Talk:The Blitz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Structural Implications

As I read through this article I decided to edit the 3 sections that followed the prelude. When I initially read these headings I was rather confused being that the London blitz did not come in phases. My assumption to the useage of the words first, second and third phases makes me believe that they are leading up to a final blow out which is not how the blitz happened. There were different bombings that took place but each one was as bad as the first, therefore I changed the headings to something that still classified each attack but didnt turn it into a process.

Also I replaced one of the pictures with a St. Pauls Cathedral picture because there was not enough description in the previous. I researched the picture and was still unable to find a direct fact about it. I added some definition to the caption of a couple of the other pictures in the article to give a sense of emotion.

In two of the articles there were some sentenses that were to complicating to read such as the ones that listed cities. Generally people can relate to the more popular cites so I put more emphasis to those making it easier to make the connection between a city and an event. These were my main changes.london1288 16:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

War Crime?

Why is there no discussion here of the possibility of the bombing of innocent civilians' homes in London as being a potential war crime? The Wikipedia article on the Allied bombing of Dresden poses the question concerning that raid. Meanwhile the Nazi bombing of London was carried out over months.

It was a war crime.But the british can not call it so ,as they have done the same earlier ex: copenhagen 1807,later ex :consequent terror bombing targeting the civil population of Hamburg. The dilemma is very funny to observe in the imperial war museum,where the terror bombings of the allies against the germans is seen as effective,but the german blitz is seen as ineffective in breaking british moral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.251.215.40 (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article?

This is a very well crafted, well researched, well formated article, and I think the editor should consider making it a Wikipedia Featured Article. Does anyone else share this opinion?

The research is fine and the structure adequate, but the writing style is lackluster with too many unnecessary commas and redundant words. Send in the copy-editors.lizardo_tx (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

Why is this article separate from Battle of Britain? It seems to cover exactly the same ground. Why not merge them?

To anonymous deleter: I put back the text you deleted from this article because I could see no reason why it shold be removed. If you think there is a reason why it should be deleted, feel free to explain here. DJ Clayworth 13:54, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Was it a single German bomber which accidentally dropped its load over London on Aug 24 1940 or were there several aircraft involved in this incident? I've seem to remember hearing that it was a single bomber, but http://www.onwar.com/chrono/1940/aug40/24aug40.htm suggests that there were several aircraft involved. Jooler 18:02, 21 January 2005 (UTC)

the Blitz, The Blitz?

Isn't "the Blitz" the more common capitalisation, rather than "The Blitz"?

• Unfortunately, it is not possible to have a wikipedia article name beginning with a capital letter, due to technical restrictions.

Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 23:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• To clarify: the title of the article has to be "Blitz" or "The Blitz" for software reasons, but in ordinary constructions in the text of the article, it should be "the Blitz" (like the Beatles, the Rat Pack, the Titanic, etc.). This is because "Blitz" in this context is a proper noun (and one that happens to take an article) but not the title of an artistic work. A book or movie by the same name would always be The Blitz. --Tysto 03:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Who Won?

Firstly the title of this section is awful. I don't like seeing questions in encyclopaedia articles like this, and it is such a glib phrase. Secondly the analysis given in the whole section is a load of cobblers. Jooler 23:13, 26 June 2005 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg

the German word Blitzkrieg, doesn't mean "Lightning War", but "Fast War", suddenly and fast as a flash...

• No one is under the impression that the Nazis actually harnessed the power of lightning to conquer Europe. --Tysto 03:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I took out the reference to Germany for "Blitzkreig". It was a term coined by a US journalist during the Poland invasion; Germany never referred to their doctrine as Blitzkrieg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.110.174 (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Blitz

How ironic it seems that the London subway was a safe shelter during The Blitz and lately it proved to be the most risky place to be because of fanatics concealing explosives while they ride the tube.Musicwriter 20:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC).

I'm sorry to have to take this tone but, please, get some perspective. User:A.K.A.47

Although some of the public imagined that the tube was a safe place to shelter during the London Blitz, it was often no defence against a direct hit. For this reason the authorities discouraged its use and it was only used by some 5% of shelterers. One of the greatest tragedies of civilian death in wartime London actually occured at the Bethnal Green tube station following a panic rush on the stairway. Colin4C 10:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Battle of the Beams

There is a section in the Battle of Britain article about the German use of beams to guide their aircraft. I think this would be more apropriate as part of this article as they were mostly used at night during the blitz.Shimbo 09:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested move September 2005

The Blitz → Blitz. Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Avoid the definite article ("the") and the indefinite article ("a"/"an") at the beginning of the page name --Philip Baird Shearer 11:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose: While I recognize and support the convention, this particular incident is almost always referred to (so far as I've experienced) as "The Blitz". Oberiko 13:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support: You can still write "The Blitz"; but as one word you can also link, without pipings to "the blitzing of London". This is precisely parallel to the cases listing in the Naming Convention cited above. Septentrionalis 17:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose . As you'd expect. The naming convention is not inclusive enough and needs to be refined to include cases such as this where the definitie article makes the subject something that it would not be if the definite article was excluded. Similar examples include The Ashes and The Holocaust, The closet, The Crown, The bends, The Last Supper, The Knowledge there's more I'm sure. - Jooler 21:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've never heard it called anything but "The Blitz", whereas "blitz" is a common verbal shorthand for blitzkrieg. --Carnildo 03:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, on grounds cited by Jooler above. The word "the" in this title and similar titles is not just an article; it can be thought of as a sort of demonstrative adjective. Which blitz? The blitz. Doops | talk 05:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The RM is technically justifiable by a strict reading of the current policy; but as Jooler demonstrates, current practice differs in many such cases, and I think that broadly speaking, that practice is more sensible. I'd suggest that the pertinent policy be reviewed, with a view to making the two coincide better. Alai 02:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Francis Schonken 11:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Not voting, but following Alai's suggestion I added a third point to the "convention" of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name), specifying this kind of case. I couldn't find a simple wording, so please have a look and adapt if necessary. --Francis Schonken 08:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Example in guideline adapted, and makes clear that "The Blitz", not different in meaning from "Blitz", could not be seen as an application of the guideline addition, so this time I'm voting. --Francis Schonken 11:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per other opposers. Philip, please don't rules lawyer a guideline that wasn't meant to include these kinds of article titles. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

NO CONSENSUS FOR THE MOVE AFTER FIVE DAYS SO VOTE CLOSED AND NO MOVE. Philip Baird Shearer 00:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

While I recognize and support the convention, this particular incident is almost always referred to (so far as I've experienced) as "The Blitz". Oberiko 13:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What about cases like the London Blitz, the Coventry Blitz? (do a Google search to see how common this constructon is --Philip Baird Shearer 23:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Google proves nothing. You will find more hits for the The London Times (sic). Few people in the real world call it the London Blitz. It's almost always "The Blitz" (unqualifed) - and anyway this article is about the Blitz in Britain and not just London. cf. Re:Google cf "The holocaust" - "Nazi Holocaust" Jooler 23:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that Google proved anything, although 70,000 hits shows "London Blitz" is in common usage. What I was doing was showing you that "Blitz" can and is used without the definite article and will be about the German aerial bombardment of the UK. How about uses such as: "In 1944 there was a doodlebug blitz on London"? --Philip Baird Shearer 00:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well that just proves the point - because "The Blitz" specifically refers to the aerial bombardment during 1940-1941. The V1 (doodlebug) and V2 attacks against London are not "The Blitz" any more than the aerial bombardment of Baghdad (the 'Blitz of Baghdad') are. Jooler 06:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I would question your dating as I personally would also include the later attacks as the little blitz. But that does not remove the issue that the word Blitz on its own means intensive German aerial bombardment campaign of Britain. It does not have another meaning in English and so the definate article is not needed for disimbaguation purposes. Philip Baird Shearer 16:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You question my dating?! Read the frigging article for goodness sake. "The blitz" is 1940-1941 and not 1944-1945. Jooler 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

---

As you'd expect. The naming convention is not inclusive enough and needs to be refined to include cases such as this where the definitie article makes the subject something that it would not be if the definite article was excluded. Similar examples include The Ashes and The Holocaust, The closet, The Crown, The bends, The Last Supper, The Knowledge there's more I'm sure. - Jooler 21:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment. Some of these examples are more pressing and convincing than others. Personally I'd be in favour of the-inclusion in cases where "[X]" and "The [X]" refer to substantiatively different things (regardless of whether those things happen to both have separate articles on WP). See the Talk: page of the cited policy. Alai 22:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

In all the cases you give there is a common meaning for the words listed, so the use of a definative article helps define a specific case. Please explain to me another English language meaning for the word Blitz, because to date there are none listed on the disambiguation page. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You'll note I suggested, "regardless of whether those things happen to both have separate articles on WP", which is what disambig pages are for.

n. 1. 1. A blitzkrieg.

