Would like to have met...

[jerryc]

The three I would choose to meet would be

Hugh Dowding. The man who really won the Battle of Britain. The treatment he received from Churchill, Bader and Leigh Mallory was appalling, yet he was gentleman enough to do a fine job and not complain.

Geoffrey Chaucer. His ambiguous humour and wit would have kept me totally entertained.

Alfred the Great. It might well be he was the greatest king England has ever had. It might be he was the first master of PR. I would just love to find the truth.

I will add that as a child I was once close to Churchill when he visited the working class in London. I still remember an exchange that will never feature in any history of the man. He made the fatuous remark, "London can take it," in the wrong place. An old lady reared up and said bitterly. Who the f**k is taking it ? It ain't you, mate."

Jerry

 

[Anonymous]

And not a single vote for Einstein Tony.

Roy.

Ahh, now that was a tricky one.
Given 4 votes, he would have been there, and actually was at #2 at one point, but I replaced him with Feynman as although I have read every book both published (as far as I know), I found Feynman more of an enigma and thus would like to have met him.

After reading Rob's three, I now kick myself that I didn't include Leonardo as I have been reading about him a lot this past year and today, he would be on my list :wink: :roll:

 

[Digit]

Yes Jerry indeed! The 'Big Wing' concept worked well, when it worked, but the terrible trio had few doubts as to their own fallibility and Dowding was shockingly treated. It's interesting to note that none of the men who served under Dowding supported the use of the 'Big Wing' for a first, or fast, response.
Churchill was a great and inspiring orator, but that lady's response was typical of the east end as they were 'taking it' nightly.
I spent some very cold, wet and frightening times in shelters myself and would willing have stopped 'taking it!'.

Roy.

 

[jerryc]

Roy,
From such research as I have managed to achieve, the Big Wing never worked.
Concerning Churchill.
My knowledge of the Second WW was a little unusual. I was in Kent, hop picking with my mother, during the Battle of Britain and so had a very close aquaintence with what was happening. Came back to Bermondsey for the Blitz and was sheltering in London Bridge underground when a land mine got hung up on the signals outside the entrance. As a result we had to walk along the rails from London Bridge to The Borough to get out. Was in London for V1's and V2's. Not trying to bore you with my war but you can see why the old lady's reply to Churchill stuck, even in a kid's mind.

Jerry

 

[Digit]

I was born in 1940 but well remember the 'mini blitz' and Doodle bugs of course and certainly sympathise with that woman.
The 'Big Wing' worked very well, when they arrived on time, their greatest success was on the 15th Sept 1940 when some 60 aircraft met the German bombers.
But the time taken to marshal some five squadrons would have been useless in an around your neck of the woods, the Luftwaffe would have been on their way home by the time Bader was ready.
If Dowding had one fault, IMO, it was in not removing Leigh-Mallory and extending 11 group to the north of the Thames, which would have given Park much more authority, and manoeuvring space in which to fall back after the damage to his sector stations.
I think he was too much of a gentleman to do that and Mallory got away with at least gross insubordination!
But wisdom after the event is always very easy of course and the players performed their roles as they thought fit.
Also I feel that it probably didn't matter too much who led Fighter Command at the time, most people fail to realise that Dowding's greatest achievement was behind the scenes, without his efforts it is doubtful either that the Chain Home stations or the interlocking command structure they supported would have been in place, and that was the vital part of the battle.

Roy.

 

[dunbarhamlin]

Hmm. The first two are easy. My grandfather, who died young, and my uncle, Cyril, who was killed in the war.
For the third, I'd probably go for the anonymous craftsman who first used my Livingston rip saw.
Not into the good and the great - they're seldom the former and frequently far too aware of their standing.
Steve

 

[jerryc]

Roy,
Should perhaps start another thread on Dowding. because we could be in danger of hi-jacking this one. It mattered very much who controlled Fighter Command both before the war and during the Battle.
It was Dowding who fought against the entrenched RAF powers before the war who wanted to concentrate on bombers because they believed the bomber would always get through and therefore fighters were a luxury. It was Dowding who fought against Churchill in order to conserve the fighters for home defence and not squander them over France during the retreat to Dunkirk. His other contributions you have already mentioned.

Jerry

 

[Digit]

Agreed mate, but I meant that I suspect another player would probably have followed much the same course as Dowding as he would have had the same hand to play.
Without the Radar controlled command structure Dowding might well have lost the Battle,and with it Park would probably still have won it, if you follow me.
I wonder also what the old lady who had a go at Churchill would have had to say about the hand wringing over Dresden and the treatment of Harris and Bomber Command.
We, as a people, have a shocking dis-respect for our fighting forces.

