You've already been given them if you read back carefully - ~9.5 million
Chamberlain WITTINGLY set the stage as it was his government that voted the monies for the various Air Plans that established the RAF's strength in 1940 AND set the schemes in place for it exponential growth after that. His predecessor Stanley Baldwin had overseen the RAF/Air Ministry's exercising of their various offensive and defensive options, and the drawing up of the first Air Plan while being a far more comitted appeaser, pacifist and disarmer than Chamberlain...but it was Chamberlain's government that had to find the money!
Beyond that - all he did was double the size of the Territorial Army after Munich, commission the building of a handful of cruisers and two new destroyer classes....and order up tanks for the Army FAR too late!
The French did do the same...began to build up its air power - but started with an industry that hadn't been invested in for too long, and was just a series of very smae "cottage" industries...so development to the level required and that the pitch required came too late; large numbers of American aircraft ordered by the French in the meantime to make up the shortfall were diverted to the UK after the Fall of France...
No - Chamberlain's government began to fall apart in the three days after the famous Norway Debate at the start of May 1940; it became evident that what was needed to fight the war was a true consensus National government...fully involving the Labour Party...who refused to take part unless Chmaberlain was replaced, and wouldn't take part if Halifax was selected as replacement PM.
See Laurence Thompson's 1940.
Norway was Churchills plan, therefore was at fault for its failure. So he brought down the Government. Halifax was the next logical PM, but he was unacceptable from most peoples point of view, he would have sent out peace feelers. Which bought us Churchill, no brainer as it turned out but was booted out when peacetime elections came. A very good war Prime Minister but not acceptable normally. Got elected as PM in 1951.
Norway was Churchills plan, therefore was at fault for its failure. So he brought down the Government.
Only certain parts of it were - the RN bits dated from late 1939 when intervention in Scandanavia was Government policy....then dropped...then taken up again...then dropped again...then FINALLY taken up because the FRENCH requested it. Churchill simply activated the earlier Navy plans.
It was actually Chamberlain's poor showing in the Norway Debate that sealed his doom; by the third day after the Debate, Conservative MPs were attending Labour meetings on Norway en masse! Churchill's robust defence of the Norway Debacle was generally accepted in the House as one of the BETTER showings in the Debate!!!
The Norway Debate showed that it was impossible to carry on the war AND have it governed/overseen under the normal procedures of parliamentary debate...thus there were various approaches made to various parties (sic) regarding the conditions foir them joining a Wartime National Government...and Chamberlain was not wanted as PM.
Churchill didn't "bring down" the government; his defence of it is actually legendary
Which bought us Churchill, no brainer as it turned out but was booted out when peacetime elections came. A very good war Prime Minister but not acceptable normally. Got elected as PM in 1951.
The Conservatives fought a VERY lacklustre election campaign; Churchill basically couldn't be arsed...and all sides except Labour thought he was a shoo-in. But he had alsready handed Labour the winning ticket; he had agreed to bring in the full Welfare State ASAP...but made no start on it whatsoever except for the Beveridge Report on education! So he handed labour a big "what DID we fight the war for???" stick to beat him with...
A very good war Prime Minister but not acceptable normally. Got elected as PM in 1951.
"A very good war Prime Minister but not acceptable normally. Got elected as PM in 1951."
Did say normally.
I gather he was in his Bruce Forsyth phase, just turned up, said something and went to sleep. A figurehead, A Eden was a cracking Foreign Secretary but as a PM ?
Slight side issue following modern interpretation.
Churchill would have won the Home vote in 1945, it was the oversea surfacemens vote that cost Churchill the election. A few relatives had stated that Churchill threatened to shoot miners 'on strike' during the war and it was strongly felt the Tories would dissolve all promises made for political unity.
I've done some studies of the WW2 on the Home front and industrial action of one sort or another was commonplace (sometimes resolved by threat of conscription). The 'thousand bomber' raids were halted because of interrupted bomber supplies for a while.
I've done some studies of the WW2 on the Home front and industrial action of one sort or another was commonplace (sometimes resolved by threat of conscription).
