Talk:The Blitz/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Change in strategy

The air raid against Berlin (august 25th 1940 ) needs to be mentioned here.--93.218.136.160 (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

the name

who gave the name Blitz to the operation? I'm pretty sure it's not the Germans as in their version of wikipedia it says "English name of the attacks...". The name is similar to Blitzkrieg but these two strategies have almost nothing in common. Errarel (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting point. And indeed there seems to be great doubt about whether Blitzkrieg itself was very that much of a German terminology at all. But as for this use, whilst the actual strategies are not similar it maybe in the public (or journalists') minds was similar enough in being a scary new way of German forces attacking other countries ... if you'd seen the Netherlands overrun then they started bombing the city you lived in then maybe you would see at as a linked case. And journalists love a buzzword, after all. What is clear is that it IS a contemporary English usage - for example OED has these:

• 1940 Daily Express 9 Sept. 1 Blitz bombing of London goes on all night.
• 1940 Daily Express 10 Sept. 1/1 In his three-day blitz on London Goering has now lost 140 planes.
• 1940 Daily Sketch 21 Sept. 8/3 Neighbourhood Theatre braved the blitz and yesterday presented a new play.

- so however it was derived it was clearly already in the public psyche enough to be used immediately after the operation started. Can we get good enough refs for a note on the terminology to be included, I wonder? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"Armed in depth?"

I have deleted the phrase 'armed in depth' and replaced it with 'was not armed or equipped for large-scale long-range strategic bombing campaigns'.

I am querying the usage in the introduction section where in the final lines it describes the Luftwaffe as 'not armed in depth...' I have certainly seen the military strategy term 'in depth' (e.g. defense in depth) used in myriad creative ways to usually indicate 'expanse' or in the most common 'defense in depth' understanding, to defend by withdrawing through one's own held territory, and aggregating losses against an enemy's supply lines, forces, etc.

I have also seen it used as a kind of reference to an Organization Chart - where for instance, a corporation that is vertically integrated might have mining, production, refinery, and distribution elements of bringing a product to market, like metals mining companies. So I have seen it used as 'they are integrated in depth,' presumably referencing the style of an org-chart where a vertical line might show the 'rise' of raw materials to a finished consumer product, versus say, the horizontal integration of a company, which might just own lots of metal whole-sellers.

So here where it say the Luftwaffe was "not armed in depth," I am presuming the meaning to be, essentially, that it was not a fully equipped/complete Air Force with strategic long range bombers, long range fighters, refueling capacities, and perhaps ammunition advances - that is, I believe the author is trying to say they were not a sustainable long-range air force, but were essentially a close-air-support air force mainly assistant to the Heer/Army.

Other than that though, I'm unclear what the 'armed in depth' term might mean, and in either case, I do think it could be confusing, especially since the Wikipedia article on the (usually) military term 'depth' is not well written and itself is confusing (c.f. Strategic depth). Commissar Mo (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right in your assessment here. It's about lack of aircrew, lack of instructors, low production of aircraft, inadequate munitions production, laughably bad intelligence, dismally bad BDA.... It's not only about wrong types, it's about a detailed & comprehensive lack of preparation. It might be put better... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

-- Since the 'armed in depth' phrase was reverted... and I have really no personal reasons to oppose it per se - I have linked it out to the article on 'strategic depth.' Since this as it currently stands is VERY confusing (which was why I wanted it changed to begin with), hopefully this will now make the necessity of editing the Strategic depth page more obvious and necessary (since it needs it anyway)... Commissar Mo (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

British air craft losses

These figures should be also added mentioning British plane losses and Royal Air force Causalities.Ovsek (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Olga, Regal, and Upstart

If a link to the article Olga, Regal, and Upstart cannot be worked into the text of this article in an appropriate way, might one be added into the "See Also" section? Chrisrus (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• The article currently doesn't seem to link to any of the few dozen human George Cross recipients awarded for actions during the Blitz (though one is mentioned in passing when talking about archive recordings.) Are the three horses more significant & relevant? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. There are plenty of deserving people omitted already. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Reason for Blitz

Per WP:DENY, please do not interact with socks of banned user HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It's important the article should mention that the Blitz happened because the RAF was bombing civilian areas in Germany from 31st March 1940. (MrFalala (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