Roy.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Very difficult to choose just three because there have been so many very interesting people throughout history. However, three people who I have long-admired are George Rodger, Robert Capa and Henri Cartier-Bresson, the founder-members of the Magnum photo co-operative in 1947.

They were all very different but equally superb witnesses and recorders of life. They lived through some very interesting times and we are fortunate that their work lives on through their photographs. For anyone who is interested, here are some links to their pictures

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.a ... e%20Rodger

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.a ... ert%20Capa

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.a ... %20Bresson

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Digit]

I wonder how many people today Paul will recognise that pic of Schweitzer, another candidate for this thread.
It's also interesting to me how much this particular thread has revealed about other posters and their interests outside of the workshop.
We are a diverse group aren't we?

Roy.

 

[Paul Chapman]

We are a diverse group aren't we?

We sure are - that's what makes the World go round

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[dennis]

I have to agree with Dunbarhamlin.I would much rather meet some unsung hero who seeks nothing in return for their efforts than someone of fame or so called celebrity.

Dennis

 

[jerryc]

Roy,

One thing even many historians forget is the mood and culture of the people at the time. I know because one of my degrees is in history.Many also want to find a new viewpoint so they can publish their works. A few points of clarification should be made about terror bombing in the Second World War.
First the Germans experimented in the Spanish Civil War. Guernica.
Second. The Luftwaffe had no capacity for heavy bombing. Their bombers were twin engined, with a small carrying capacity. Even so, as a small boy in London's Blitz, I still have vivid memories of the fire raids. High explosives and a rain of incendiary bombs. Coming out of London Bridge Tube before sun-up yet being aware that it was as light as day.The full capacity of the Luftwaffe was unleashed. Have I mentioned Coventry yet?

It is easy for someone sitting and reading about events to reach a conclusion that few who were contemporary to WW2 would reach. Like anyone who has had first hand experience of it, I hate war. The old lady hated Churchill because she had knowledge of how dismissive the authorities were of the safety of the working classes. The facts are there for anyone to see. As for her attitude to Dresden, it would have been a blunt "Well they started it." It doesn't excuse Dresden, but who cried for Coventry?

Jerry

 

[woodbloke]

Roy,

One thing even many historians forget is the mood and culture of the people at the time. I know because one of my degrees is in history.Many also want to find a new viewpoint so they can publish their works. A few points of clarification should be made about terror bombing in the Second World War.
First the Germans experimented in the Spanish Civil War. Guernica.
Second. The Luftwaffe had no capacity for heavy bombing. Their bombers were twin engined, with a small carrying capacity. Even so, as a small boy in London's Blitz, I still have vivid memories of the fire raids. High explosives and a rain of incendiary bombs. Coming out of London Bridge Tube before sun-up yet being aware that it was as light as day.The full capacity of the Luftwaffe was unleashed. Have I mentioned Coventry yet?

It is easy for someone sitting and reading about events to reach a conclusion that few who were contemporary to WW2 would reach. Like anyone who has had first hand experience of it, I hate war. The old lady hated Churchill because she had knowledge of how dismissive the authorities were of the safety of the working classes. The facts are there for anyone to see. As for her attitude to Dresden, it would have been a blunt "Well they started it." It doesn't excuse Dresden, but who cried for Coventry?

Jerry

Jerry - interesting observations. I think the role of Bomber Command (and the USAAF in the Pacific theatre) would make a very lively separate thread - Rob

 

[Digit]

Very true Jerry. One of the worst aspects of Bomber Command's activities was not what they did, as you point out the Germans kicked it off, but the way Churchill passed the buck after Dresden. The war cabinet issued the directive that Harris acted under then Churchill attempted to distance himself from their actions.
I have no degree in history Jerry, just a life long addiction to the subject, and having met, through my work in the aircraft industry, many vets from the WW2 air force I know that many were very disappointed at the lack of recognition afforded to both Harris and to the force that he commanded.
Politics is a dirty business I fear.
Wars are won by those who make the fewest mistakes and the Luftwaffe's concentration on medium bombers after the death of Wever? put much of Britain's and Russia's military production out of effective range.
Out of curiosity Jerry are you aware that the Junker's Ju88 was designed by an American?
Your comments about the old lady's attitude was the one that I think most people had at that time.
I also enough of the second world war, and its aftermath, to last me a lifetime.
I have railed on this forum about the lack of democracy within the EU, but for all it faults at least my son has never had to face the prospect of military service, and for that I am very grateful.

Roy.

