The first casualty of war...
Lee Ayrton
From George Orwell's wartime diary:
========QUOTE==============
20.6.40
[...]
According to R.H., a woman who rented an island in the Hebrides in order
to avoid air raids was the first air casualty of the war, the R.A.F.
dropping a bomb there by mistake. Good if true.
========END=QUOTE===========
--
"If you can fake verisimilitude, you're home free."
Jon M offers an absolute truth on AFC-A
Keith F. Lynch
> From George Orwell's wartime diary:
> ========QUOTE==============
> 20.6.40
> [...]
> According to R.H., a woman who rented an island in the Hebrides in
> order to avoid air raids was the first air casualty of the war, the
> R.A.F. dropping a bomb there by mistake. Good if true.
"Good if true"? If this quote is accurate, what an asshole he was.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
N Jill Marsh
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com.nul> wrote:
>> From George Orwell's wartime diary:
>> ========QUOTE==============
>> 20.6.40
>> [...]
>> According to R.H., a woman who rented an island in the Hebrides in
>> order to avoid air raids was the first air casualty of the war, the
>> R.A.F. dropping a bomb there by mistake. Good if true.
>
>"Good if true"? If this quote is accurate, what an asshole he was.
Why? It is a good story, if it's true. If it isn't it's a good
legend.
nj"mrah"m
--
"Alef is for lion, and
bet is for house..."
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com.nul> wrote:
>>> From George Orwell's wartime diary:
>>> ========QUOTE==============
>>> 20.6.40
>>> [...]
>>> According to R.H., a woman who rented an island in the Hebrides in
>>> order to avoid air raids was the first air casualty of the war, the
>>> R.A.F. dropping a bomb there by mistake. Good if true.
>> "Good if true"? If this quote is accurate, what an asshole he was.
> Why? It is a good story, if it's true. If it isn't it's a good
> legend.
To me, "Good if true" means that he was pleased that she was killed.
Paul Tomblin
>From George Orwell's wartime diary:
>
>========QUOTE==============
>20.6.40
>
>[...]
>
>According to R.H., a woman who rented an island in the Hebrides in order
>to avoid air raids was the first air casualty of the war, the R.A.F.
>dropping a bomb there by mistake. Good if true.
That would recquire that all the people the Luftwaffe dropped bombs on in
Poland escaped unharmed, I guess. And that's not even counting all the
people that were killed by the Japanese in the late 30s in China and
elsewhere.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
I trust the cut & paste under Win2k's telnet about as far as I can
comfortably spit a rat.
-- John Burnham
Mac
> In a previous article, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.com.nul> said:
>
> >From George Orwell's wartime diary:
>
> >========QUOTE==============
> >20.6.40
>
> >[...]
>
> >According to R.H., a woman who rented an island in the Hebrides in order
> >to avoid air raids was the first air casualty of the war, the R.A.F.
> >dropping a bomb there by mistake. Good if true.
>
> That would recquire that all the people the Luftwaffe dropped bombs on in
> Poland escaped unharmed, I guess. And that's not even counting all the
> people that were killed by the Japanese in the late 30s in China and
> elsewhere.
>
> --
> I trust the cut & paste under Win2k's telnet about as far as I can
> comfortably spit a rat.
> -- John Burnham
I think there are two separate things playing into this. One is the
sense of irony, and the other is Orwell's contempt for those who let
others do all their fighting for them. A good bit of Orwell's
reconnection to his own social class came about because, whatever else
they might have done, the Blimps didn't run away. His description of
pacifists hiding behind the US Navy was scathing.
Anthony "Now real irony would be if her name was "Verity" McCafferty
N Jill Marsh
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>N Jill Marsh <njm...@storm.ca> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com.nul> wrote:
>>>> From George Orwell's wartime diary:
>>>> ========QUOTE==============
>>>> 20.6.40
>>>> [...]
>>>> According to R.H., a woman who rented an island in the Hebrides in
>>>> order to avoid air raids was the first air casualty of the war, the
>>>> R.A.F. dropping a bomb there by mistake. Good if true.
>
>>> "Good if true"? If this quote is accurate, what an asshole he was.
>
>> Why? It is a good story, if it's true. If it isn't it's a good
>> legend.
>
>To me, "Good if true" means that he was pleased that she was killed.
I suppose it could be interpreted that way, though I don't see why one
would do so. If I recall correctly, Orwell was declined for military
service but did war work/correspondence for the BBC and also joined
the Home Guard, he was not anti-war effort.
