Communicat (talk | contribs) →Refs sequence out of synch: new section |
→Hastings usage: new section |
||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
Refs numbering sequence appears to be awry for some reason. Not me. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 11:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC) |
Refs numbering sequence appears to be awry for some reason. Not me. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 11:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Hastings usage == |
|||
Hastings appears to be used as a corroborative source to the phrase attributed to the BBSU "Far from there being any evidence of a cumulative effect on (German) war production, it is evident that, as the (bombing) offensive progressed ... the effect on war production became progressively smaller (and) did not reach significant dimensions" |
|||
In the book cited, Hastings doesn't draw that conclusion - and says "In the last phase of the war, between October 1944 and May 1945, the Allied strategic-bomber forces played a dominant part in bringing the German economy to the point of collapse." (Bomber Command, p. 327) |
|||
In fact, the entire recently added section appears to be drawing one sided conclusions from elderly sources which have been investigated far more fully in more recent years by historians of note. ([[User:Hohum|<font color="Green">'''Hohum'''</font>]] [[User talk:Hohum|<font color="Red"><sup>@</sup></font>]]) 19:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:58, 2 April 2010
Military history: Aviation / British / European / North America / United States / World War II C‑class | ||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
missing stuff
Article seems to completely miss Soviet Union (bombing of Helsinki and Tallinn for example) and Italy that also conducted some strategic bombing, although on smaller scale then UK or USA.--Staberinde (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and no mention of Allied bombings on Normandy, Royan, etc... in France. Saciperere (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, this article is wholly unsatisfactory in that it does not cover the breadth stated in the title. It really covers Germany, UK and U.S. bombing in Europe, with scant attention paid elsewhere. I think this article should be a brief overview containing one- or two-paragraph summaries of the various strategic bombing efforts, with the aim being that the reader will go the main article describing specific campaigns in more detail. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Gotta have collateral
"Avoiding civilian casualties" is the excuse for not bombing Germany, & for Germany not bombing Britain. I suspect both were reticent more in the hope of avoiding retaliation, on "the bomber will always get through" thesis. Can this be substantiated? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
German light vessels
The article now claims attacks were made on "warships and light vessels" and cites Denis Richards as a source. As far as I can see Richards mentions only warships, and from a range of sources it's clear only warships were supposed to be attacked. What is meant by "light vessels"? A lightship acting as a lighthouse? Or small vessels found in harbours? Either way it's not supported by the source, so I'll remove it unless there are any objections. Tymestl (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- The term usually refers to warships smaller than cruisers, & depending on the context could include destroyers, MGBs/MTBs (S-boats, in this case), submarine chasers (PC boats), or corvettes. Lightships or tugs are classified harbor craft, not warships. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Italicization
Is there some reason why the term Luftwaffe is in italics?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Presumably because it is a non-English word. However, I think it is in such widespread use in Emglish, that there is no need to italicise it. Hohum (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Foreign word? Many Brits said "German Air Force" and even abbreviated it "GAF" during the war. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly true for contemporary reports by the RAF and the USAAF, but not common nowadays. Most books published in the last 40 years or so use Luftwaffe so I see no need to italicize it as it's in common use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Laziness doesn't excuse changing it. Being a foreign word, IMO, it should still be italicized. (I expect to be in a tiny minority, however.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Laziness excuses many things, in my experience ;-) But lemme look and see what the MOS says, if anything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- WP:MOSTEXT says "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialised English." (My emphasis). I think the vast majority of English speakers know what Luftwaffe is referring to. Hohum (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Then I respectfully disagree with the MOS. (It ain't the first time, & won't be the last. ;p) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- WP:MOSTEXT says "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialised English." (My emphasis). I think the vast majority of English speakers know what Luftwaffe is referring to. Hohum (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Laziness excuses many things, in my experience ;-) But lemme look and see what the MOS says, if anything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Laziness doesn't excuse changing it. Being a foreign word, IMO, it should still be italicized. (I expect to be in a tiny minority, however.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
<=Is it italicized in books?
- No: Luftwaffe: the allied intelligence files
- Yes: The American way of war: a history of United States military strategy and policy
- No: The Devil's disciples: Hitler's inner circle
- No: An army at dawn: the war in North Africa, 1942-1943
- No: The Third Reich: a new history
- No: Luftwaffe Aces: German Combat Pilots of World War II
- No: Bodyguard of Lies: The Extraordinary True Story Behind D-Day
- No: Messerschmitts over Sicily: diary of a Luftwaffe fighter commander
- No: Hitler: 1936-45 : Nemesis
- No: The rise and fall of the Third Reich: a history of Nazi Germany
- No: The codebreakers: the story of secret writing
- No: Luftwaffe Field Divisions 1941-45
- (except for names of specific Luftwaffe field units)
- No: Von Braun: Dreamer of Space, Engineer of War
- No: The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World
- No: The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944
Not a complete survey, but the trend is clear. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
effect of the bombing campaingn
This is my edit (wishartjr]. Sorry for the spelling errors - i am portuguese and english, but live in Portugal.
The effects, although not crippling, were very important to undermine the military production of Nazi Germany. The weapons intended to be sent to the Eastern Front, in order to easy military operations of counter-attack, were denied by the destruction of the factories. This is all explained in the book "Why the Allies won", by Richard Overy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wishartjr (talk • contribs) 12:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- There's considerable debate on the effects of bombing, including on production. And attacking transport infrastructure, thereby inhibiting movement of fuel and (produced) weapons would have been less costly in casualties (on all sides) & more effective. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and most of the high-level German officers interviewed after the war said that it was the bombing campaign that was the single largest cause of their defeat. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's also been suggested the Germans told the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Based on Terraine's Right of the Line (at least), bombing effectiveness is very much in question, regardless of German claims. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Refs sequence out of synch
Refs numbering sequence appears to be awry for some reason. Not me. Communicat (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hastings usage
Hastings appears to be used as a corroborative source to the phrase attributed to the BBSU "Far from there being any evidence of a cumulative effect on (German) war production, it is evident that, as the (bombing) offensive progressed ... the effect on war production became progressively smaller (and) did not reach significant dimensions"
In the book cited, Hastings doesn't draw that conclusion - and says "In the last phase of the war, between October 1944 and May 1945, the Allied strategic-bomber forces played a dominant part in bringing the German economy to the point of collapse." (Bomber Command, p. 327)
In fact, the entire recently added section appears to be drawing one sided conclusions from elderly sources which have been investigated far more fully in more recent years by historians of note. (Hohum @) 19:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)