2. A heavy aerial bombardment.

2. An intense campaign: a media blitz focused on young voters.

3. Football. A sudden charge upon the quarterback by one or more of the linebackers or defensive backs when the ball is snapped. Also called red-dog.

v.tr. 1. To subject to a blitz.

2. Football. To rush (the quarterback) in a blitz.

v.intr. Football. To carry out a blitz.

Alai 04:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The argument you are putting forward is that any phrase for example "United Kingdom" because it usually has "The" in front of it should have it included in the title. Are you realy suggesting that the title of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be move to "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" if not why not? Philip Baird Shearer

That's not "my argument" at all. "ashes" "knowledge" "blitz" "bends"- Those words mean little in isolation, bt put the definite article infront of them and what do you get?. Jooler 06:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

What does the word blitz mean apart from the bombing of Britain by Germany? Philip Baird Shearer 16:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I just gave you an example above of Baghdad blitz. But in other contexts... how about ...

• http://www.google.com/search?q=%22I+blitzed+through+the+job%22
• http://www.google.com/search?q=%22I+got+blitzed+last+night%22
• http://www.google.com/search?q=%22blitz+it+in+the+microwave%22
• http://www.google.com/search?q=%22blitzed+the+quarterback%22
• http://www.google.com/search?q=%22blitzed+it+in+the+blender%22
• http://www.google.com/search?q=%22surrounded+by+a+media+blitz%22
  • Jooler 22:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

... and in response to your direct question to me, above, I gave you enough copied-and-pasted definitions of same, that Houghton Mifflin Company are surely getting ready to sue. Do you then agree with the principle I suggested? Or is this a blind alley? Alai 02:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

All the examples that you give are derived from the main meaning from the bombing of Britain during the war and in MHO they not justify the violation of Wikipedia policy guidlines: "Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Avoid the definite article ("the") and the indefinite article ("a"/"an") at the beginning of the page name". What do you think is the point of guidlines if they are not addeared to unless there is a very good reason for nt doing so, and you have not come up with one other usage of Blitz as a noun which makes it necessary to put the definite article infront of the word Blitz. Philip Baird Shearer 12:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

There are also a few web usages of the phrase "the blitz" which are not direct links to the bombing of Britian by Germany (three of the firt ten returned by a google.co.uk seach weightsradio station[oonumerics.org/blitz/ software]). By the logic which has been expressed here then the page "the Blitz" would have to become a disambiguation page. Clearly no one is suggesting that, but the logic used in the defence of "The Blitz" against Wikipedia guidelines would dictate it. Philip Baird Shearer 12:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard it called anything but "The Blitz", whereas "blitz" is a common verbal shorthand for blitzkrieg. --Carnildo 03:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

"Blitz" is not usually a shorthand for Blitzkrieg. Philip Baird Shearer 18:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've heard that the debris from the bombing was used to help create the foundations for the FDR drive in NYC?

NYCroads.com reports that construction on the northern section (92nd Street to 125th Street) of the Franklin D. Roosevelt East River Drive began in 1934, years before the war. The site does claim that "the section near Bellevue Hospital (between East 23rd Street and East 30th Street) was filled with rubble from bombed British cities carried as ballast in wartime ships, and was dubbed 'Bristol Basin' at the time." A plaque to this effect was arranged by the English-Speaking Union; the plaque was relocated to the riverside plaza at the Waterside Plaza apartment complex in 1974. — OtherDave 14:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Eagle Day

I have read 'somewhere' that the first day of the Blitz was codenamed 'Eagle Day' by the germans. Is this so? A translation into german would be nice. Eric A. Warbuton 06:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Adlertag - Not during the Blitz but preceeding it. See the Battle of Britain article. Jooler

Thanks for that info. Eric A. Warbuton 04:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Why The Blitz at all

More context could be used for the article. Specifically, why was there The Blitz (which I have always taken to mean the bombing of London, but I guess Coventry rather brings the point home) as opposed to no Blitz?

It was a reaction by the OKW (the German High Command) to losing the Battle of Britain. It was believed, strongly, that bombing London would not take the heart out of the British for supporting the war because, yes, a larger amount of the population would be directly affected. This was the first real air war, the odd jampot bomb dropped by Zeppelins and artillery attacks on fishing villages (in Scotland?) in the First World War aside. The 'island mentality' was still an immense psychological and cultural comfort. (A side benefit was that concentrating bombing on the city where the British were administering the war couldn't hurt.)

Hence, the concentration of bombing on the cites.

There were at least two military consequences. First was the additional flying time meant that the Messerschmit fighters had to limit their performance to defending Junker bombers from Allied air attacks. (Someone will correct me on this I know, which is why I'm putting it here rather than directly into the article. Somewhere in my head is that the MEs had only ten minutes of gas/minutes at full throttle thanks to the additional flying time and slower speeds needed to escort the bombers.

The second is that the that when the city bombing was stepped up, bombing of other military targets slowed down. This allowed the British to repair infrastructure vital to the war effort elsewhere. Again, this is dim memory, but I believe the ports and airfields used for the Battle of the Atlantic got some much needed respite. (Airfields because they extended air cover for ships, though how effective antisub weapons were in this period is not my area of expertise, so someone check this.)

Just my O2.

Andy 65.92.30.146 01:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree more context would be good, however I think the specific points you make are incorrect. The Luftwaffe bombers had no fighter escorts in the Blitz because the bombing was at night. The Second Battle of the Atlantic was mostly after the Blitz. The point you are making about the cities vs military targets is more appropriate to the Battle of Britain where it is already covered. --Shimbo 11:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

__ The context criticism is valid. I'd suggest that an addition to the context is that the shift to the bombing of cities was not an overnight affair. The Battle of Britain was an ongoing affair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.185.46 (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Daylight raids?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A1061939

If the point you are trying to make is that the Blitz included daylight raids then that source does not help. As it says Southampton was raided 57 times, some raids were part of the Battle of Britain, some were part of the Blitz. My view, and I think the view of all Brits, is that it is as simple as this: daylight raids in the summer/early autumn of 1940 = Battle of Britain, nightime raids in the late autumn/winter of 1940 = Blitz. Shimbo 20:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

damaged vs. destroyed buildings

how do people here feel about making seperate lists for damaged and destroyed buildiings instead of a single list like there is now. --Ted-m 03:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the buildings on the list are still there. It would be interesting to know which buildings were lost forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishrichy (talk • contribs) 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Trekkers

Some time ago I seem to recall reading that, in Southampton at least, a number of city dwellers took to sleeping in the New Forest and surrounding countryside to avoid the bombing and these were known as trekkers. The authorities were apparently not too happy about it and suppressed any reporting of it. Presumably they felt it would give the impression of a defeated people. It seems very sensible to me. Does anyone have any reliable knowledge of this and, assuming I didn't dream it, was it a phenomenon limited only to Southampton? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.66.11 (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, 'trekking' occured in various cities. Conventry was one city where the people left the city at night - "Conventry was hit with great precision and four thousand people were killed in a raid lasting ten hours. One third of the city was damaged. Many people began 'trekking' to avoid further damage." That's from one of my school textbooks - Britain in the Age of Total War 1939-45. HarryC 14:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"First phase"

This is not a topic I know a great deal about, so I'm not bold enough to revise, but I was puzzled by this entry...