Do you know of any particular grudges he held against Hebrideans?
nj"hebrideites?"m
Keith F. Lynch
> I think there are two separate things playing into this. One is the
> sense of irony, and the other is Orwell's contempt for those who let
> others do all their fighting for them.
So a woman who moves so as not to be bombed deserves death? She
should have stayed where she was and taken her chances? It's not as
if she'd have been allowed to sign up to be a combat soldier, after all.
Alan J Rosenthal
>Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com.nul> wrote:
>> From George Orwell's wartime diary:
ending with "Good if true."]
>
>"Good if true"? If this quote is accurate, what an asshole he was.
I took it as expressing literary appreciation for the irony of the story,
forgetting that an actual human life was involved.
In other words, being an asshole.
R H Draney
For "asshole", read "writer"....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Nick Spalding
on Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:42:32 -0500:
I don't think so. He wrote a lot of /Nineteen_Eighty-Four/ there.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Jura_and_Nineteen_Eighty-Four>
--
Nick Spalding
Mac
> N Jill Marsh wrote, in <j9eqi5td5o9ubcac56ua67toc0eapgv...@4ax.com>
> on Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:42:32 -0500:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:41:55 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> > <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
> > >>>> From George Orwell's wartime diary:
> > >>>> ========QUOTE==============
> > >>>> 20.6.40
> > >>>> [...]
> > >>>> According to R.H., a woman who rented an island in the Hebrides in
> > >>>> order to avoid air raids was the first air casualty of the war, the
> > >>>> R.A.F. dropping a bomb there by mistake. Good if true.
>
> > >>> "Good if true"? If this quote is accurate, what an asshole he was.
>
> > >> Why? It is a good story, if it's true. If it isn't it's a good
> > >> legend.
>
> > >To me, "Good if true" means that he was pleased that she was killed.
>
> > I suppose it could be interpreted that way, though I don't see why one
> > would do so. If I recall correctly, Orwell was declined for military
> > service but did war work/correspondence for the BBC and also joined
> > the Home Guard, he was not anti-war effort.
>
> > Do you know of any particular grudges he held against Hebrideans?
>
> I don't think so. He wrote a lot of /Nineteen_Eighty-Four/ there.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Jura_and_Nineteen_Eighty-Four>
While David Mitford was hanging around on Inch Kenneth. Good thing
that water is wide and cold.
Anthony "...and deep" McCafferty
Ken Wheatley
He was also having a pop at those who chose to run away to remote
islands rather than stay in the cities facing the bombs with everyone
else. At the time I imagine his sentiments would have been shared by
many.
N Jill Marsh
wrote:
That's cool. Though once I read a bit more, I can see where Keith's
comment came from, in that it might have been a bit of schadenfreude
for those who used their money and connections to abandon London. I
don't agree with it at all, but then again I give a lot of latitude to
those who were living under those particular circumstances.
nj"looking the East End in the face"m
Keith F. Lynch
> For "asshole", read "writer"....r
Most writers aren't pleased by the death of an innocent person.
David Scheidt
:Most writers aren't pleased by the death of an innocent person.
Orwell -- and many other brits -- would have argued that someone using
their money to avoid the war was not an innocent person.
--
This is a randomly numbered sig.
Keith F. Lynch
> Orwell -- and many other brits -- would have argued that someone
> using their money to avoid the war was not an innocent person.
Why? It's not as if she was a combat soldier. Her moving did nothing
to decrease the odds or increase the cost of Britain's winning the war.
Nick Spalding
on Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:55:24 +0000 (UTC):
> David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Orwell -- and many other brits -- would have argued that someone
> > using their money to avoid the war was not an innocent person.
>
> Why? It's not as if she was a combat soldier. Her moving did nothing
> to decrease the odds or increase the cost of Britain's winning the war.
Women were also conscripted in WWII.
--
Nick Spalding
Keith F. Lynch
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Orwell -- and many other brits -- would have argued that someone
>>> using their money to avoid the war was not an innocent person.
>> Why? It's not as if she was a combat soldier. Her moving did
>> nothing to decrease the odds or increase the cost of Britain's
>> winning the war.
> Women were also conscripted in WWII.
In Britain? Do you have a cite for that? Even if so, couldn't
they just as easily have conscripted her from the Hebrides? Thanks.
Michael Benveniste
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Women were also conscripted in WWII.
>
>In Britain? Do you have a cite for that?
Here are a couple of cites:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/womeninuniform/wwii_intro.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwtwo/women_at_war_01.shtml
--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Don't succumb to the false authority of a tool or model. There
is no substitute for thinking.
