main 'The Blitz' article. JBenton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.157.159 (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

By some measures Liverpool was even more heavily bombed than London, although London endured it for longer. Liverpool was also the site of the Durning Road Technical School disaster, which Churchill called "the worst single incident of the war." There are pretty convincing statistics in a book called "Port in a Storm" (1993) by John Hughes. RodCrosby (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The two seem to be claimed interchangeably, I've noticed many times especially with the 70th anniversary retrospectives on TV (though it could always be lazy journos using Wikipedia as a primary source ;). But it's not like it's a competition and there's room for both descriptions - Hull was an easier target on the East coast with big visible docks at the meeting of two rivers and consequently had the cr*p bombed out of it. 95% of housing stock damaged, just imagine living through that. The Liverpool Blitz is usually used to refer to attacks on the greater Merseyside area, especially including Birkenhead, rather than 'just' the city itself. James (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You have also to keep in mind that the WestCoast ports where strategically import than the East coast because of the Battle of the Atlantic and Troop movements.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Broken Link

The Liverpool museum link regards the May Blitz and Blitz appears to be broken , the suffix should be 'aspx' not 'asp' . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.140.234 (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Scope of the blitz debate

In regards to this edit, Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) can you please point out the source which supports the statement that Birkenhead, Bootle and Seacombe were also the most heavily bombed areas? I've actually visited Liverpool (and the excellent Maritime Museum which is being used as a source here BTW), and it's my understanding that the locals don't regard Birkenhead, Bootle and Seacombe as being part of the city proper. This is supported by this part of the website which states that Bootle is " a small town outside the city boundaries" and reports the casualty figures for each locality separately. That source supports a statement that Merseyside was the worst-hit area outside London, but it appears to define this as being Liverpool, Bootle, Birkenhead, and Wallasey, unless I'm missing something. Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not recall adding the website to the article (although I could be mistaken). I have noted, with time, the list of towns in the lede had grown. Thus, I checked the source material (this page of the website), which states "Liverpool was the most heavily bombed British city outside London. The city was a prime target for attack because, with Birkenhead, its 'twin' across the Mersey, it was the country's biggest west coast port. Every week, ships arrived in the River Mersey bringing supplies of food and other cargoes from the USA and Canada. Without these supplies, Britain would have lost the war."

Given the lack of mention of the surrounding towns (which are not part of the city) it seemed prudent to revert back to the source material until other sources come to light.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The source appears to support both "Liverpool" and "Merseyside" then (both of which may be accurate then depending on how you analyse the statistics and geography). Are there other sources which can be consulted? It's certainly my understanding that this region was very heavily bombed. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The website, imo, clearly supports the opening sentence: "Liverpool and its surrounding area".

After doing a quick search, I was only able to find the below sources that provide info on where and what was bombed. They, essentially repeat the current sources info. While they don't appear perfect, they at least support the various anon edits that added in Bootle to the lede. Although there is no mention of Seacombe (which would fall under Wallasey, or at least the Wirral).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The confusion probably stems from Liverpool and Merseyside being synonymous to people outside the area, and the names sometimes being used interchangeably. And yes, Liverpool, Bootle, Birkenhead and Wallasey were separate local authorities at the time (though Seacombe is part of Wallasey), but the docks being targetted were on both sides of the river. It’d be invidious to suggest Liverpool alone was damaged in the raids.

I've added a bit from "The Cruel Sea" about it; not exactly encyclopaedic, but Monsarrat knew what he was talking about, and he was a local lad, so... Xyl 54 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional Sources

• Liverpool: the first 1,000 years states "... made Liverpool the prime target outside London ... the May Blitz was the most savage and sustained attack of the war so far ..75,000 were made homeless .... In Bootle, 80% of houses were hit or set on fire ..."
• Jambusters: The Story of the Women's Institute in the Second World War: "Liverpool, Bootle and the Wirral were the most heavily bombed areas outside of London ..."
• North-West Aircraft Wrecks: "Liverpool was probably the most heavily-bombed British City and together with the surrounding towns of Bootle, Wallasey and Birkenhead"
• The Cruel Sea: Nicholas Monsarrat

“What’s got it worst?” said Philips. The AB gestured vaguely. “All over I reckon--Bootle, Birkenhead, Wallasey. And down in the town, too: there isn’t any Lord Street left--they got the lot, both sides. Worst bombing of the war, the papers said.... there was an ammunition ship just alongside here, blazing all over, but they towed her out into the middle of the river before she blew up”. He gestured again, more vividly. “Best dose of salts I’ve ever had... “ (Part 3: 1941, Grappling/ch 5 p188)

Hull vs Liverpool debate in edit-revert cycle.

Acknowledging that Hull was heavily bombed during the Blitz and, per the edit summaries, suffered 85 raids resulting in 95 percent of housing being damaged, and half the population made homeless per Rev. P. Greystone, The Blitz on Hull, Lampada, 1991 and Geraghty, T., A North East Town, Pye Books, 1989.