Birmingham and Bristol were attacked on October 15, while the heaviest attack of the war so far — involving 400 bombers and lasting six hours — hit London. The RAF opposed them with 41 fighters but only shot down one Heinkel bomber. By mid-November, the Germans had dropped more than 13,000 tons of high explosive and more than 1 million incendiary bombs for a combat loss of less than 1% (although planes were of course being lost in accidents caused by night flying and night landing).

John Keegan, in The Second World War, writes that on 15 September "the largest bomber force yet dispatched, 200 aircraft with a heavy fighter escort" attacked London; by the end of the day "nearly sixty" had been shot down. Keegan puts the Luftwaffe bomber count at 1,300, which means the 15 September losses alone constitute 4.5% of the bomber total.

Keegan continues that in August and September (over Britain as a whole, admittedly), "Fighter Command lost 832 fighters, the Luftwaffe only 668. It was the loss of nearly 600 German bombers" [close to half of what they'd started with] "which made the balance sheet read so disfavorably to the atacker." — OtherDave 22:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

St Paul's Cathedral image false

As I read through the article, I noticed that it does not comment on the fact that the image of St Paul's Cathedral surrounded in flames as being a partial fake. Clouds and flames had been added to the original to make it look more dramatic, and the image was used as an icon of defiance and heroism. Should this be added? I think it should, as if the image itself is mentioned then the truth about it should be told also. HarryC 14:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The picture was takne by Herbert Mason, of the Daily Mail and was taken from the roof of the Daily Mail offices in Fleet Street. An image of the front page of the Daily Mail for Tuesday 31 December 1940 is available from the Museum of London - see [1] - Do you have a citation for the claim that it was faked? Jooler 22:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC) - If anything, when comparing the image on this page to the one from the Daily Mail it looks like someone has brightened up the centre of the image to make the Cathedral stand out more. Jooler 22:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The image on Wikipedia hasn't been 'faked' but has (or should have) been adjusted to the correct level for viewing on a monitor screen. It should look about the same on a correctly set up monitor as the original one printed in the newspaper. Remember when looking at a scanned image that the resulting picture may look considerably different from the printed image if the scanner hasn't been set up properly, or if the person doing the scanning hasn't adjusted the scanner settings/image editor settings correctly. Unfortunately, some 'professional' (i.e., big) organisations have web sites with amateurish levels of image quality, in particular, images that are too dark, so it's not uncommon for these site's images to not look the same as the scanned original. The whole subject of getting accurate images into and out-of a computer comes under the general term of 'colour management' and is a quite complicated business in itself. If in doubt, try printing the image on your printer. Assuming it has been installed properly with the correct printer profile (this is usually installed automatically along with the driver) then the printed result should give you a better idea of what the image really looks like rather than looking at it on a monitor that may be too bright or otherwise incorrectly set up 'out of the box'. BTW, the original ST Paul's Cathedral image would have been printed on cheap newsprint in the original newspaper and it's probable that the original negative contained more information than the then-current printing process could have reproduced on the paper itself, so the image may look different anyway depending on its source, i.e., whether it was scanned from the newspaper it was published in, or from a proper photographic print. Ian Dunster 12:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Baby Blitz

I've added a short paragraph regarding the resumption of bomber raids on London in early 1944 that appears to have been completely missed or ignored; what was known as the 'Baby Blitz'- there are/were references to a 'Little Blitz' coupled to the V-1 offensive but these are confusing two distinct chapters in the bombing offensive against the UK, so ive changed things slightly. Hope everyone considers things a bit clearer now. Harryurz 12:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

free image

the LOC has a great free image of bunkbeds in subway tunnels here: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3g04337 140.247.240.181 23:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

another good one here: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3g04327 140.247.240.181 23:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Blitz → Blitz. Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Avoid the definite article ("the") and the indefinite article ("a"/"an") at the beginning of the page name. OED states "Blits" as a noun is "An attack or offensive launched suddenly with great violence with the object of reducing the defences immediately; spec. an air-raid or a series of them conducted in this way, esp. the series of air-raids made on London in 1940. Also attrib." eg ("1940 Daily Express 9 Sept. 1 Blitz bombing of London goes on all night." and "1944 Ourselves in Wartime viii. 177 All under five, many born since the beginning of the war, ‘blitz’ babies knew instinctively that the ground floor was safest.") and as a verb is "To attack with a blitz; to hit, blast, destroy, etc., by an air-raid". eg("1940 Daily Express 6 Dec. 1/6 A south coast town felt the heaviest weight of last night's Nazi blitzing." and "1941 War Illustr. 30 Dec. 377 For the past few months demolition squads have been working on this heavily blitzed site.") Both are primary meanings. The current name does not lend its self to use as a adjective or verb. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose move as formulated--Blitz should remain as disambiguation page. There are many other common meanings (granted, derivative from WWII usage). But even WWII use is ambiguous as many commonly use blitz as a short form of the German term blitzkrieg. I agree "The Blitz" is not a very good name, but perhaps some other name could be suggested with a parenthetical disambiguator? older ≠ wiser 12:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• It is only indirectly from he German term blitzkrieg according to the OED that says the primary meaning is "An attack or offensive launched suddenly with great violence with the object of reducing the defences immediately; spec. an air-raid or a series of them conducted in this way, esp. the series of air-raids made on London in 1940" . and it is usual on Wikipedia put the primary usage on the page and have a seperate Blitz (disambiguation) for the other meanings. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Continued below in discussion section.

• Oppose as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name), specifically: "If a word without a definite article would have a general meaning, while the same word has a specific and identifiable meaning, understood by all, if adding the article, and if there is justification to have separate articles for both meanings, the specific meaning can be explained on a separate page, with a page title including the article. Example: "crown" means the headgear worn by a monarch, other high dignitaries, divinities etcetera; while "The Crown" is a term used to indicate the government authority and the property of that government in a monarchy.". Applies equally to a blitz and the Blitz in my opinion. --DeLarge 23:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. See below.--SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 06:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• It is usual on Wikipedia to put the primary topic on the undisambiguated title and if there is no primary topic, it should be a disambiguation page. I do not agree that The Blitz, referring to the air raids on England in WWII qualifies as the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 15:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• The OED disagrees with you it puts the primary meaning of Blitz as "esp. the series of air-raids made on London in 1940" --Philip Baird Shearer 17:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• The definition given is generic, the "esp." is one common instance of such use. None of the dictionaries included at Dictionary.com even so much as lists the specific air raids on Britain as a definition.

1. Military;
1a. an overwhelming all-out attack, esp. a swift ground attack using armored units and air support.
1b. an intensive aerial bombing.
2. any swift, vigorous attack, barrage, or defeat: a blitz of commercials every few minutes.
3. Football. act or instance of charging directly for (the passer) as soon as the ball is snapped; red-dogging.

4. bingo.

— Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006 has (nouns only)

1a. blitzkrieg.
1b. A heavy aerial bombardment.
2. An intense campaign: a media blitz focused on young voters.

3. Football A sudden charge upon the quarterback by one or more of the linebackers or defensive backs when the ball is snapped. Also called red-dog.