Nick Spalding
on Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:56:59 +0000 (UTC):
> Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> wrote:
> > Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> >> David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>> Orwell -- and many other brits -- would have argued that someone
> >>> using their money to avoid the war was not an innocent person.
>
> >> Why? It's not as if she was a combat soldier. Her moving did
> >> nothing to decrease the odds or increase the cost of Britain's
> >> winning the war.
>
> > Women were also conscripted in WWII.
>
> In Britain? Do you have a cite for that?
Michael has provided that.
> Even if so, couldn't
> they just as easily have conscripted her from the Hebrides? Thanks.
It could indeed, if they had caught up with her. I think this happened
early in the war when conscription hadn't yet been imposed. I can
assure you that there was widespread contempt for people who managed to
get themselves to safer places. Britten, Auden and Isherwood were
notorious cases.
--
Nick Spalding
Hatunen
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Mac <ANMC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU> wrote:
>> I think there are two separate things playing into this. One is the
>> sense of irony, and the other is Orwell's contempt for those who let
>> others do all their fighting for them.
>
>So a woman who moves so as not to be bombed deserves death? She
>should have stayed where she was and taken her chances? It's not as
>if she'd have been allowed to sign up to be a combat soldier, after all.
Who are you responding to here? Mac is responding to Orwell, with
a touch of sarcasm, not postiign the propositon. I you have an
argument you should really take it up with Orwell, not Mac.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Mac <ANMC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU> wrote:
>>> I think there are two separate things playing into this. One is
>>> the sense of irony, and the other is Orwell's contempt for those
>>> who let others do all their fighting for them.
>> So a woman who moves so as not to be bombed deserves death? She
>> should have stayed where she was and taken her chances? It's not
>> as if she'd have been allowed to sign up to be a combat soldier,
>> after all.
> Who are you responding to here? Mac is responding to Orwell, with
> a touch of sarcasm, not postiign the propositon. I you have an
> argument you should really take it up with Orwell, not Mac.
I *am* taking it up with Orwell. I thought that was obvious from
context. (Yes, I'm aware that he doesn't read this newsgroup.
And that he's been dead for 60 years.)
R H Draney
>
>Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Mac <ANMC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU> wrote:
>>>> I think there are two separate things playing into this. One is
>>>> the sense of irony, and the other is Orwell's contempt for those
>>>> who let others do all their fighting for them.
>
>>> So a woman who moves so as not to be bombed deserves death? She
>>> should have stayed where she was and taken her chances? It's not
>>> as if she'd have been allowed to sign up to be a combat soldier,
>>> after all.
>
>> Who are you responding to here? Mac is responding to Orwell, with
>> a touch of sarcasm, not postiign the propositon. I you have an
>> argument you should really take it up with Orwell, not Mac.
>
>I *am* taking it up with Orwell. I thought that was obvious from
>context. (Yes, I'm aware that he doesn't read this newsgroup.
>And that he's been dead for 60 years.)
Two compelling reasons that I don't have him killfiled....r
Mac
> Keith F. Lynch wrote, in <hgmrmb$gd...@reader1.panix.com>
> on Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:56:59 +0000 (UTC):
>
> > >>> Orwell -- and many other brits -- would have argued that someone
> > >>> using their money to avoid the war was not an innocent person.
>
> > >> Why? It's not as if she was a combat soldier. Her moving did
> > >> nothing to decrease the odds or increase the cost of Britain's
> > >> winning the war.
>
> > > Women were also conscripted in WWII.
>
> > In Britain? Do you have a cite for that?
>
> Michael has provided that.
>
> > Even if so, couldn't
> > they just as easily have conscripted her from the Hebrides? Thanks.
>
> It could indeed, if they had caught up with her. I think this happened
> early in the war when conscription hadn't yet been imposed. I can
> assure you that there was widespread contempt for people who managed to
> get themselves to safer places. Britten, Auden and Isherwood were
> notorious cases.
I suspect there might have been other overtones in those cases.
Anthony "cf. Orwell's "pansy left" McCafferty
Richard Casady
wrote:
> Britten, Auden and Isherwood were
>notorious cases.
How dangerous was it for Brit civilians. It was our side that sent
bombers in thousand plane lots. Lots of landscape and only a relative
small tonnage of bombs. You would want to stay away from windows
during a raid. How bad was it?
Casady
Nick Spalding
on Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:21:28 -0600:
Over 50,000 killed by bombing, just under 9000 by V1s and V2s.