♠So, who actually started it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't just Germany that invaded Poland in September 1939. However, the fact is the RAF bombed Germany first, which is why the Blitz was ordered in retaliation. The introduction to this article is misleading. (MrFalala (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC))

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

I just reverted the addition of text in the lead which blandly attributed the Blitz to being a response to British bombing. It doesn't reflect what the main article says which WP:LEAD would require, and doesn't have a source either. (Hohum ^@) 17:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The UK chose the start World War II by only declaring war on Germany. The UK bombed Germany first, and Hitler ordered the Blitz because the RAF was bombing civilian areas in Germany beginning with Emden on 31st March 1940. (MrFalala (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)) The Blitz was because Goering could not defeat the RAF in the Battle of Britain. It was intended to break the spirit of the British, so the populace would demand the goverment would sue for peace. 'The UK chose the start World War II by only declaring war on Germany' sounds very much like the propaganda Goebbels told the Polish. The British and French did all they could to avoid the war look at what happened with the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia. Bevo74 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, the origins of the war are undisputed and summarised thusly "Yes you did, you invaded Poland!". GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Blitz was in retaliation for the RAF bombing German civilians. The UK had no right to object to Germany and the Soviet Union invading Poland. The German government was not objecting to the British military presence in Palestine, Egypt, Malta, India, Hong Kong, Gibraltar, the Sudan etc. (MrFalala (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

This article is apparently written by British nationalists

The article is full of false information and based on imaginations rather than facts. Nobody likes the nazis but when you write history you should tell the truth even if it is bitter and humiliating to Britain. It is Britain who started bombing German cities killing civilians, hitler was strongly opposed to the idea of attacking civilians, hitler warned Britain in his speech that he doesn't want innocent civilians to get involved and the blitz was retaliation of four month of British bombing of German cities at night after failing to attack German military target daytime. This is true if you like it or not. The blitz wasn't a strategic plan to invade Britain and cannot be called German strategic failure. Hitler made it very clear that air bombing. Is only used to pave a path for land troop not to kill civilians. Hitler wasn't interested in Britain, his paranoia was Jews and communism in the east. This article is falsification of the truth made by a number of British nationalists who find it humiliating to accept britain's inferiority compared to the germans. A good book is called BOMBING VENDICATED written by Spaight the British air minster in 1944 admitting German superiority. Please do not tell lies to people and stop inventing the history you like to hear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.253.80 (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

See the "don't interact" discussion above for reasons this is nonsense... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hull vs Liverpool

An anonymous ip keeps coming on and claiming that Hull was the second most heavily bombed city in the blitz. The problem is is that this contradicts several sources which clearly show Liverpool as being the second most heavily bombed, both in terms of tonnage of bombs dropped, and in terms of casualties. Any idea how to solve this? G-13114 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

At this diff I have removed competitive claims and clarified that some figures refer to the whole period of the war, while most figures in this article refer only to the period of the Blitz as defined, that is, between 7 September 1940 and 21 May 1941. I hope that solves the problem. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Blitz template

A while back I created a template to put on pages related to the Blitz. Any suggestions or comments about it or how to improve it would be welcome. G-13114 (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Britain bombed Germany first

Closing discussion started by a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The RAF had been bombing Germany since 3rd September 1939, more than a year before the London Blitz began. This should be mentioned in the article, as the Germans were only responding to what the British had started. (XavierKnightley (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC))

Have you an RS for this, and could you maybe hold back from adding it to the article, please, until consensus is reached here? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

As the "Strategic Bombing During World War II" article shows, the RAF bombed Wilhelmshaven on the night of 3rd-4th September 1939, resulting in the first German casualties of the war. Hitler ordered the London Blitz in retaliation for the RAF already bombing Germany for more than a year. (XavierKnightley (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC))

“Well, let’s not bicker and argue about who bombed who...”:

...But you might want to get the facts straight. Quoting the strategic bombing article isn’t that constructive, as WP is not a reliable source, but you probably ought to read it through before making expansive claims. That article is clear that the RAF bombed Wilhelmshaven in response to German bombing of Poland, that the target was German warships, and that the casualties were German sailors.

That article also states the RAF bombing of German industrial targets was in response to the Rotterdam blitz and the bombing of French towns in May 1940, and that prior to then bombing of German targets was restricted in order to avoid civilian casualties, so as not to provoke a tit-for-tat response.