— American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

1940, shortening of Ger. Blitzkrieg (1939) "rapid attack," from Blitz "lightning" (from M.H.G. blicze, from bliczen "to flash") + Krieg "war" (see kriegspiel). The use in U.S. football is from 1963.

— Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

• Merriam-Webster Online has

1 a : BLITZKRIEG 1 b (1) : an intensive aerial military campaign (2) : AIR RAID

2 a : an intensive campaign or attack : a sudden overwhelming bombardment <an advertising blitz> b : a rush of the passer by a defensive linebacker, back, or end in football.

— Merriam-Webster Online

• MSN Encarta dictionary does list the WWII bombings, but capitalized as "Blitz" [2] and qualified as UK usage:

U.K. bombing of British cities in WW II: the intensive bombing of British cities by the German Air Force between 1940 and 1941

— MSN Encarta dictionary

• For the uncapitalized "blitz" [3], MSN Encarta dictionary has

1. military sustained aerial attack: a heavy air raid intended to obliterate a target
2. military
Same as blitzkrieg
3. concentrated effort: a concentrated effort to get something done ( informal )
a last-minute blitz to finish the book

4. football charge on passer: in football, a direct attack on the passer, by one or more players who usually stay behind the line of scrimmage, to try to prevent a pass

— MSN Encarta dictionary

• There are more listed at OneLook Dictionary Search, but all are similar. If they specifically include the WWI bombings of Britain, it is alway qualified by capitalization and usually with the definite article as in "the Blitz". older ≠ wiser 19:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said above even if it is the Blitz, like the Netherlands, we should avoid the definite article if we can. Given that the German attacks on the UK are usually known as blitz, London blitz, Conventy blitz etc, it is quite accaptable to remove the definite article, because if we do, it can be shown is several sources that the main meaning is derived from theses attacks and so is the primary meaning.

I think that the OED carries more weight than the dictionaries available at Dictionary.com, also I note that many of those who say it is derived from Blitzkrieg seem to be using "Football" without qualification that suggests they are American dictionaries. Is it possible that the meaning differs on different sides of the pond?

In the UK Blitz is not usually used for Blitzkrieg but to refer to the aerial attacks on Britain and is also used to describe other sudden massive aerial attacks for example this article from a UK news paper last year (the first from a google search of [blitz attack site:uk] and see this article (the second newspaper article returned). For the authors and the readers of that papers a headline of "US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites" would mean an air campaign (if they meant a sudden large ground attack then they might use the word blitzkrieg but they would not use blitz) --Philip Baird Shearer 21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. I disagree that the German bombings of England qualify as the primary topic. It is an ambiguous term and should be a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 21:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it currently named "the Blitz" instead of "the UK Blitz" if not the primary meaning? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, likely because the definite article allows for it to be a distinct title from blitz. As mentioned, reference works that do mention the bombings as a sense of the term "blitz" typically include the definite article and capitalize the term. That is not a good indication that it is the primary topic for the generic term -- merely that is has a specialized usage. older ≠ wiser 01:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• I checked also **Chambers dictionary (excerpt):

blitz noun (blitzes) 1 a sudden strong attack, or period of such attacks, especially from the air.
2 (the Blitz) the German air raids on Britain in 1940.
3 (especially have a blitz on something) colloq a period of hard work, etc to get something (especially a cleaning or tidying job) finished or done quickly and thoroughly.
4 Amer football a charge against a quarterback by the defensive linebackers.
verb (blitzed, blitzing) 1 to attack, damage or destroy something as if by an air raid.
2 colloq to work hard at something for a short period; to have a blitz on it.
blitzed adj, slang thoroughly drunk or very high on drugs.

ETYMOLOGY: 1930s: from blitzkrieg.

— Copyright Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd 2007

• I think there is a distinction that is made by inclusion of the definite article; there are blitzes, and there is the Blitz; similarly, there are holocausts, and there is the Holocaust. Whether "the Blitz" is the primary meaning of "blitz", I am not convinced one way or t'other; but I believe that this particular article should remain at "the Blitz". --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 06:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 07:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Million houses damaged?

I have taken the following comment, by IP address 66.52.8.218, out of the article & am placing it in this talk page. Any replies to it are between you and 66.52.8.218. -- Why Not A Duck 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In World War II, the population of Britain was about 45 million. The figure of one million houses destroyed means that virtually every house in Britain was damaged or demolished - including houses in small towns and remote areas. However, even in London and other large cities, most houses sustained no damage. The 1 million figure is obviously in error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.52.8.218 (talk • contribs)

Actually, if 45 million people lived in about one million houses, the average would have to be about 45 people per house. There are only 4 in my house, so I don't know how you concluded that 1 million houses would include virtually every house. Art LaPella 00:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The edits of User:London1288

Edits by this user seem to have been most unhelpful to this page, introducing a great deal of superfluous emotional language, American spellings and grammatical errors. I'm going to revert the whole page to the edit immediately before he began to contributing to this page and then see if anything can be salvaged from what has been added in between. Jooler (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:StPaulsCathedral.jpg

Image:StPaulsCathedral.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

— Save_Us_229 22:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Source for damages and casualties

Quote: "By the end of May 1941, over 43,000 civilians had been killed and more than a million houses destroyed or damaged." - is there any reliable source for that? For in the German wikipedia this number is disputed. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.227.192 (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask the same. 1 mio. houses, how much in percentage is that? 150? --217.83.26.229 (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This [4] gives a figure of 4.5 million homes damaged and a quarter of a million destroyed.

• Between 1940 and 1943 about 4.5 million houses were damaged, a quarter million of which were totally destroyed.This means that about two in every seven houses in Britain were in some way affected by enemy action. London soaked up about half of the pressure. In the administrative county of London, only one in ten houses escaped any kind of damage. In Bermondsey only four in every hundred houses emerged from the war without incident. Outside of London, coastal towns such as Newcastle, Cardiff, Swansea, Liverpool, Bristol and Plymouth were affected. In Plymouth, 8 percent of houses were destroyed and a further 16 per cent damaged. By the end of June 1941, nearly 2.25 million people had been made homeless by bombing for periods between one day and a month. In the same period nearly a fifth of all schools had been damaged.

This UK Government site [5] says that 3.5 million homes were damaged in London alone for the entire blitz.

The figure of 1 million appears to be an under-estimate if anything.

Museum of London - [6] The Blitz changed London and London life in many ways. By June 1941 over a million houses in London had been damaged or destroyed and one Londoner in six had been homeless at some point. Over 20,000 people had been killed. Meanwhile daily routines and ways of life had changed, although perhaps replaced by a different kind of routine.

• • Jooler (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The figure of 43,000 can be widely found on Encarta, on the BBC etc. I believe that figure is for the whole of Britain, as this site would suggest [7] thus giving support for the 20,000 figure for London above. Jooler (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok this page , [8] quotes 3.5 million damaged for the entire blitz - the cite for it is shown as [9] cites (Taylor A. J.P. English History 1914-1945. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1965 AJP Taylor. I think this matches the UK gov site figure for London.