Practically all in big cities or port towns, if you were out in the
country you would be very unlucky to get hit by anything.
I was rising 8 when it started and spent little time other than in the
countryside but did see a bit of bombing in Swansea and Plymouth.
My father, who had taken early retirement in 1934, had been recalled
to the RN and his job in Swansea was to be in logistical charge of all
small craft in the port, tugs, patrol boats and such like and one of his
brood was a slightly converted motor yacht named Questor under the
command of an RNVR Sub-Lt by the name of Chambers which used to patrol
the bay at night, looking for among other things enemy aircraft laying
mines. It had a crew of 4.
Pa's office was just beside Questor's berth and I spent a lot of time
hanging around her. Chambers offered to take me out on one of
these trips and I got Pa to agree. There was a convoy assembling in
the bay and that night the Germans took it into their heads to bomb
that convoy, probably by mistake. The sole armament of the boat was a
.303 Hotchkiss machine-gun which the gunner, who had never had such a
splendid opportunity before, was having great fun with though I doubt if
the Germans noticed. We suddenly found ourselves in the middle of a
shower of incendiary bombs. All hands were required to go round with
brooms and mops etc to shove these things overboard so I was stood on
an ammunition box so that I could see the compass and given a course
to steer which I did for about 5 minutes. I was just 10 at the time.
Chambers never offered to take me out again for some reason.
I was at boarding school about twenty miles south of London and until
the V1s started up there was no reason to be concerned. We did have the
Battle of Britain going on over our heads but that was just
entertainment to us.
When the V1s arrived we found ourselves on one of the main routes into
London and in the midst of a huge balloon barrage along the south face
of the North Downs and they started bringing down quite a few. After
about three weeks the headmaster decided things were getting a bit too
exciting and packed us all off home. Shortly afterwards one came down
about fifty yards from the house where I slept and made a hell of a mess
of it. I doubt if I would have been killed but probably knocked about a
bit.
I visited the school about fifteen years ago and all memory of that had
been lost. I pointed out the gap in the trees where the V1 had landed
and suggested they find someone with a metal detector to see if any bits
were still lying around.
--
Nick Spalding
Alan J Rosenthal
Well, yes. But normally refusing to serve in the military is not a capital
offence.
Mac
It had nothing to do with "refusal to serve in the military" and
everything to do with "ruling classes use money to avoid consequences
of policy they had larger part in shaping."
Note the EnJill's internymic commentary about "looking the East End in
the face." cf. MacArthur's "Dugout Doug" nickname, or "The man behind
the armor plated desk."
This wasn't about avoiding military service, it was about avoiding
what were seen as risks that should be shared in common.
Anthony "last man in the mess line" McCafferty
Hatunen
<richar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:55:11 +0000, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
>wrote:
>
>> Britten, Auden and Isherwood were
>>notorious cases.
>
>How dangerous was it for Brit civilians.
It was potentially quite dangerous during the Battle of Britain.
>It was our side that sent bombers in thousand plane lots.
>Lots of landscape and only a relative small tonnage of
>bombs. You would want to stay away from windows
>during a raid. How bad was it?
The Allied bombing raids came mostly after the Battle of Britain
and they were quite dangerous for the Germans, even worse than it
had been for the Brits during the Battle of Britain. (Altough, it
was far worse for the Londoners than was allowed to be made
public at the time.)
But what's your point here? That it wasn't dangerous for the
Brits because we later made it even worse for the Germans?
Keith F. Lynch
> Well, yes. But normally refusing to serve in the military is not a
> capital offence.
Anyhow, I've seen no evidence that she refused to serve.
I know that during WWII children in Britain were often relocated from
cities to rural areas less likely to be bombed. I wonder if Orwell
had similar hatred for those children, and celebrated whenever one of
them was killed.
Don Freeman
> Alan J Rosenthal <fl...@dgp.toronto.edu> wrote:
>> Well, yes. But normally refusing to serve in the military is not a
>> capital offence.
>
> Anyhow, I've seen no evidence that she refused to serve.
>
> I know that during WWII children in Britain were often relocated from
> cities to rural areas less likely to be bombed. I wonder if Orwell
> had similar hatred for those children, and celebrated whenever one of
> them was killed.
Keith Lynch: Loony or Troll? You make the call.