 

[motownmartin]

I would have liked to have met my great grandparents, my grandparents were good working class folk but i would have loved to talk to my great grandparents to see how they lived their lives, today I think we take things for granted.

 

[Digit]

My daughter carried out a search for her grandparents as a school project. She was astounded.

I wrote this as the opening of a book for her...

It has been said of the early generations of the twentieth century that they saw more change during their lifetime than any generation before or since. The invention of the phonograph and telephone, the development of the motorcar, wireless, and manned flight, all followed each other in quick succession, every day seemed to produce something new and exciting. But for all this, life on the land changed but little. The generation that survived the carnage of the Somme and Ypres returned to a rural life little different from that which they had so cheerfully left.
But not so for the men who fought the battles of the Second World War. The men who stemmed the might of the Nazi war machine and ‘came safe home’ returned to a world that would never be the same again. The drift of men from the land that had begun in their grandfather’s time now became a flood, a torrent of humanity torn from their rural roots by the tide of mechanisation. Cottages which for centuries had echoed to the tramp of hob nailed boots now stood silent and open to the skies, condemned as unfit for human habitation. Everything was now to be new, modern, up to date. ‘Contemporary’ was the in word.
A way of life that reached back to the days of enclosure was to be swept away to make room for a land fit for heroes.
My children, like others of their generation, may know the history of the Second World War, but of that which followed, and how the working people lived, they know little or nothing. My own children find it difficult to conceive of the world of my childhood, a world of food rationing, a world without sweets, cakes, television, motor cars or central heating, and yet the period of which I write is barely half a century ago.
The countryside of my childhood was of neat little villages with white walled thatched cottages and small patchwork fields with small brown cows contentedly chewing the cud. Horses still outnumbered tractors and the combine harvester was something that the Americans used.
The period of my childhood encompassed the death throes of this rural economy, and though there is a tendency to view ones childhood through rose tinted spectacles, there is a growing belief that that the industrialisation of farming has gone too far, that the price required to produce mountains of butter and beef and lakes of wine and milk is too high.
But the days of cows standing waist deep in meadows full of wild flowers are gone, probably for ever, but like many of my generation I was privileged to know them.
This is my story.


Roy.

 

[jerryc]

Roy,
There were many reasons why the Luftwaffe opted for medium bombers, but the basic reason was that Germany was a Continental power. They saw everything in terms of land warfare. The light, fast medium bomber was ideal when working in support of ground forces.
One deep problem is that each nation, and it's historians, see things from their own perspective.
I learned this in a few ways. One, I was born and raised in UK. When I came to Australia (1962) I found the viewpoint of history was very different. At university I had the chance to talk to a visiting German professor of history and I wanted to know why Hitler stopped at the Channel and then turned on Russia. His answer was that I did not understand the concept Germans had of the Ring of Steel, something I had never heard of. The Thirty Years War had burned deep into Germans that Germany should not be a battleground. On one side they feared France because it's levee en masse could raise an army very quickly and therefore had to be nullified quickly. Russia had massive manpower but was slow to mobilise and could be dealt with once France was dealt with.

My answers are necessarily brief because I don't want to bore others on this thread.

Jerry

 

[Digit]

I understood the reasoning Jerry, it was unfortunate for them that they ended up fighting a war that their Luftwaffe in particular was not designed for.
As an army co-operation force they were of course very successful, but the attack on Britain and the USSR was not what the Luftwaffe was equipped for.
Fortunately.
If the Versaille treaty had followed Wilson's 14 points it's just possible the whole sorry affair could have been avoided.
I forget who commented that the treaty result was not a peace, just a 20 year truce, he was wrong by just a few days.

Roy.

 

[jerryc]

Roy,

Personally I go further than most historians on the length of the Great Conflict. My belief is that it started in 1870 and finished in 1945.
The Franco Prussian War dealt a massive blow to France's belief in it's military prowess. Even though Napoleon had been defeated, the French were still self delusional about their army.(Wonder if any Frenchmen are reading this?). Bismarck unified Germany and that worried France. They were itching for an excuse to put matters right. Again I am forced to over simplify through constraints of space. I know Germany's unification, the Kaiser's naval program the entente cordiale and Uncle Tom Cobley, are all in there too, but national pride is a formidable factor.

Perhaps there is a case to be made for a history forum. Incidently I also have a degree in literature. I thought it appropriate to have, as much of history is fiction. To support this statement I will use The Angel of Mons. There are many soldiers who swore they saw it. I don't call them liars. When everyone says something was so, then memory can play tricks. However I found that the story was a fabrication by a journalist.

Jerry