The difficulty is matching the area affected and the time period for the casualties and the housing damage. Jooler (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

Could somebody please fix the table? It broke apart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.197.5 (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

fixed. Jooler (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

fixed some minor spelling mistakes in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xais (talk • contribs) 12:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Back Piccadilly c.1939.JPG

The image File:Back Piccadilly c.1939.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

"At the end of the Blitz an estimated 16,000 had been killed. An estimated 180,000 were injured." Found at the end of the v-rocket section. This line makes no sense as the numbers do not add up for v-rockets. Does it include the "baby-Blitz' casualties? Other blitz casualties? Line should be clarified or deleted; if it came from some source, please cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.101.153 (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

1800 Megaton bombs??

"15th November 1940 - the Luftwaffe returns to London hitting almost every borough. It uses a new bomb nicknamed Satan - it was huge - 1800 megatons of high explosive and it was a delayed action bomb. " 1800 Megatons? I don't think so. I'll remove that information. Do "delayed action bombs" exist? If anybody believes to know more about the subject, please rectify.--Malbi 18:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

There were such things as delayed action bombs. Obviously not of that size though. What they were nicknamed I've no idea. Shimbo 09:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Delayed action bombs included the Butterfly Bomb which were dropped on Ipswich. The bomb could be armed with different fuzes, the 67 used as a booby trap (went off between 5 and 30 minutes). Montgomery' 39 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

They were naval mines deliberatly dropped as city blockbusters. Clearly the number is an order of magnatude out, otherwise the Battle of the Atlantic would not have lasted as long as it did! A quick google returned too much noise, but a search with 23 November 1939 might lead to a page on them for this use. Philip Baird Shearer 11:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal of section

I have removed the following section from towards the end of the main article, as I feel it would be better placed within an article about Leeds or Beeston. --Lost tourist (Talk) 07:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC):

===The Bombing of Cross Flatts Park===

On the night of the 14 March and early hours of 15 March 1941, Leeds received its worst night of Luftwaffe bombing. The city on the whole escaped the worst of the blitz but this was to be an exception. Beeston had more bombs dropped on it then any other district of the city, yet escaped with the least damage. Flaxton Terrace was the only street to be damaged during the night time air raid, with nearly all the other bombs landing on Cross Flatts Park. In his 2005 poem 'Shrapnel' poet Tony Harrison, who was sheltering in a celler as a child in Beeston on the night of the raid, speculates whether this was an act of heroism by the Luftwaffe pilot, a theory that has been explored ever since the raid.

Blitzed?

I have just seen Swansea added (quite rightly) to the article. Now, Blitz during WW2 (or any war) is taken to mean: "A sustained bombardment." Swansea, was subjected to "A sustained bombardment" for 3 consecutive nights, London suffered 59 consecutive nights. Now, with all due resept to the good people of Coventry, Brum, Liverpool etc, who lost their lives, but the other cities and places noted in the article did not suffer "A Sustained bombardment" like Swansea and London, they were bombed, but not "Blitzed". Cheers, 'Arry Boy (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool suffered 7 nights of consecutive raids during the May Blitz during which more people died on one night (3rd/4th May 1941) than in Swansea during those three nights. Whilst some of those 7 nights were less intense than others it is inaccurate to say Liverpool did not suffer a sustained bombardment.

Privatehudson (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Perera programme overstated

The discussion of a single Spanish TV programme concerning Perera's contribution seems disproportionate. 173.16.252.144 (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Courage" comment

It would be good, if it can be sourced, to add the story - which MAY refer to Ed Murrow - that a visitor/journalist to London during the Blitz was extremely impressed by the large signs in the devastated area saying "Courage", but had to be told it was merely the name of the local brewery.

Any source known for that, anyone?

Jdudding (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

How many V2s launched against the UK?

Please see Talk:V-2#How_many_V2s_launched_against_the_UK.3F, if interested, for a question on this subject. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Most heavily bombed city?

I feel that its inaccurate to state that Hull was "(the most heavily bombed city outside of London)" without quantifying what criteria is being used here. Hull may have suffered more damaged buildings but it suffered 2,800 less casualties than Liverpool.

Privatehudson (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to revisit this, someone has now added Liverpool in, with a ref, but left Hull making the same claim, so it reads rather daftly right now. To be honest I'm not sure how useful the "most heavily bombed city after X" thing is, but if we must have it, can it not be made un-self-contradictory (if that is English at all), please? I mean maybe the obvious thing is to just remove the claim for Hull since it is still unreferenced ... I suppose I worry that I can see potential for Wikisilliness™ here, but we shall see. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)}

PS I have added a "fact" tag to Hull in the hope of making exciting and dynamic things happen. Er, yes, indeed. DBaK (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Text chunk (suggested content?)

On Nov. 15, 1940, German bombers completed a 10-hour blitz on Coventry, which killed over 500 people and destroyed the city’s cathedral.The Coventry Blitz

ShareOver 500 German bombers dropped 500 tons of explosives and 30,000 incendiary bombs in a 10-hour attack on the night of Nov. 14. The attack, called Operation Midnight Sonata, was part of a larger campaign known as the “Blitz.”

The Luftwaffe’s Blitz—meaning “lightning” in German—began on Sept. 7, 1940, with heavy bombing raids on London. It quickly expanded to include industrial targets and civilian centers throughout the country, as the Germans hoped to devastate the morale of the British people.

The British Royal Air Force responded with attacks on German cities, including a Nov. 8 bombing of Munich. According to the BBC, the German High Council issued a statement claiming the devastation wrought on the city was a reprisal for the Royal Air Force raid on Munich.

Coventry had been hit by several small German raids during the summer of 1940, but it had not been a target of the Blitz before Nov 14. The attack began at 7:20 p.m. with the dropping of parachute flares and exploding incendiaries designed to mark the targets for the barrage of high explosives.

Among the targets of the bombs was the Cathedral of St. Michael, which began to burn at 7:40. Firefighters rushed to save the church, but its roof would be entirely destroyed and 26 firefighters would perish.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.219.142 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Blitz

I noticed the section heading, "Baby Blitz," but I don't see mention of what was called the "Little Blitz" that started February 18, 1944. Which came after the RAF conducted the huge bombing raid on Berlin, February 15, 1944.Malke2010 20:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Angus Calder?

I'm surprised there is no mention of Angus Calder's The Myth of the Blitz in this entry: isn't that quite a significant reading/reinterpretation of the Blitz? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.68 (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As is his The People's War.Straw Cat (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

September 6

DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered,

Thx for your two edits.

In the first I want to keep Moltom the way it is written in the BBC report. Perhaps you would be satisfied with:

...South Moltom (Molton) Road...

It is necessary to show that in the BBC report Moltom is misrecorded, otherwise people will believe the typo is ours and may not be able to find Moltom Rd on Google Maps, etc.

Isn’t it rather exciting to be in on the correction of a widespread, albeit small, but important corner of recorded history?

BillMaddock (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope I haven't done the wrong thing, but I thought I would edit in my alteration, shown above. I think it works well. I would be obliged if you would talk to me here if you feel a change is necessary.

BillMaddock (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to fall out with you over this but I do think "Moltom" is pointless, for the reasons I gave in the edit summary. I don't think it's great having "Moltom (Molton)" in the article since this is not what the source says anyway, and if we were going to change it at all we should possibly be looking - as I was - at the provisions of Template:Sic. What I found there encouraged me to make the edit that I did, and which I still believe to be correct. However, this is not an issue on which I think a fight would be appropriate. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thx, DBaK. Good onya. BillMaddock (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just made a number of changes to the section to conform with wiki Manual of Style (block quotes, quotes not in italics) guidelines, re-ordered for logical flow, condensed the section title, tidied the references, and made the sic situation clearer. (Hohum ^@) 21:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thx for your splendid editing, Hohum. I shall use it as a Style template in the future. Commencement now looks pretty enough to go to the ball, lol. BillMaddock (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, looking grand, cheers DBaK (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Just one more thing. The CD version needs to be changed from the old Spt 7 version to this one, but editing seems blocked. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillMaddock (talk • contribs) 00:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

57 nights

Hohum, why don’t you do a bit of positive editing and rewrite what you have deleted so that it satisfies you? It seems you have failed to appreciate the importance 57 days makes to establishing Sept 6 as the first night and not Sept 7.

I tried to reference Stansky to the fifth reference in the article but didn’t know how to. I had hoped that someone would be helpful and do it. For an example of positive editing see yours of 10 Sept, which I was really impressed by and I was thankful for.