--
-Don
Moe Trin
<ppj1j5181ikr5ltgo...@4ax.com>, Richard Casady wrote:
>How dangerous was it for Brit civilians. It was our side that sent
>bombers in thousand plane lots. Lots of landscape and only a relative
>small tonnage of bombs. You would want to stay away from windows
>during a raid. How bad was it?
September 1940 to May 1941 in London - 24,000 tons of bombs, 20,000
dead, ``hundreds of thousands'' of injuries[1]. "On May 10/11, 1941,
1436 people were killed, and 1752 injured" [in London].[2] Another
source[3] states "3 1/2 million houses destroyed or suffered damage"
(though that number counts a building damaged several times as separate
entries). In ~1960 there were still significant areas (entire city
blocks) of the "East End" that were empty - the buildings all torn
down and rubble removed. "Urban Renewal" it was definately not. Sure,
it wasn't as bad as Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Shizuoka[4] or some other
places, but it was bad enough.
You must remember that level bombing from medium altitudes (above 6000
feet) wasn't very accurate - coupled with navigation errors, etc.,
this meant things were more or less random chance. Buckingham Palace
was never a target, yet was bombed several time. "After the first hit
(on 13 September 1940) the Queen is said to have commented `I'm so
glad we've been bombed. It makes me feel I can look the East End in
the face.'"[2].
Old guy
[1] "The Winter of the Bombs", Constantine FitzGibbon, 1958, W. W.
Norton & Co, LOCUS 58-5482, originally published in England in 1957
as "The Blitz".
[2] "The Home Front" subtitled "War Years in Britain, 1939-1945", Susan
Briggs, 1975, American Heritage, LOCUS 75-4466, ISBN 0-07-0078505-X
[3] A Short History Of Air Power", James L. Stokresbury, 1986, Wm.
Morrow & Co, LOCUS 85-43431, ISBN 0-688-05061-1
[4] Shizuoka, city of ~206000 residents about 90 miles WSW of Tokyo
66 percent destroyed in _one_ fire raid. Toyama, a city of ~100000
about 160 miles NW of Tokyo over 95 percent destroyed in one raid.
Keith F. Lynch
>> cities to rural areas less likely to be bombed. I wonder if Orwell
>> had similar hatred for those children, and celebrated whenever one of
>> them was killed.
> Keith Lynch: Loony or Troll? You make the call.
Who, me or Orwell? Don't shoot the messenger.
Keith F. Lynch
>>> Women were also conscripted in WWII.
>> In Britain? Do you have a cite for that?
> Here are a couple of cites:
> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/womeninuniform/wwii_intro.htm
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwtwo/women_at_war_01.shtml
Thanks. So there was no such conscription until a year and a half
after Orwell's objectionable diary entry.
Strobe
wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:55:11 +0000, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
Distinctly dangerous for those in or near cities.
Homes, shops, warehouses and factories were blown up or set on fire,
surrounding buildings became unlivable until tiles, windows etc were replaced,
(or until a water main was repaired so you could flush the toilet).
A lot of civilians were killed by the bombing, and later by the V1s & V2s.
Firemen and Civil Defense workers were killed fire-fighting and rescuing.
Civilians had to sleep in shelters every night because of bomb risk, and there
was also danger from all the AA fire - the larger shrapnel could come through
your bedroom ceiling.
Undressing for a bath meant hoping there'd not be a raid till you were dressed
again. People without their own shelter had to use public shelters; a great
way to get to know your neighbors, but also to pick up flu and fleas (remember
the bath problem).
In some raids whole streets or blocks were burnt out (helped by bombed water
mains), many uninjured people lost their homes and all their possesions in an
hour. Yet lots of them managed to show up for work next day.
Living with V1s was interesting. When the warning siren went off, we'd start
listening for the buzz bomb. Once you heard that unmistakable noise, you'd
pray that it would keep on going (and hit someone else) - if the engine stopped,
you crossed your fingers and waited for the bang.
The V2s were different - no warning at all.
Every so often, there'd be a loud bang and a large new hole appeared in the
city, seemingly at random. Anyone here want to live like that?
Young children suffered in another way - many were evacuated by the
government to stay with strangers outside the cities.
This was not exactly ideal for them.
All this inevitably left psychological marks on everyone.
My 7-year-old self really REALLY hated those people who tried to kill me then,
and who did succeed in killing two of my friends who lived just opposite our
school (51d25'43.5"N, 0d01'29"W - the different colored roof is the new house
built on the site).
9-11 brought some of it back, especially when the wind brought the smoke over my
NYC home - I suddenly clearly remembered the persistent smell of charred wood
drifting around London after every raid. Thank God, a lot of it has stayed
buried in my memory.