And the Battle of Britain article is also clear that the Luftwaffe were bombing British cities at night during July and August well before the raid on Berlin is supposed to have provoked the Blitz; and that here the evidence is that bombing London wasn’t just retaliation, whatever Hitler might have claimed in a propaganda speech, but was the next phase in the blitzkrieg process; a knockout blow against the enemies capital, leading to a collapse of morale and surrender.

And if you really want to go back to the beginning, how about here? Xyl 54 (talk)

The UK started World War II, and the RAF bombed Germany on 3rd September 1939 - more than a year before the German government finally ordered the Blitz in response. During the Battle of Britain period in July and August 1940 the Luftwaffe was only bombing military and industrial targets. (XavierKnightley (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC))

And that article on bombing during World War I shows the British bombed Germany first, on 22nd September 1914. (XavierKnightley (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC))

To quote the Bomber Command diary entry for 1939 "Within hours of the declaration of war, 28 aircraft...were despatched to locate German warships. ...That night, 10 Whitleys dropped leaflets over Hamburg, Bremen and The Ruhr. ...anti-shipping operations on the following day told a very different tale. 29 Blenheims and Wellingtons attempted to bomb German warships in Wilhelmshaven and Brunsbüttel". Later for March 1940 "Such was the concern that civilian casualties were to be avoided ...that the remote base at Hörnum of the island of Sylt was chosen." By comparison Germany was less careful about in the Bombing of Wieluń. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The UK chose to declare war only on Germany (even though Germany and the Soviet Union both invaded Poland), and the RAF attacked Germany over a year before the London Blitz started. For some reason the British government chose not to say anything about the incredibly brutal aerial attacks by the Soviet air force in Poland, Finland, Hungary, Moldova etc.(XavierKnightley (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC))

The UK was bound by international treaty to declare war when Poland was invaded by the Nazis. If you are trying to claim some kind of moral superiority for the Nazi regime that is not going to work.--Charles (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Without good references to discuss this is just becoming expressions of personal opinion - see WP:NOTAFORUM. Looking further up the page, I see "Reason for Blitz" and "This article is apparently written by British nationalists" and cannot help but wonder if they are related. I don't see much point in continuing this until/unless XavierKnightley produces the references to support their idea and attempts to build consensus for the changes they would like to make. Simply repeating the claim will not build consensus. With best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hull vs Liverpool, again

Following on from the edits mentioned above, the article has acquired the same contentious claim that Hull was the most heavily bombed city after London. This was shoehorned in between the existing text and it’s sources, so there’s no guarantee that it is supported by them at all. But even if it is, the claim is contradicted elsewhere, as has been pointed out before.
It has already been discussed (here, and here) that this claim for any city is unhelpful, and impossible to substantiate without a common criterion.
So I’ve removed it, and suggest, to preserve NPOV, that we refrain from making it in future. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

At the time London and Liverpool were the two largest and busiest ports on earth, and so whilst it is possible that Hull was heavily bombed, it is unlikely that the Luftwaffe placed its importance above the two previously mentioned ones.

London and Liverpool were the two 'hubs' of the British Empire and most of the imported raw materials, and exported finished goods, went into Britain, and out to the world, via these two ports.

IIRC, during the period 1939-1945 the total bomb tonnage dropped on the UK by the Luftwaffe was around 70,000 long tons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Article states that Liverpool was bombed just 8 times from August 1940 up until 21 May 1941?!!!, There were over 50 raids between August and November 1940 alone. (Liverpool was the most heavily bombed, Hull was the most serverely damaged city outside of London. Bootle was the most severely damaged borough in the UK.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.196.112 (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

There were 8 major raids, where more than 100 tons of bombs were dropped. It doesn't count the numerous smaller raids. G-13114 (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Grammar

In the middle of the British Ports section is the 'sentence' "Some 50 Junkers Ju 87 Stuka dive-bombers and Jabos (fighter-bombers) officially classed as 'light bombers' (Leichte Kampfflugzeuge) sometimes called Leichte Kesselringe (Light Kesselrings)." This makes no sense. I assume that it should end something like "...were pressed into service"? Or perhaps not.