It is cut and burn editing like your last that turns people off from offering improvements to Wikipedia. I swore I would never again but the Sept 7 inaccuracy was too important to leave uncorrected; it did my ego some good too.

Also, it would be a good idea not to position the St Katharine Dock photo next to the John Davey report of the Royal Docks: people may be misled into thinking Katherine was a Royal.

I repeat, if you don’t like what I have written then rewrite it, with the Stansky reference. Hopefully we’ll both be happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillMaddock (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have that source, so I can't add things from it. (Hohum ^@) 20:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I should have written Note five instead of Reference five. Please be constructive and rewrite it and post it here. Then I will add the source or you can if you know how to.

By "reference five" I meant "Note five" towards the end of Blitz. Here it is:

^ Some authorities say 57 consecutive nights, and some say 76, depending on how one accounts for 2 November, which was too cloudy for bombing.

Docklands at War: the Blitz Museum of London

Stansky, Peter. September 7, 1940: The first day of the London Blitz. That story and does 9/11 change how we view it? Stanford UniversityBillMaddock (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Will this do? You or I can complete the reference.

Peter Stansky (insert ref to Note 5, or something here) puts the blitz at 57 consecutive nights ending on November 1. The night of September 6 counts to 57 nights to November 1, whereas the seventh comes to only 56 nights. Once again an historical inaccuracy, this time an error in arithmetic, has been perpetuated for decades.

Also, how about my suggestion to reposition the Katherine photo?BillMaddock (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hohum, I have reposted the 57 day thing and hope it meets with your approval. Both it and the AJP Taylor quote are of great importance. If you intend to make any corrections please advise me here beforehand. Then we can then reach an agreement, one of my strong points. Thank you.BillMaddock (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

September 6/7 dispute

Hi all. My attention was drawn to the article today via this post, drawing attention to the discussion above.

The points it raises are pretty clear, I think. We have historical sources generally quoting one date - admittedly an arbitrary one - and then we have a section in this article devoted to using primary sources in an original fashion to 'prove' it was another. There really doesn't seem much reason for this, and certainly not for putting so much emphasis on it in the article.

I've reverted it for the time being, since as it stands - even if right - it's putting pretty undue emphasis on a trivial aspect of the topic. Shimgray | talk | 21:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this seems to be a case of WP:OR based on some weak primary source material and personal interpretation (also note that the infobox date seems to have been changed without reference to the source used). If most reliable sources use 7th September, we should too. EyeSerene^talk 10:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oxford quote

Seriously guys, The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for an historical event covered in immense detail in any number of reliable sources. If they're right about new evidence being discovered and it's indicates what they're claiming there will be better sources for this. And how does it get into the lead? It's not even covered in the article.--Misarxist 15:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not the Daily Mail that's being used as a source; it's the Oxford Mail. I'm not sure if there's any connection. But moreover, if the quoted party disavows the quote (which seems clear, although I suppose there's some chance we're being kidded), I don't see how it can be helpful or informative to our readers to include it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no connection - the Oxford Mail is a perfectly reasonable local newspaper, though I wouldn't go so far as to count it a source for historical detail! The belief that Oxford was in some way deliberately exempted is quite common - it might be reasonable to present the quote as an example of this, rather than as a specifically endorsed theory. Shimgray | talk | 20:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Re-write

A pre-emptive explanation of my massacre of citations and sections in this article; I'm going to redo this article entirely over the coming weeks, and a clear out of the unneeded, unreliable and unrelated is needed. Hopefully this article can reach GA with a focus on the important issues. It seems as if previous editors had forgotten this was a military operation. So strategy, defence and effect should be the main topics under discussion. Dapi89 (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

With that in mind, a few of comments.

•"His hope was, for reasons of political prestige within Germany itself, the German population would be protected from the Allied bombings."

I found this a bit confusing. I understand it to mean Hitler hoped the Allies would spare German civilians, but I'm not absolutely clear whose prestige is at issue. (I presume his, or his regime's.) Rewording would help.

•"Hitler personally mistook Allied strategy for one of morale breaking instead of one of economic warfare"

This presumes he was wrong. My reading suggests he wasn't, & the dehousing memo tends to support that view.

•"which may have had strategic or decisive effect in the war against the British Empire" I understand the distinction between strategic & decisive, but I'm less sure the general reader will get it. Even then, it creates a "Huh?" reaction that's not ideal. What about "substantial strategic effect" or "substantial, even decisive, strategic effect"?

•"The deliberate separation of the Luftwaffe from the rest of the military structure"

It seems to me the more important effect is the conflict with the other services, not unlike that between Bomber Command & the Army & Coastal Command.

•"before the weather window closed in October"

Weather window for what? Presumably Seelöwe, but that's not clear as stated.

I'm also unsure saying "traditonal" about the Luftwaffe approach to warfare makes sense, given how young the service was.

I also think the failure of Luftwaffe intelligence deserves much more attention. Incompetent intelligence on target locations, enemy losses, & enemy capabilities repeatedly gave the Brits the chance to recover when the Germans failed to press their advantage, & that directly led the Germans to switch to bombing civilian targets. FC stations were frequently left to recover (& sometimes ignored entirely), & (frex) the Spitfire plant was never bombed. (It wasn't the "industrial system", but the location of factories & function of facilities, including radar stations, that was problematic.)

•"decided to recreate normal residential street lighting, and in non-essential areas, lighting to recreate heavy industrial targets."

Where is this being recreated? If the idea is to avoid damage to cities, "recreating" it in cities seems pretty stupid.

•"AI night fighter, flown by Flying Officer Cyril Ashfield (pilot), Pilot Officer Geoffrey Morris (Observer) and Flight Sergeant Reginald Leyland (Air Intercept radar operator)"

What type of aircraft? (I presume a Beau.) Same question for Cunningham.

•"OKL believed a medium bomber could carry out strategic missions just as well as a heavy bomber force."

It was also because German industry could not produce enough strategic bombers, or perhaps not any truly strategic bombers in the Lancaster mold; I believe it was von Kesselring who decided this.

I'm not convinced so much detail on the operation of blind-bombing systems is essential. Mention of accuracy, now omitted, should be included IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:42, 25 March & 21:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

A few more.

•"56 tons of incendiaries, and 127 parachute mines"

Since I expect the mines were meant for the Thames estuary or waters offshore, "hit" by mines strikes me a bit silly. Unless someone can demonstrate these were a variety of bomb...?

•"Luftwaffe serviceability rates declined"

What were FC's like at the time? This implies the Germans were somehow incompetent.

•"Göring's lack of cooperation was detrimental"

Neither did Luftwaffe contribute even LR recce, which would've made U-boats more effective by locating convoys. In addition, IIRC, Hitler personally called off intruder raids against Coastal Command bases.

•"which was not as economical"

As economical as what?

•"had OKL exploited a British weak spot"

What "weak spot" would that be, then?

•"This was largely thanks to the failure of Hans Jeschonnek, Chief of the Luftwaffe General Staff, who failed to implement Walther Wever's vision of educating Luftwaffe Staff Officers with, strategic, economic and industrial awareness."

Well, no. This was largely due to incompetent Luftwaffe intelligence. That it was incompetent may've been a product of wrong doctrine, but it doesn't excuse incompetence in the gathering of vital intelligence & in not even realizing the need to gather it.

