Talk:The Blitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
The Blitz is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
This article does not cite any references or sources. (August 2006)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
This article uses British English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English. For more information, see American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

An event mentioned in this article is a September 7 selected anniversary.

Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?


[edit] 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 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)
  • 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)

[edit] 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 ...
... 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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?

  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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Spelling

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