It would be helpful if someone with more knowledge or better sources could amend this. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Figures for British casualties

In the infobox there are figures for British civilian casualties, but none for any soldiers or airmen killed in combat. Are any figures available for that? --jftsang 01:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

11 May 1940, not 15 May 1940

Closing discussion started by a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The official RAF records show the British were bombing Germany on 11 May 1940: http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/rafhistorytimeline1940.cfm (FairleighJ (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC))

Not according to your citation. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It says Blenheims were destroyed in a low-level German raid. (FairleighJ (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC))

That's a raid by the Germans, not on the Germans. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Germany didn't start bombing the UK until 8 August, about seven weeks after the Fall of France. The RAF began bombing Germany on 11 May 1940, so this website should give correct information. (FairleighJ (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC))

Italy

Mussolini sent the Italian air force to participate in the Blitz for more than two months from 24th October 1940 until January 1941. Therefore Italy should be included as a belligerent. (79.67.123.132 (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC))

Dozens of countries contributed, but we're not listing them all as they all fell under the banner of either Britain or Germany. Wait for consensus before adding significant changes like yours.--Dmol (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

After 1931 the white Dominions were independent in foreign policy and were no longer considered part of the British Empire. Canada should be listed separately. (79.67.123.132 (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC))

|}

Sock of banned editor HarveyCarter

Questionable claim in lead

The lead currently includes this claim:

"Over a period of 267 days (almost 37 weeks), London was attacked 71 times, Birmingham, Liverpool and Plymouth eight times, Bristol six, Glasgow five, Southampton four, Portsmouth and Hull three, and there was also at least one large raid on another eight cities."

The citation is to Andrew Roberts's The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War. The most glaring issue is that in the accepted 7 September 1940 to 21 May 1941 timeframe of The Blitz, Hull actually suffered more than forty attacks in which bombs were actually dropped, resulting in the region of 700 fatalities. It was the case that there were three raids on Hull defined as "heavy" with fatalities of around 100+. Perhaps someone with access to the Roberts book can clarify what it says exactly. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This data is totally inaccurate. Hull was bombed a great many more times than this during the period of The Blitz and went on to become the most devastated place in the United Kingdom during World War Two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullwebs (talk • contribs) 10:31, 27 May 2016‎ (UTC)

Closing discussion initiated by sockpuppet of User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Italy

The Italian Air Corps took part in the Blitz for more than two months. (217.42.27.249 (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC))

Provide a WP:reliable reference. (Hohum ^@) 12:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Mussolini sent the Italian Air Corps to Belgium on 24 October 1940. From there it participated in bombing raids over England until January 1941. (217.42.27.249 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC))

Re read what I just said. That isn't a WP:reference. (Hohum ^@) 18:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Sock of banned editor HarveyCarter

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2016

The sentence "The Blitz was only authorised when the Luftwaffe had failed to meet preconditions for a 1940 launch of Operation Sea Lion, the provisionally planned German invasion of Britain" should be removed. The Blitz started on 7 September, ten days before Hitler postponed Sea Lion due to the Luftwaffe's failure to gain air superiority over the English Channel.

86.133.254.82 (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: No reliable reference supplied for the change. Keith D (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hitler only realized the conditions had not been met when he held the meeting with Goering on 17 September. (5.81.222.75 (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC))

Sock of banned editor HarveyCarter

Targets

Throughout the Blitz the Luftwaffe was targeting military and industrial areas. The main reason civilians died was because the workers houses were built near the docks and factories. (165.120.240.245 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC))

Sock of banned editor HarveyCarter

Real reason for Blitz?

The introduction says the Germans thought the British were close to defeat in September 1940. However multiple sources say Hitler ordered the Blitz in retaliation for RAF bombing raids over Germany. (GustavMenschen (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC))

Interesting point, which seems to be covered rather better in Battle of Britain#Day and night attacks on London: start of the Blitz. Note that both points are true: Hitler was under public pressure to retaliate for RAF raids, small as they were, and both Göring and Kesselring were in favour, "having received reports the average strength of RAF squadrons was down to five or seven fighters out of twelve and their airfields in the area were out of action." It suited them to present the long-planned raid on the Port of London as a reprisal, though it fitted in with their original strategy of economic blockade. Perhaps something to improve in this article? . . dave souza, talk 19:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

German aircraft lost

Under "Aftermath" the article states: "the OKL recorded the loss of 2,265 aircraft over the British Isles, a quarter of them fighters and one third bombers." A quarter plus a third = 58%. This seems unlikely, since it's difficult to think of other types of aircraft the Luftwaffe were sending over Britain in 1940-41. I'm going to remove this dubious statement. 199.168.151.164 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have the source, so I can't check, but it may be the remaining casualties weren't "lost over the British Isles" - accidents, weather etc. might account for the remainder. It's also possible it should say "A quarter of their fighters..." - a proportion of their total strength. (Hohum ^@) 16:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

spelling error

The article says:

"The London Underground rail system was also effected".