Several sources (after a brief search) highlight that Liverpool was the most heavily bombed city, outside of London:

• The Official history on the subject: Basil Collier, Official History of the Second World War: The defence of the United Kingdom (HMSO 1957). Collier states: "Outside London, Liverpool (with Birkenhead) was probably the biggest sufferer, especially if earlier raids in August are brought into the reckoning; but Birmingham, with eight big raids, was close behind, while Coventry and Plymouth were probably as heavily attacked in proportion to their size as any British city. And any list of claimants to the melancholy honour of having suffered most in the night offensive must mention also Glasgow, Bristol, Portsmouth, Southampton, Hull and Belfast. Manchester, with only three big raids, may be thought to have come off lightly in view of its great size and importance. Sheffield, Newcastle, Nottingham and Cardiff complete the tally of cities considered worthy by the enemy of major raids", p. 281
• Bryan Perrett's Liverpool: A City at War: City was the most bombed outside of London
• During the actual Blitz, per 'The Night Blitz' John Ray, ISBN 0-304-35676-X, page 264 and quoted on the main Blitz page, during the 1940-41 Blitz, Liverpool received 8 major raids with 1,957 tons of bombs dropped compared to the three raids on hull dropping 593 tons.
• Considering Liverpool was the largest port on the west coast, the following sources notes that six nights of raids reduced the port capacity by half: Lynne Olson's Citizens of London: How Britain was Rescued in Its Darkest, Finest Hour
• Jim Baggott's The First War of Physics: The Secret History of the Atom Bomb states there was over 300 raids during 1940.
• Admitting a somewhat weak source for the topic: Christopher Sandford's McCartney: 12,000 homes destroyed, 40,000 seriously damaged, and 27,000 people evacuated

Other than providing a list of details on damage caused to Hull, does the source claim Hull was the most heavily bombed city outside of London?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This issue has cropped up on the main Blitz page, and has been raised on the talk page. G-13114 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

From casual glancing around the net (news articles, books, websites, and forums), the Hull Blitz page, and the main blitz page it seems pretty clear. The dubious honours of being the most bombed (more raids, more bombers, more payload dropped) city (outside of London) goes to Liverpool, but the most severely damaged city (outside of London) goes to Hull. With minor exceptions, it seems the vast majority of sources agree on this point. Perhaps a note to this effect on both pages, thus satisfying the endless debate?

If the bomb census survey was online, I would imagine the issue would be put to bed very quickly. Anyone near Kew? :P EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I hate to see edit-warring over this matter. A lot of people and stuff got blown up in various places. On the one hand, there sure are a lot of good refs there giving Liverpool pride of place I guess. On the other hand, what is meant by "most heavily bombed"? Most total bomb tonnage? Most bombs? Most economic damage? Most casualties? Most days with one or more bombs? Or any of these, proportional to area or population or total property value? Or something else? As a practical matter, "One of the..." is an acceptable construction when the matter's debatable, and it'd doesn't preclude that the entity might be atop the group. ("U.S. Grant was one of the most important Union Civil War generals" is certainly true, as is "U.S. Grant was the most important Union Civil War general"; you'd use one or the other depending on context and whether you were contending with a partisan of General Halleck and didn't want to argue about it; and so on.) So I'd recommend that "one of the" is best and let's move on. Herostratus (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Liverpool was more intensely bombed even than London during 1940-1. "Various quibbles are possible, but the answer is clear and unambiguous - London was a safer place than Merseyside in which to spend the years 1940-41." Port in a Storm by John Hughes (1993), p 160. RodCrosby (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Suffering of Liverpool

An editor added this, which doesn't belong in the main body and is unsourced original research. I'm moving it here rather than just erasing it because it seems like it might be true and if it is true it might be worth somebody's effort (not me!) to source and recast as usable material. Herostratus (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the desire to mask the damage to Liverpool from Germany has also served to mask the sacrifice the city made from the people of the United Kingdom itself. Whenever German bombing attacks on the United Kingdom are discussed, while London and Coventry, and even Bristol, are frequently mentioned, Liverpool's suffering is virtually forgotten. Few people realise that Liverpool had a higher per-capita death rate than London during the sustained German attacks, a fact that seems to have entirely escaped both historians and modern commentators. Liverpool deserves better than this.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liverpool 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927210221/http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.php?show=ConNarrative.153&chapterId=1197 to http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.php?show=ConNarrative.153&chapterId=1197
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929091707/http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/nof/blitz/0500_info.html to http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/nof/blitz/0500_info.html

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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Liverpool 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110124113401/http://www.nwlg.org/resources/liverpool_blitz/page02_2.html to http://www.nwlg.org/resources/liverpool_blitz/page02_2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080615131941/http://www.lmu.livjm.ac.uk/LHOL/content.aspx?itemid=150 to http://www.lmu.livjm.ac.uk/LHOL/content.aspx?itemid=150
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050925054651/http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/exhibitions/blitz/may.asp to http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/exhibitions/blitz/may.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050925054651/http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/exhibitions/blitz/may.asp to http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/exhibitions/blitz/may.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050208014523/http://diduknow.info/blitz/0000_info.html to http://www.diduknow.info/blitz/0000_info.html

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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liverpool 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612082511/http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.php?show=ConNarrative.153 to http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.php?show=ConNarrative.153
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080615142445/http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.1201 to http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.1201

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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

May Blitz section

In the final para of this section there is (apparently) a quote from The Times referring to bombing between 31 March and 13 April. Not only is the citation missing, but nowhere in the rest of the article is bombing in this period referred to. The Imperial War Museum makes no mention of air raids in March and April either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PointOfPresence (talk • contribs) 14.52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

When this was added in October 2012 (with this edit) it gave the date as 5 May 1941; this was changed, for no obvious reason, with this edit in April 2018. So I have restored the original text, which is how it appears in that days Times. I trust resolves the problem. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

References