I also don't see any treatment of the extremely scattershot approach to target selection. It doesn't appear OKL made a systematic effort to select targets. This is also a failure of intelligence, IMO, since it takes knowing what targets are important to decide which ones to hit, & knowing the effects achieved to decide if it's necessary to return. (Have a look at Allen's Who Won the Battle of Britain?.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Trekphiler. Just addressing one of your issues: as I recall, the Luftwaffe had a surplus of naval mines in 1940 and dropped a lot of them to good effect as bombs. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never come across that before. :( Looking your changes, I've just 2 3 problems. The impression I got from the KM co-operation section was, it mentioned complaints about LW & should mention others; maybe not... On morale, I have to disagree: RAF Bomber Command's attacks on housing were expressly designed to break civilian morale. On the "weather window", what I'm wondering is, what exactly is the window? Does it mean LW can't fly at all, or just can't hit anything? Or is it related to Sea Lion? I'd suggest saying something like, "before weather deteriorated so much [result] was impossible" or so much it was too difficult to achieve; if Sea Lion, "deteriorated so much amphibious operations were impossible". Other than that, I've got no beefs. (That I took out the "no" in "no more than 2%" proves I should stay away from editing when even a bit tired. :( ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:29, 19:50 & 20:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice this one before... Is the "path widening" what made Knickebein inaccurate? I don't understand how it works well enough to know, & unfortunately, this isn't much help. :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

British Defences

Hi, new to this contributing so apologies, I found the 1001 and protocols rather confusing. I just want to point out that in the section 'British Defences' you may wish to consider the final paragraph as including the information below rather than Cunningham.

On the night of 22/23 July 1940 an FIU (Fighter Interceptor (AI) Unit) crew (Flying Officer Cyril Ashfield (pilot), Pilot Officer Geoffrey Morris (Observer) and Sergeant Reginald Leyland (Air Intercept radar operator)became the first pilot and crew, with a radar equipped night fighter, to intercept and destroy an enemy aircraft. Gpad (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel your pain. I've been here for five years, and I havn't bothered to read 99.99% of them.

Interesting information I must say. Thanks for that, it will be mentioned in place of the other source. Dapi89 (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Dapi89 - thanks for changing - apologies for not noticing sooner but please note I also gave you wrong information. The pilot was Glynn Ashfield not Cyril Ashfield - thanks Gpad (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Difficult sentences

Editors here please check the copyediting I have done today. Some of the originals were garbled and I had to guess at the meaning. One sentence I could not guess at was On 9 September the OKL appeared to be backing two strategies, decision and siege, by ordering round the clock bombing of London. Explan? Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Essentially it means two strategies: 1) decision - a knock out blow by the collapse of and or morale, government will, destruction of industries etc and 2) siege: the destruction of ports (thames docks) and laying siege to Britain's lifelines. Hope this helps. Dapi89 (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be thick but I still can't quite get it, or not to the point where I could copyedit it. Could you perhaps paraphrase? Rumiton (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not alone. It looks to me like they aren't 2 strategies as much as 2 approaches to the same end: attacks on morale & attacks on capacity to fight, both aimed at compelling HMG to surrender. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. I could make some sense of it if I could grasp the meaning of "decision." Help anyone? Rumiton (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking it to mean "knockout", as opposed to a slow strangulation approach. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, if there's no objection I'll go ahead and try to make it say that. Rumiton (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've switched it back with modifications. Trekphiler: they are two different strategies. One by siege, the other a knockout. 2 approaches to the same end. Exactly: end being victory, approaches being strategy. The strategy being two dfferent ones: strangulation as you rightly put it, and one big sustained camapign on London. Simple, eh? The source did say there were 2 different strategies. Dapi89 (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Is English your first language? You have reverted to a version which doesn't make any sense; the phrase "decision and siege" would not be understood by any English speaker. Please explain further or I will take it back again to the version we arrived at by consensus, which at least was comprehensible. Rumiton (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Yes it does. It makes perfect sense, and I'm aghast that you can't understand it. On 9 September, OKL explicitly showed that it was backing two horses; decision and siege, Bungay, p. 313. If Stephen Bungay deems this appropriate language, then I do. Dapi89 (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are aghast, but with the best of intentions I cannot understand it. I work as a translator, so I am transposing things into a more comprehensible form for readers daily, and the phrase "decision and siege" makes no sense to me at all. Why don't you try paraphrasing it? We should be doing that anyway to avoid charges of plagiarism. Rumiton (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A siege may be a strategy; a decision is not.

Can we know what the original phrase is you rely on, which may be clearer? There is a lot of second-hand theorizing and editorializing in the article; the editorializing might be supported by the argument in the sources, but it might be sometimes better just to briefly quote from the source.Straw Cat (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you did. Well, backing Decision may be meaningful in the Derby, but isn't very in this context.Straw Cat (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, "decision and siege" does not scan, whereas something like "decisive blow(?) and siege" does. PS OKL "explicitly showed" to whom? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

To the historian, Graham.

Strawcat, this article does not editorialise, and even if it did, it supported by the sources which support the statements made. So they are statements of fact. To my mind, paraphrasing is a form of editorialising. At least I used the exact phrase Bungay used, to avoid editorialising. Dapi89 (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You did, but there seems to be some concern here that as a writer, he isn't exactly Edward Gibbon. Are there any other authorities out there that also express this concept, in somewhat clearer English?Straw Cat (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Dapi, I would disagree changing the wording is editorializing, if the thrust is the same. And on this one, I think Bungay's choice of words is less than clear. Would anybody have a problem with "knockout & strangulation"? I take those to be the choices: bombing =a quick knockout (decision), U-boats =slow strangulation (siege). (Also, objection to including a passing mention comparing the U.S. approach on Japan? Or is that OT?) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer something like "a fast knockout combined with a slow strangulation." Rumiton (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Italics

'The Blitz' has long been assimilated into English as a proper noun. So, while a capital B is appropriate, italics are not. Does anyone disagree? Rothorpe (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Rumiton (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed (Hohum ^@) 23:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a British coinage, not strictly a German word: no ital. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Have never seen it italicized elsewhere.Straw Cat (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that many of the changes to italics were carried out by a particular editor in one large edit here. Whilst they undoubtedly edit in good faith they have done many changes at high speed across a wide range of articles, and I don't agree with a number of things they did ("half" to the half symbol in text, etc) so I was not totally astonished to see this issue appear. I am absolutely sure that it should not be italicized here. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

and done. Hope I got them all. Rumiton (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, Luftwaffe looks a bit silly italicised as well. While not as Anglo-accepted as Blitz, it is a well known word in English. Rumiton (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Even its own article is unsure, having a horrible mix. I'd de-italicize it on the grounds given above by Rumitrom. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll go ahead with that, too. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Another small conundrum

By 14 September, Bf 109 units possessed only 67% of crews against authorised aircraft. Does this mean they only had 67% of required manpower? Rumiton (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I read that as 67% of authorized number (paper strength) of pilots against paper number of a/c. It could be a/c numbers were below paper strengths, too, & I'd expect losses there, so I'd hesitate to put a firm position on the page. Ground crew/staff numbers might be at paper strength, or not, but I don't read that as a factor. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If we can't turn it into a clear statement, perhaps we should delete it? Rumiton (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think delete. What about, "By 14 Sept, Bf-109 units were suffering substantial pilot shortages"? (I'm presuming that would be supported by the source.) That does leave open why there were shortages, but better & more accurate sourcing, if somebody can provide it, will solve that one, & we don't just take it out. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, except that the precise date seems out of place with the vague word "substantial." Perhaps just "By mid-September..." Rumiton (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I can live with that. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Rumiton (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As you were, not resolved at all. The article then goes on to give further statistics on other units in the same difficult-to-understand percentage way. We need to figure this one out properly. Rumiton (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

•sigh• I should have read the entire passage before saying anything....

So, how's this?

"Regardless of the ability of the Luftwaffe to win air superiority, Hitler was frustrated it was not happening quickly enough. With no sign of the RAF weaknening, and Luftwaffe air fleets (Luftflotten) taking punishing losses, and the effect on operational crews already becoming significant, OKL was keen for a change in approach. The Luftwaffe had lost most of its experienced aircrew in by September. By mid-month, Bf 109 units were down a third, Bf-110 units more than half, and bomber units over a third. To reduce losses further, it was decided to switch to attacking at night, to give the bombers the protection of darkness."