In the Cruel Sea, based on Nicholas Monserrat's service in the Battle of the Atlantic, he describes well the fury felt by those risking their lives at sea when they made it back to port and found the dock workers on strike yet again.
A few relatives had stated that Churchill threatened to shoot miners 'on strike' during the war
He did; there was a miners' strike in either 1942 or 1943, and he threatened to use the Emergency Powers Act (Wartime) on them. Strikes had early been declared illegal in many industries, including mining.
The 'thousand bomber' raids were halted because of interrupted bomber supplies for a while.
The "Thousand Bomber Raids" were a gimmick anyway there was suprisingly a very small number of them...and the numbers were found ONLY by "borrowing back" obsolete Wellingtons and Whitleys and Stirlings that had been given over to other service branches like Coastal Command By 1943 when the full tempo of raids resumed...numbers of raids slackened of during the worst of winter weather anyway...Bomber Command was more capable of mounting large raids with decent numbers of four-engined aircraft, Lancasters and Halifaxes.
On top of everything - because often the bombloads of the older twin-engined types used for the Thousand Bomber raids were compromised by range...the big raids in 1942 didn't actually do that much damage!
One lecturer we had was an apprentice at Castle Bromwich when they decided to build a super factory for Spitfires.
He said they gave jobs to ex autocar workers who then turned round and said they wanted aircraft factory rates for roughly doing not much different than from cars. Then somebody wanted as rise because they used to get more than other groups.The company used to settle then someone else piped up.The whole factory was threatened with martial law when a wide strike was threatened. The workplace responded when groups or departments went on strike but others reported for work and when that was resolved another group went out to maintain 'a differential'.
Towards the middle and end of the war strikes could be for nurseries on site and womens facilities etc. Womens pay was fixed as lower than mans for the same job and there was a push for overtime rates (etc) which followed post war.
Car production plants were blighted through to the eighties because they were used to getting what they wanted following 'skill status' they acquired during the war.
But not just Castle bromwich; whole swathes of the UK's car industry had been given over to either manufacturing aircraft OR repairing them; Beaverbrook's Civilian Repair Organisation for example utilised over 40 car factories and assembly shops just to REPAIR RAF aircraft...
Car production plants were blighted through to the eighties because they were used to getting what they wanted following 'skill status' they acquired during the war.
I think that's somewhat downplaying the decades of industrial disputes that blighted the UK car industry! And ignores the government's major failing postwar in effectively restructuring the British aviation industry until it was far, far too late...(See James Hamilton-Paterson's Empire of The Skies...)
It was a Labour government that (didn't) preside over ANY real restructuring of British industry postwar; coincidence???
Confined my comments to the one lecturer, he was exquisetly scathing of what happened at Castle Bromwich because he was there, and when Spitfires left the plant there were quality issues owing to the stop start nature there. He reckons the average plane was stopped at least twice during build.
He had lot to say about RR and most of the sub contracting culture. Prices went up on nuts and bolts and rivets with the reason they were done to aircraft standards. He was rather evil about the electrics industry and presented a fact that 2 spark plugs where produced for 1 good one, so about 112 had to be made to get 56 on a plane for it to fly.
He had lot to say about RR and most of the sub contracting culture. Prices went up on nuts and bolts and rivets with the reason they were done to aircraft standards.
If you knew more about the development history of the Avro Lancaster you wouldn't see ANY problem at all with that!
Six months or more operational time was LOST in the early history of the Lancaster because of semi-skilled work by new wartime labour at Avro and nuts. bolts AND rivets that weren't of aircraft standard....
...resulting in the skinning on outer wing sections and engine nacelles peeling off repeatedly on the three longterm test aircraft! :eek:
In the end...the government had to agree to rejig the testing requirements because the Lanc couldn't meet them...and instead of the three aircraft doing x-number of proving miles each....Avro was allowed to add them together! :p:p
Avro Manchester had two engines and then four to become Lancasters because of the complexity of the original engine, they caught fire but turned the original plane from a death trap to being the best. Halifax was OK after they sorted the tail, and the less said about the Stirling the better.