The correct spelling is:

"The London Underground rail system was also affected".

Interesting. But arguably not the case. See the usage notes for "effect" in Wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/effect . Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Start of the Blitz

The first Nazi bomb to land on British soil occurred on 16th October 1939 near the Forth Rail Bridge, Edinburgh - Luftwaffe bombing raids (sporadic and otherwise) then continued until the end of the war in May 1945. 'The Blitz' is not a well-defined period and there were many lethal raids on UK cities well after May 1941 where survivors would now be surprised to find that they were not being blitzed as part of The Blitz. It seems wrong to exclude Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Exeter, Norfolk and a host of other cities from this article because of such an arbitrary definition of the time period - and in any case what about Swansea which was attacked in February 1941? (ifmaclean ^@) 03:39, 7 February 2017 (GMT)

The title 'The Blitz' has come to refer to a specific Luftwaffe campaign that took place in 1940-41 and so while you are correct in that other places were bombed at various times, these raids did not form part of the specific set of raids after the Fall of France aimed at making Britain capable of being invaded or to be made to sue for peace. The express purpose of what became known as 'The Blitz' was to force Britain out of the war after the Fall of France prior to the planned German invasion of the Soviet Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Mistake in lede

The Blitz began because the Germans were losing the Battle of Britain, not because they thought they were winning. 86.129.39.4 (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Continuing Aftermath

The Aftermath section only talks about the immediate aftermath. It might be worth mentioning that the aftermath goes on, 75 years later:

• WW2 bomb found on Brondesbury Park building site -- 2 March 2017
• Children played with unexploded bomb at Rosemarkie -- 23 February 2017
• WW2 bomb found in Portsmouth harbour -- 22 February 2017
• Unexploded WW2 bomb taken to Bangor police station -- 15 February 2017
• World War Two bomb removed from River Thames and exploded -- 20 January 2017
• Rothbury WW2 bomb scare: Homes and shops evacuated -- 16 December 2016
• Corfe Mullen evacuations prompted by WW2 bomb find -- 24 November 2016
• Portsmouth evacuations prompted by WW2 bomb find -- 16 November 2016
• Fourth unexploded WW2 bomb found in Sheffield -- 3 October 2016 ... "the fourth time in a week a device - believed to be a World War Two munition - had been found in the city"

-- johantheghost (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

CE

I've just noticed that Word punctuates in a serif typeface, which means that Luftwaffe is coming out as "Luftwaffe". I don't know what typeface Wiki uses and have asked so that I can put it right. apols Keith-264 (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Think I've sorted it out. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Result

Template:Infobox military conflict

• result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Altered result but open to discussion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Overwhelming view is it was a failure for the Germans. Dapi89 (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I have changed it back to "German strategic failure" which is the long-standing info. There's no consensus to change from that. --Dmol (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of opinion, "X victory", "Decisive X victory", "Inconclusive" and "See the 'Aftermath' section" are permitted. Hair splitting terms are explicitly excluded; it's either British victory, Inconclusive or See aftermath. Keith-264 (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Both valid points/views. One can't argue it as a victory or a defeat, I think that it failed is very acceptable, if not obvious. Arguably that is the most non-point-of-view result. By that's my opinion ;)Dapi89 (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a consensus in your RS?Keith-264 (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It depends how you see it. Consensus among the sources I have yes, but general consensus? I couldn't say. Murray certainly does, and Overy. I think lesser writers can be ignored on the basis they're not experts (there are a lot of unskilled opinions in Blitz books). I agree "victory" and "defeat" is a no, no. It implies resistance by one combatant thwarted another. In this case, the offensive just failed for reasons given in the article. Dapi89 (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of our reasoning or opinions about sources, what do the secondary sources say and which of the permitted criteria is the best fit? Keith-264 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It has to be to an extent. We want to use the best sources. I'll look, I can't remember exactly. Dapi89 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Murray makes three observations: a) All three strategies failed to prove decisive (p. 54) b) the Luftwaffe did not possess the strength or capabilities to achieve the objectives set for it (p. 54) c) the air offensive, taken as an extension of the Battle of Britain had "failed" (p. 55 of the '83 edition). I'll have a look at Richard Muller and James Corum too. Dapi89 (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing discussion from banned User:HarveyCarter. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Blitz was no more a failure than the Allied bombing of Germany. (2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:4A1:18DD:7C6:7D4B (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC))

