Talk:Winston Churchill

Article Checklist for "Winston Churchill"

Workgroup category or categories	History Workgroup, Politics Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status	Developed article: complete or nearly so
Underlinked article?	Yes
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	Petréa Mitchell 13:01, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

Lead image

I think the article needs an image in the lead section, to show how Winston Churchill looks like. However, I have not found any copyright-free picture yet. If anyone does find such an image, please add onto the article, thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 17:38, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Please explain reverts

Please explain your reverts. We have a "zero unexplained revert" rule, which means you cannot simply undo a significant amount of work by someone else (e.g., several sentences)--or re-revert, to re-include them--without an adequate explanation. See this section of CZ:Professionalism, please. --Larry Sanger 12:17, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

we seem to have a philosophical dilemma. It is illegal to erase text but also illegal to restore it. (In this case I DID provide an explanation in the Summary line)> Richard Jensen

Droll, but untrue...the Law is not to erase text, or to restore it, without sufficient explanation. Explanation is almost never going to sufficient if limited to the space given by the summary line, IMO. --Larry Sanger 07:18, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I should have explained better - I was surprised to learn that Hitler had ordered the bombing of Berlin. I deleted text that seemed to include an embarrassing error without attempting to find the correct alternative.

There was a second problem in that the line conflated the Battle of Britain with the Blitz. These are generally regarded as quite separate phases; the Battle of Britain were daytime raids against airfields; this is generally regarded as being "won" when the balance of aircraft lost in daily sorties shifted critically in favour of the RAF; the Blitz involved subsequent night bombing attacks on London, (fighter defences were less effective at night, but precision raids on e.g. airfields not practicable at night).

There are two issues of interpretation; did the Briish set a trap, and was the Blitz simply retaliation? First, the lone raid on Berlin is said to be a retaliation for earlier sporadic attacks on London, not a conscious attempt to lure the Germans into bombing London. Second the Blitz went far beyond plausible retaliation but was rather a strategic shift to attack industrial capacity and demoralise the civilian population.

As this is an article on Churchill, it's probably worth mentioning that "The Battle of Britain" is the name given by Churchill, in his speech in June 1940, and the end is really defined by him in another famous speech ("never in the field of human endevour has so much been owed by so many to so few")

Gareth Leng 06:35, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

The historiography on Luftwaffe says Hitler ordered the shift to the blitz as retaliation for the raids on Berlin, and that this was a serious blunder because it relieved pressure on the RAF. The word is "trap" is problematical if it suggests Churchill knew ahead of time Hitler would make this blunder (no one could predict Hitler). Note from one study:(Levine, Strategic Bombing of Germany 1992 p 26):

On August 30 Hitler decided to retaliate on London. In this he was following

the advice of many Luftwaffe generals, who had long believed that an attack on London would force a decisive air battle under conditions that would favor the Luftwaffe. This was a miscalculation. The attacks on London, which began on September 7, lifted the pressure from Fighter Command's airfields in southeast England, and the RAF did well in the fighting over London. The decision to make London a target, however hard for the Londoners, gave Fighter Com- mand a welcome respite. It is doubtful that this decided the Battle of Britain, as was once widely believed. But the attacks on Berlin, along with Bomber Com- mand's attacks on the invasion fleet, certainly were to Britain's advantages." Richard Jensen 12:43, 15 August 2007 (CDT)