Local authorities (particularly Cultural Department of Moscow, they've done a great job to change moscow parks) have come up with a brilliant idea. On May, 9th, all people, who actually remember deeds of their relatives, and their wartime life will have right to speak up about them on public.(mic is included) It all will happen on Tverskaya Boulevard in the afternoon.
Towards the middle and end of the war strikes could be for nurseries on site and womens facilities etc. Womens pay was fixed as lower than mans for the same job
Was that a bad thing? Good morale helps and while money doesn't grow on trees these reforms would have made sense.
Was that a bad thing? Good morale helps and while money doesn't grow on trees these reforms would have made sense.
Not complaining in reality, just saying that disputes became practical matters, besides hard dosh. People were expected to do long shifts and women bore the brunt.
Unfortunately the idea that women should be paid the same for the same job was considered heresy. There was one dispute over mixed sexes doing the same job but with men being paid more, the solution was to promote the men into the womens supervisors.
At the end of the war, discharged soldiers wanted their jobs back and everybody naturally wanted to retain the job pay and conditions regardless of market conditions. Industrial relations were just as much tested as during the war. Companies wanted the same profits and arrangements as in wartime. A bit simplified perhaps but basically correct.
VE Day's tomorrow.. Will it be widely celebrated in some particular countries?
Celebrations, if you call it that, is usually rounded in fives or so 50,60, 75 etc and are not treated as victory parades. VJ day gets a mention as well.
Unlike Russia we were at war with Japan for nearly 4 years, Russia only joined in at the end for land grab purposes.
We've come to the 1st point of this thread. A Nature of a cult. And here comes the question, does Russia need a cult like this in a modern world? Can Russians be proud of their victories, and remember a great tragedy without a cult? And is it reasonable?
VE Day's tomorrow.. Will it be widely celebrated in some particular countries?
We don't celebrate it in England
Our annual parades are in November and are held on the nearest Sunday to 'Armistice Day' which is November 11th and signifies a remembrance of the sacrifice of British and Commonwealth subjects in the two world wars and other conflicts
November 11th is when the armistice ending hostilites in 1918 took place..............we've just added on other wars onto that one................
IIRC. the French president invited the newly POTUS Obama to a shindig celebrating the D-day landing and did not include us initially, that must have been 2008.
Everyone respect a russian contribution.(except of some mobs) But all russians celebrate it like yesterday was May, 8, 1945.(thanks to Brezhnev and Khrushev, who cultivated a cult)
If cult is declining, it doesn't mean that great victories and battles of Russian would be forgotten, but really, it shouldn't be a religion, but if it should, it should remain as it is.
I think it should be a day of tragedy, the greatest tragedy of 20th century,
Just look at Leningrad Blockade, concentration camps.
It was one of the rudest acts of violence over ordinary people ever.
In addition,
Lebedev has asked the question in his blog:
What would Nazis do with Russians with if they won?
So, yes, we've heard a lot about the "abolishing slavic people" and "vanishing Moscow from the face of earth , but really, why they didn't do that at all on occupied territory of Russia?
(we can see it on historical pictures, which proves that life wasn't any different from pre-war's, however, there are docs which prove that Nazis were rude on some occupied territories)
if I post that, it doesn't mean, however, that it's my opinion.
It's just a suggestion.
ere are my first pictures and videos, depicting the scale of celebration
Most people don't wear St.George Ribbon, but just put them on their cars, which I think is quite silly.
Фотографии в альбоме «May 8» Levan Bibilashvili на Яндекс.Фотках
You could see 3 flags on facades of all public buildings
Including Victory Flag/Banner, which was hung over Berlin.