Incorrect. Dapi89 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I've had a skim of the books on my shelves and will list their verdicts later, they're quite variable. Keith-264 (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Collier 2004 (1957) The Defence of the UK pp 430–431 Against the night attacks of September 1940 to May 1941, the air defences proved less effective, the night Blitz caused much hardship but while failing to shoot down bombers, the night defences forced the bombers higher and made the bombing less accurate. (No explicit verdict).
• Butler 1957, Grand Strategy II pp. 391–392 Blitz from 7 September 1940 to 16 May 1941, a "supreme effort" to paralyse the economy and break morale. Blitz was inconsistent and ended not because of success or failure but because of the Russian gig.
• Richards 1974 (1953) pp. 217–218 Economically profitable, reduced Br aircraft output, steel, ship-building, cc, power and fuel stocks. More than 600,000 men diverted to defence, 40,000 killed, 46,000 wounded, 1m houses damaged for 600 aircraft lost, 1.5% of sorties. Far from "a great strategic victory...." ...apart from holding back guns and fighters needed in N Africa "it got them nowhere".
• Edgerton 2011 Britain's War Machine pp. 68–69 "Late 1940 and early 1941 saw a second British failure. London and many other port and industrial cities were to be bombed with near impunity by the Germans." "The simple tactic of bombing at night rendered the great British air defence system essentially inoperative." p. 137 A. V. Hill (1942) claimed that the Blitz reduced output in the worst month by the equivalent of the Easter holidays...the cost was in the defensive measures rather than bomb damage.
• Maiolo 2010 Cry Havoc pp. 343–345 The Luftwaffe was not equipped to bomb a nation into surrender with the ease that so many air force zealots had long imagined. While trying to wear down the RAF in the autumn and winter of 1940–41, Luftwaffe planners feared the implications of the growing Anglo-American "air alliance".
• Tooze 2006 The Wages of Destruction pp. 400–401 For effective night bombing Goering would have needed a fleet of heavy bombers. Keith-264 (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hinsley 1979 British Intelligence in the 2nd WW I, p. 315 The Blitz was a huge improvisation. pp. 328–330 By late spring the Luftwaffe bomber offensive was being greatly reduced and from April, even the lesser effort needed crews to fly two sorties. In late February the Blitz was becoming more costly and the Luftwaffe increased its anti-shipping effort. p. 448 Heavy May raids a diversion from Barbarossa preparations.Keith-264 (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

All decent sources. I haven't really had a chance to look at air-specific sources yet. The failure of RAF night defences also has to be balanced with high attrition rates on the German side. The number of accident casualties were alarming. Overy commented on the German night strategy as "aimless". Still, until I get my thumb out and get back with sources, I'll go with whatever the majority says for now. Dapi89 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I jotted them down and then lost my notes and had to do it again, which was a bit annoying. ;o) Keith-264 (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Air 248 The Rise and Fall of the German Air Force 2001 (1948) pp. 91–95, improvised, inconsistent, dispersion of effort. "The programme for the beating down of Great Britain had overrun its time and although considerable damage had been wrought on her cities and industries, the time for the hoped-for collapse had passed." Starving Britain out by blockade by air and sea or waiting for a surrender after Barbarossa succeeded in the autumn of 1941 were the only things left. Keith-264 (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, just noticed I used Hooton in the lead, which I'd forgotten. Also somewhat agrees with Overy.