DAMN - I;ve just remebered what a dead body looks like.
Anyone care to guess how I feel about the modern suicide bombers who
very deliberately target civilians, women and children?
Richard Casady
>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:21:28 -0600, Richard Casady
><richar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:55:11 +0000, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Britten, Auden and Isherwood were
>>>notorious cases.
>>
>>How dangerous was it for Brit civilians.
>
>It was potentially quite dangerous during the Battle of Britain.
>
>>It was our side that sent bombers in thousand plane lots.
>>Lots of landscape and only a relative small tonnage of
>>bombs. You would want to stay away from windows
>>during a raid. How bad was it?
>
>The Allied bombing raids came mostly after the Battle of Britain
>and they were quite dangerous for the Germans, even worse than it
>had been for the Brits during the Battle of Britain. (Altough, it
>was far worse for the Londoners than was allowed to be made
>public at the time.)
>
>But what's your point here? That it wasn't dangerous for the
>Brits because we later made it even worse for the Germans?
I didn't have a point, I asked a question.
Alan J Rosenthal
>It had nothing to do with "refusal to serve in the military" and
>everything to do with "ruling classes use money to avoid consequences
>of policy they had larger part in shaping."
I see. I didn't realize that from the original quote. Thanks for the
explanation.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> In a previous article, Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com.nul> said:
> >From George Orwell's wartime diary:
> >
> >========QUOTE==============
> >20.6.40
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >According to R.H., a woman who rented an island in the Hebrides in order
> >to avoid air raids was the first air casualty of the war, the R.A.F.
> >dropping a bomb there by mistake. Good if true.
>
> Poland escaped unharmed, I guess. And that's not even counting all the
> people that were killed by the Japanese in the late 30s in China and
> elsewhere.
It's conventional to date a war from when your own country joins in,
he said sarcastically.
I am not sure why the RAF would be flying with live bombs around the
Hebrides and dropping them on land by mistake. I gather that
typically a zone would be designated to dispose of bombs safely
instead of bringing them home and causing embarrassment in a bad
landing. At least later:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/639093.stm>
According to
<http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/facts.html>
"One hour and fifty minutes after Britain declared war on Germany, a
Bristol Blenheim fighter-bomber, piloted by Pilot Officer John Noel
Isaac of 600 Squadron, crashed on Heading Street in Hendon near London
at 12.50pm. P/O John Isaac became the first British military subject
to die in the Second World War. On September 6, 1939, just three days
after Britain went to war with Germany, a young Shropshire pilot,
John Hulton-Harrop, age 26, became the first operational casualty of
Fighter Command when he was shot down in a tragic case of 'Friendly
Fire' soon after he took off from North Weald fighter station."
That doesn't allow much time for this woman to be bombed.
Also recorded there is a legend-flavoured tale of a giant swastika
near Berlin made up of larch trees and finally felled in 2001, but it
is reported by the BBC as well (but in 2000) so surely it is (nearly)
true:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1053635.stm>
It reminded me of this slightly suspicious anecdote, whose first
publication date is not the one given here:
<http://2crocus.blogspot.com/2009/11/we-love-to-be-british-
part-2.html>
"Mrs. Irene Graham of Thorpe Avenue, Boscombe, delighted the audience
with her reminiscence of the German prisoner of war who was sent each
week to do her garden. He was repatriated at the end of 1945, she
recalled. 'He'd always seemed a nice friendly chap, but when the
crocuses came up in the middle of our lawn in February 1946, they
spelt out Heil Hitler.' " (Bournemouth Evening Echo)
Back to first
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6111620/Second-World-War-70th-
anniversary-the-first-shot.html>
describes the sinking of SS Athenia by a German submarine torpedo.
The remark can also be a comment on the epigram which you may know -
discussed at
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/
0,5753,-21510,00.html>
as "The first casualty when war comes is truth" (Senator Hiram W
Johnson, 1917 or 18) or "In war, truth is the first
casualty" (Aeschylus, 525 BC - 456 BC).
Ralph Jones
talk-o...@moderators.isc.or�g <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>It's conventional to date a war from when your own country joins in,
>he said sarcastically.
>
>I am not sure why the RAF would be flying with live bombs around the
>Hebrides and dropping them on land by mistake. I gather that
>typically a zone would be designated to dispose of bombs safely
>instead of bringing them home and causing embarrassment in a bad
>landing.
Typically the English Channel, to the misfortune of Glenn Miller...
rj