Фотографии в альбоме «May 8» Levan Bibilashvili на Яндекс.Фотках
[more]
Other decorations(including spinning Victory medal)
Фотографии в альбоме «May 8» Levan Bibilashvili на Яндекс.Фотках
P.S Commies still praise Stalin, and respect him as an only person who brought peace to all the world
Фотографии в альбоме «May 8» Levan Bibilashvili на Яндекс.Фотках
Comments
Norway was Churchills plan, therefore was at fault for its failure. So he brought down the Government. Halifax was the next logical PM, but he was unacceptable from most peoples point of view, he would have sent out peace feelers. Which bought us Churchill, no brainer as it turned out but was booted out when peacetime elections came. A very good war Prime Minister but not acceptable normally. Got elected as PM in 1951.
Only certain parts of it were - the RN bits dated from late 1939 when intervention in Scandanavia was Government policy....then dropped...then taken up again...then dropped again...then FINALLY taken up because the FRENCH requested it. Churchill simply activated the earlier Navy plans.
It was actually Chamberlain's poor showing in the Norway Debate that sealed his doom; by the third day after the Debate, Conservative MPs were attending Labour meetings on Norway en masse! Churchill's robust defence of the Norway Debacle was generally accepted in the House as one of the BETTER showings in the Debate!!!
The Norway Debate showed that it was impossible to carry on the war AND have it governed/overseen under the normal procedures of parliamentary debate...thus there were various approaches made to various parties (sic) regarding the conditions foir them joining a Wartime National Government...and Chamberlain was not wanted as PM.
Churchill didn't "bring down" the government; his defence of it is actually legendary
The Conservatives fought a VERY lacklustre election campaign; Churchill basically couldn't be arsed...and all sides except Labour thought he was a shoo-in. But he had alsready handed Labour the winning ticket; he had agreed to bring in the full Welfare State ASAP...but made no start on it whatsoever except for the Beveridge Report on education! So he handed labour a big "what DID we fight the war for???" stick to beat him with...
Bit of a contradict in there, isn't there...?
"A very good war Prime Minister but not acceptable normally. Got elected as PM in 1951."
Did say normally.
I gather he was in his Bruce Forsyth phase, just turned up, said something and went to sleep. A figurehead, A Eden was a cracking Foreign Secretary but as a PM ?
Yep, quite normal for british politics; see under Stanley Baldwin's last Cabinet...
Churchill would have won the Home vote in 1945, it was the oversea surfacemens vote that cost Churchill the election. A few relatives had stated that Churchill threatened to shoot miners 'on strike' during the war and it was strongly felt the Tories would dissolve all promises made for political unity.
I've done some studies of the WW2 on the Home front and industrial action of one sort or another was commonplace (sometimes resolved by threat of conscription). The 'thousand bomber' raids were halted because of interrupted bomber supplies for a while.
In the Cruel Sea, based on Nicholas Monserrat's service in the Battle of the Atlantic, he describes well the fury felt by those risking their lives at sea when they made it back to port and found the dock workers on strike yet again.
He did; there was a miners' strike in either 1942 or 1943, and he threatened to use the Emergency Powers Act (Wartime) on them. Strikes had early been declared illegal in many industries, including mining.
The "Thousand Bomber Raids" were a gimmick anyway
On top of everything - because often the bombloads of the older twin-engined types used for the Thousand Bomber raids were compromised by range...the big raids in 1942 didn't actually do that much damage!
He said they gave jobs to ex autocar workers who then turned round and said they wanted aircraft factory rates for roughly doing not much different than from cars. Then somebody wanted as rise because they used to get more than other groups.The company used to settle then someone else piped up.The whole factory was threatened with martial law when a wide strike was threatened. The workplace responded when groups or departments went on strike but others reported for work and when that was resolved another group went out to maintain 'a differential'.
Towards the middle and end of the war strikes could be for nurseries on site and womens facilities etc. Womens pay was fixed as lower than mans for the same job and there was a push for overtime rates (etc) which followed post war.
Car production plants were blighted through to the eighties because they were used to getting what they wanted following 'skill status' they acquired during the war.
I think that's somewhat downplaying the decades of industrial disputes that blighted the UK car industry! And ignores the government's major failing postwar in effectively restructuring the British aviation industry until it was far, far too late...(See James Hamilton-Paterson's Empire of The Skies...)
It was a Labour government that (didn't) preside over ANY real restructuring of British industry postwar; coincidence???