Question about the source above: Does it go into specifics? I think the attacks on the aviation industry were totally ineffective in a destructive sense. I believe shipping in port, port facilities, and ship building was most effected. I think about 5% of the total economic power of the country was reduced. Still deficient re: sources, but will look shortly. Dapi89 (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I can have a look later when I get back from college, it's from about pp. 91–96 so sticks mainly to the strategy (as far as there was one).Keith-264 (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I've also put figures from Hooton in the military effectiveness bit. Forgot that as well. Dapi89 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

PRO 248 "The 'Blitz' on Great Britain (October 1940 – May 1941)" starts on p. 91 with "Night bombing of British cities", p. 92, "Strength of the bomber force, "Brief appearance of the Italian Air Force" pp. 92–93, "The assault and the bombing beams" p. 93 , "The final plan of strategic bombing" pp. 93–95, "Burning of the City of London", "The main ports as targets of attack" p. 95, "End of the Blitz: withdrawal of bomber forces" pp. 95–96. Keith-264 (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Tables

Does anyone else agree that there's too much white space to the right of the first table? I'd lift it into the text. Keith-264 (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

If you use "wikitable floatright" it will be a lot more space efficient, but may format oddly for very narrow or very wide resolutions. (Hohum ^@) 18:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Article structure

It seems awfully detailed in places, is this because it's here pending completion of the sub-articles?

PS have I asked this before? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Separated Blitz articles in a new campaignbox (experimentally), any thoughts? I took out the Western Front box but am not so sure about that. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Italy

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Italy should be listed as a belligerent as the Italian Air Corps took part in the Blitz. (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:20B5:4881:D006:D247 (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC))

They were active in daylight ops into October, but the strategic campaign against cities I'm not sure about. Are you sure/have sources? Dapi89 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The Italians bombed Harwich, Felixstowe, Deal, Ramsgate and Ipswich in the autumn/winter of 1940. (86.161.101.86 (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC))

Air 248 The Rise and Fall of the German Air Force 2001 (1948) pp 92–93 early November a night bomber sortie of 24 bombers on the south coast. Air 2001, pp. 92–93.Keith-264 (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Goss the Luftwaffe's Blitz does list the Italian ops. I stumbled across this. Dapi89 (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

I wonder if piecemeal edits have gone as far as they can? Parts of the article look top-heavy to me and I think that perhaps sections can be separated in new articles with a paragraph or two in this article with a link? Do we really need a potted history of strategic bombing theory and practice here, rather than a summary paragraph or two and a link to the appropriate article? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

IMO, you'd be safe to trim that to a couple of lines or so & merge with Hitler's approach, since that reflects the causes of failure better than the Douhet theory. There needs to be some mention, to make clear why GAF selected the targets it did, but the underlying theory of strategic bombing is OT. It might also be possible to trim the shelter sections. One last thing: if you can find a source for when RAF switched focus from "MAD" & Bomber Command to "AD" & Fighter Command, which was after CH was proven, it'd be good; I've seen it, but no idea where... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's in here The Paladins: a Social History of the RAF Up to the outbreak of World War II 1991 by John James Keith-264 (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Later attacks

The is article implies that the bombing of London finished after 8 months. Whether or not the Bliz only occurred for those 8 months is debatable. If one toured the bomb-sites after World War II people would have said it occurred in the Blitz. They would not have said "oh Rotherhithe town hall was bombed in the Blitz but latter destroyed by a V1".

So I think this edit by user:Dapi89 that removed a whole section called "Later attacks" did not keep to the policy directive of WP:PRESERVE because, if indeed one thinks that the Blitz was only that short campaign, the section was a prime case for:

• "Merging or moving the content to a more relevant existing article, or splitting the content to an entirely new article"

-- PBS (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment on German bombing theory

This is not correct, the Luftwaffe policy for bombing civilians produced its first effect on April 26th 1937 when the Condor Legion bombed Guernica, later the Luftwaffe caused 20,000 - 25,000 casualties in besieged Warsaw, about half the number suffered by Britain during the entire war. This action against Warsaw included straffing civilians, and it is evidently the application of a doctrine. The data for this edit is in Wikipedia itself, so further references are superfluous.