This raises a doubt "most" had been lost, so I'd want that cited... Also, I've changed the singular Luftflotte to Luftflotten to agree with the English. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I still find it confusing. Are these losses the result of action in September, or are they cumulative over some weeks? Rumiton (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC) OK, they are since Sept 7. But the fractions still don't add up to 'most.' Rumiton (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The nightmare is getting deeper, I can see monsters now. Reading more carefully it seems that darkness-hours bombing was only suggested at the time, it didn't actually happen. Rumiton (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

♠(edit conflict)It's not the fractions in play, it's the cumulative losses that I'm having trouble with, & that's what the "most" is about. (I'm taking the fractions to be about the current strengths, which are going to be variable based on losses & replacement rate.) I want a cite comparing losses to date against starting strength on 1 Sept 39; if the losses are in the range of 70% or more, "most" becomes true, but otherwise...

♠On night attacks, I think you're panicking for nothing. ;p This passage is saying "night bombing was considered", & it was. The next 'graph says, "they didn't do it" & adds "they took heavy losses & then switched". I think that's proximate enough. Unless you're seeing other problems...? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is saying "night bombing was considered" if you read it very carefully, but the casual reader will think, as you and I did, that the words "a change in strategy was also favoured to take place at night" mean they started actually doing that. Tell you what, let's take a day or so off and both read the cr*p out of that section and see what is needed to make it more fluent? OK? Rumiton (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, the only reason I thought the decision was taken was because I only read the one 'graph... :( Which is why I say the decision is proximate enough. If you're really that concerned, tho, yeah, take a day or 2. As a 1st pass, I'd say just take out the "consider" ref & leave the actual decision to when they actually made it, with a back ref to having taken losses leading to it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruminton: It was quite clear they did not. The 1st line in the next para shows that they had not yet chosen to pursue night ops. Anyhow, I've made small fixes to make it clear. I've spelt it out in a way even the most dense lay reader could follow! Dapi89 (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Cultish

Two Three things. I've added the mention of Trenchard, because he insisted on offensive operations against the Germans. (I can't source a connection, but it wouldn't surprise me there is one.) Anybody think that's too tenuous? Or too suggestive?

Second, I fact tagged "incapable". BC couldn't hit factories (or even cities...) in 1940, but AFAIK, hitting German ABs in France wasn't beyond them, it just wasn't done. If it was, in fact, impossible, I'd like it cited, 'cause you can bet a lot of people aren't going to believe it, otherwise.

Third, I'm taking out this:

"partly because they failed to detonate as moisture ruined the electrical fuzes. German sources estimated 5-10% of bombs failed to explode; the British put the figure at 20%."

While interesting, I'm less than convinced it's necessary to explain why the bombs failed or mention the failure rate. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:22 & 16:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine for the first one. I'll dig up a reference.

Fine. The wording is directed to the strategy of attacking oil/Lw airfields/factories etc, but either wat I can cite it that it was "incapable".

I disagree. But I've moved it to a note. Won't make much difference. Dapi89 (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hastings has some info on the situation. Bomber Command suffered in the Battle of France because the Blenheims and Battles were hit hard by the Luftwaffe without adequate fighter cover - being poorly armed and slow - and they were attacking locations defended by German light flak while the medium bombers were held in reserve for night bombing. Things had not improved later in the year. An attack on an airbase in Aalborg (an operation of the sort Portal had already advised the Air Ministry was "folly") cost 82 Sqn 11 aircraft to fighters and flak. Nuisance raids were made against French airfileds ("Cheadles"). 2 Group were set against German coastal convoys (defended by flakships) and German held ports. As to whether attacks on German airfields were avoided because they were lethal, or because there wer higher priority targets is not stated plainly. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay Graham. However I am not a fan of Hastings and his reliability is in question. In a book about the Korean war he said the bombing in WW2 and beyond achieved/achieves nothing but the slaughter of civilians. In my book, anyone who spouts that sort of sh*t should be ignored.

I remember the Aalborg raid. I think that is on the Adlertag article. An example that HT ideas could not be realised by BC. Well remembered. Dapi89 (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

On the 2d, I also took it to mean attacks on factories & such. It's adding in attacks on bases that concerns me. Also, & I know it's questionable (being sourced from Allen), I have to wonder if BC couldn't have hit bases at twilight (dawn or dusk) & avoided light flak.

On the bombs, I'd be interested in your reasoning, Dapi. (Not going to fight about it, just curious, 'cause you might even be right. ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

On removing the unit strengths, IMO moving it to a fn isn't ideal. It does explain why OKL was advocating a change. I don't think the exact percentages, or week-to-week changes, are necessary, but a scale of the change seems to me a good idea. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I’m not bothered with it really. On second view it might be a bit synthy anyway. I applied Murray to back up Ray's statement with statistic to show this was actually happening.

The delayed action bombs were a problem because of the fuzes. The E1.AZ fuze was the electrical impact Fz used on most bombs. Its features enabled it to be set to instantaneous or delayed detonation in flight. So it was quite innovative. But the time delays on Minenbomben and Panzersprengbomben were often set too long. So the bomb penetrated deep into the hit area, but was then subject to moisture interference which seeped into the damaged shell and screwed up the electrics. And Britain has a tendency to be very damp at that time of year. By nature of operations over unconquered enemy territory they were unable to verify this until later tests; I believe they were instigated by recovering bombs that had not exploded in Belgrade. Quite how they came up with the figure they did I do not know. Dapi89 (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Primary Sources

I have a source that says "offence was the best form of defence", but I do not know if I can use primary sources here. Dapi89 (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Small correction needed by the author

It should be noted that Newcastle upon Tyne is NOT a 'large port' on the Enlish East Coast, in fact it isn't even a port! The Port on the Tyne is in North Tyneside, North Shields and Tynemouth area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.228.247.211 (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

German aircraft losses

... the OKL recorded the loss of 2,265 aircraft over the British Isles. A quarter were fighters, and ⅓ were bombers.

1/4 + 1/3 = 7/12.     So, what were the other 5/12ths? —WWoods (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

London

Was there ever a separate article on the London Blitz? It's linked to repeatedly but always just refers to this article, which fails to give a cohesive summary of the scope and impact of the attacks on London, even though that's probably what many people come to the article to find. All we get are summaries of damage and vague "the attacks on London appeared to be affecting morale" sort of statements throughout the articles about the Battle of Britain and WWII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.30.97.36 (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

this dosent make much sense?

"41 ft 6 in (12.65 m)9,000 tons of bombs were dropped in that month, with 1⁄10 of this total dropped in daylight" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.11.100 (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's junk. Deleted. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

McKee reference missing

History 13:05, March 16, 2011‎ Dapi89 . . . has no Mackay nor McKee refs. Shortly afterward a MacKay ref appeared but never a McKee. They are not the same refs with an error in spelling as they are books published in different years. McKee ref needs finding for this article.--User:Brenont (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

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 [10], multiple sources give "57 consecutive nights". E.g The Guardian: [11] “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)

"The Week"

It looks like someone may have vandalised this page as a joke, by adding "... Herbert Morrison to order, with the support of the Cabinet, the stoppage of the Daily Worker and The Week". The Week is a more modern publication -- certainly, the "history" section of the link given here to The Week says it was founded in 1995. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.80.50 (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Forgive me if I am missing something obvious, I am very new, but is there a reason that this page lacks a "In Popular Culture" section? Literature, etc. about the Blitz is not uncommon.Birdsinthewindow (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

1934

I think you mean 1944 73.80.251.180 (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)