He had lot to say about RR and most of the sub contracting culture. Prices went up on nuts and bolts and rivets with the reason they were done to aircraft standards. He was rather evil about the electrics industry and presented a fact that 2 spark plugs where produced for 1 good one, so about 112 had to be made to get 56 on a plane for it to fly.
If you knew more about the development history of the Avro Lancaster you wouldn't see ANY problem at all with that!
Six months or more operational time was LOST in the early history of the Lancaster because of semi-skilled work by new wartime labour at Avro and nuts. bolts AND rivets that weren't of aircraft standard....
...resulting in the skinning on outer wing sections and engine nacelles peeling off repeatedly on the three longterm test aircraft! :eek:
In the end...the government had to agree to rejig the testing requirements because the Lanc couldn't meet them...and instead of the three aircraft doing x-number of proving miles each....Avro was allowed to add them together!
Was that a bad thing? Good morale helps and while money doesn't grow on trees these reforms would have made sense.
Not complaining in reality, just saying that disputes became practical matters, besides hard dosh. People were expected to do long shifts and women bore the brunt.
Unfortunately the idea that women should be paid the same for the same job was considered heresy. There was one dispute over mixed sexes doing the same job but with men being paid more, the solution was to promote the men into the womens supervisors.
At the end of the war, discharged soldiers wanted their jobs back and everybody naturally wanted to retain the job pay and conditions regardless of market conditions. Industrial relations were just as much tested as during the war. Companies wanted the same profits and arrangements as in wartime. A bit simplified perhaps but basically correct.
Celebrations, if you call it that, is usually rounded in fives or so 50,60, 75 etc and are not treated as victory parades. VJ day gets a mention as well.
Unlike Russia we were at war with Japan for nearly 4 years, Russia only joined in at the end for land grab purposes.
Meanwhile, media façade on Mercury City Tower says "Happy Great Victory Day!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBH17XaThLA&feature=player_embedded
We don't celebrate it in England
Our annual parades are in November and are held on the nearest Sunday to 'Armistice Day' which is November 11th and signifies a remembrance of the sacrifice of British and Commonwealth subjects in the two world wars and other conflicts
November 11th is when the armistice ending hostilites in 1918 took place..............we've just added on other wars onto that one................
We do try to an extent when it hits a significant anniversary. I remember widespread celebrations were organised on the 50th VE day not too long ago.
that would have been around 1995 then.............:p
nearly 20 years ago...............
If cult is declining, it doesn't mean that great victories and battles of Russian would be forgotten, but really, it shouldn't be a religion, but if it should, it should remain as it is.
I think it should be a day of tragedy, the greatest tragedy of 20th century,
Just look at Leningrad Blockade, concentration camps.
It was one of the rudest acts of violence over ordinary people ever.
In addition,
Lebedev has asked the question in his blog:
What would Nazis do with Russians with if they won?
So, yes, we've heard a lot about the "abolishing slavic people" and "vanishing Moscow from the face of earth , but really, why they didn't do that at all on occupied territory of Russia?
(we can see it on historical pictures, which proves that life wasn't any different from pre-war's, however, there are docs which prove that Nazis were rude on some occupied territories)
if I post that, it doesn't mean, however, that it's my opinion.
It's just a suggestion.
I just show how diverse public opinion is
Most people don't wear St.George Ribbon, but just put them on their cars, which I think is quite silly.
Фотографии в альбоме «May 8» Levan Bibilashvili на Яндекс.Фотках
You could see 3 flags on facades of all public buildings
Including Victory Flag/Banner, which was hung over Berlin.
Фотографии в альбоме «May 8» Levan Bibilashvili на Яндекс.Фотках
[more]
Other decorations(including spinning Victory medal)
Фотографии в альбоме «May 8» Levan Bibilashvili на Яндекс.Фотках
[more]
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69Kiys6rigI
P.S Commies still praise Stalin, and respect him as an only person who brought peace to all the world
Фотографии в альбоме «May 8» Levan Bibilashvili на Яндекс.Фотках