Added by R Davidson, unsigned and possibly spam.Keith-264 (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Guernica and Warsaw were military bases on the frontline. The British had bombed civilians in Russia, Iraq and Afghanistan soon after World War I. (81.158.250.117 (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC))

"The British had bombed civilians in Russia, Iraq and Afghanistan soon after World War I" - not without first dropping leaflets telling the inhabitants to get out so that the villages would be empty when bombed. When the villagers returned they would then face the task of re-building the villages, and thus give them something else to do other than fight amongst themselves and generally cause trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.172 (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Blitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311005143/http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/nof/blitz/ to http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/nof/blitz/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928044740/http://www.forgottenvoices.co.uk/ to http://www.forgottenvoices.co.uk/

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) 07:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Fire in the London docks

The Royal Mint moved from the Tower of London to new premises c.1809

Smoke rising from fires in the London docks, following bombing on 7 September

old map of London

I have altered the wording on the image of the fire in East London to that which appears in the caption on the first image

For those not familiar with the geography of London the Surrey Commercial Docks were located where the old map says "Halls of Companies" and in the boxes south of that banner.

The photographer must have been standing no further away than London Bridge (otherwise it would show up in the photo). The fires in the foreground are just behind the turrets of the White Tower (Tower of London) this means it is probably close to the old Royal Mint and north of St Catherine's Dock (plan of the right). Due to the bends in the river the more distant fires towards the right of the picture could well be in Surrey Commercial Docks, but to label the picture "Smoke rising from fires in Surrey docks, following bombing on 7 September" was misleading.

-- PBS (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The fires in the photo appear to be actually in the West India Docks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Luftwaffe losses in May 1941

The article currently says, in reference to April 1941: "In the following month, 22 German bombers were lost with 13 confirmed to have been shot down by night fighters.[166] On 3/4 May, nine were shot down in one night.[166] On 10/11 May, London suffered severe damage, but 10 German bombers were downed.[166] In May 1941, RAF night fighters shot down 38 German bombers."

In the first sentence, 22 bombers are said to have been lost in May, with 13 confirmed as shot down by night fighters. In the last sentence, the night fighters are said to have downed 38 bombers. I don't have access to the quoted source - maybe someone who does could check. Scartboy (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Eric Corbett: Hello Eric, if you're altering the order of citations to make them alphabetical, that will interfere with citations which are in the order they're being used to cite. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not, I'm reordering them in the order in which they're being used. Eric Corbett 14:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks Keith-264 (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

While you're here, the article is inconsistent in its use of The Blitz vs. the Blitz. Which do you think it should be?

I think lower case 'the' is seen more often in sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Good question, perhaps lower case "the", since Blitz is capitalised. Keith-264 (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2018

It is called Blitzkrieg, not The Blitz. Blitzkrieg means Lightning Strike. 76.94.25.129 (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The Blitz was the German aerial bombing campaign against England, as named by the English. Blitzkreig is a German military concept involving ground forces. They are separate things. Acroterion (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Air Raid Damage in Britain during the Second World War HU36220A.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Italian involvement

Italian planes bombed Felixstowe and Harwich. (109.153.101.46 (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC))

map

Can't we make a map of the UK with the position of the bombed places like in Baedeker Blitz? ※ Sobreira ◣◥ ፧ (parlez)⁇﹖ 21:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Bombing raid statistics

In the section Bombing raid statistics (currently 9.1), the cities are ranked by total bomb tonnage; however, Exeter stands out with very low tonnage (which also doesn't meet the inclusion criterion of 'over 100 tons'). I'm assuming the number is wrong, and probably should be in the 800-900 range (possibly 875?). Does anyone know the correct figure? DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI, total bomb tonnage dropped on the UK by the Luftwaffe in the period 1939-45 was approximately 70,000 long tons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.176 (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Death toll

The lead paragraph makes the following claim: 'More than 40,000 civilians were killed by Luftwaffe bombing during the war.' Well, yes, it was more than 40,000. Quite a lot more. Like 50 per cent more. Richard Overy, in The Bombing War: Europe 1939-1945, Penguin, London, 2014, ISBN 978-0-141-00321-4 (not cited in the article's bibliography despite being the current standard work on the subject, which tells you a lot about Wikipedia), p.194, says, 'Total wartime casualties from all forms of bombing were 60,595 killed and 86,162 seriously injured.' Overy's table on p.187 (cited from the same source, the National Archives file Home Office 191/11, Ministry of Home Security, 'Statement of Civilian Casualties in the United Kingdom from the Outbreak of War to 31 May 1945', dated 31 July 1945) gives a total 44,307 men, women and children killed from August 1940 to December 1941 alone. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)