Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

YIELD OR FACE RUIN, HITLER DEMANDS; LONDON IS SCORNFUL OF HIS THREAT; WIDE AIR RAIDS (7/20/40)
Microfiche-New York Times archives, Monterey Public Library | 7/20/40 | Guido Enderis, Raymond Daniell, James B. Reston, James MacDonald

Posted on 07/20/2010 5:27:53 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson

1

Photobucket

2

Photobucket

3

Photobucket

4

Photobucket

5

Photobucket

6

Photobucket

7

Photobucket

8

Photobucket

9

Photobucket

10

Photobucket

11

Photobucket



TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: milhist; realtime; worldwarii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: CougarGA7

Right, I am not in the camp that says WWII “began” on 12-7-1941.

Just as Gulf War I came to a pause in 1991, only to see the peace repeatedly broken by Saddam Hussein’s violations of the treaty.

And we are still in Korea facing hostility.


21 posted on 07/20/2010 7:29:40 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

I’m not in the December 7th camp either. If I had to pick a date I would say September 1st 1939 since that set in motion a series of events that had, within days, the British and French at war with Germany. With most of the dominions following suit shortly after the war really became global at that point and hence a “world” war. But like I’ve said, there are some real good arguments for some of the other dates as well.


22 posted on 07/20/2010 8:19:00 AM PDT by CougarGA7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CougarGA7; a fool in paradise; Homer_J_Simpson
CougarGA7: "If I had to pick a date I would say September 1st 1939 since that set in motion a series of events that had, within days, the British and French at war with Germany."

Btw, has anyone as of "today" seen a news report referring to the Second World War?

I have not, and wonder if that term was not used before December 7, 1941?

23 posted on 07/21/2010 11:21:03 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
"I am curious, and I am not suggesting more work for you—but are there any accounts on line from the Axis point of view from this day to day perspective. It would be interesting to view the day by day from both sides."

Not quite the same thing, but the New York Times itself was "fair and balanced" enough to print daily war communiques from all, including Germany.

I will be interested to learn if this practice continued after December 7, 1941.

24 posted on 07/21/2010 11:25:49 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CougarGA7
If I had to pick a date I would say September 1st 1939

I'd even go back to 1936, when the Germans marched into the Rhineland, and the French didn't fire a shot.

25 posted on 07/21/2010 11:28:03 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Btw, has anyone as of "today" seen a news report referring to the Second World War?

I remember reading the term in an analysis piece back before 9/1/39. At that time it was used in a theoretical way, of course. I'd hate to have to find it again to back up this assertion. I should have started an index right from the start.

Since the war started I haven't seen World War II or variants used.

I was a little surprised to see "Battle of Britain" come into such common usage as we have seen. From the moment Churchill coined the term - wasn't it at the end of June? - I have been seeing it in news, editorials and anlalysis. The funny thing is, now that it is happening it is not really recognized for what it is. The air war appears to be seen as a symetrical affair. British raids on German occupied areas receive the same sort of coverage as German raids on ships in the Channel or Great Britain. I still haven't noticed any mention of the need for air superiority to enable a German invasion of Britain. Even though that invasion is considered inevitable in the news, if not in the upper reaches of the military and government.

But then I don't read this stuff as carefully as I should. Maybe Baldwin is all over it.

26 posted on 07/21/2010 12:25:29 PM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; a fool in paradise; Homer_J_Simpson
Btw, has anyone as of "today" seen a news report referring to the Second World War?

I remember our analyst Hanson Balwin saying it at least once real early on. I did some quick looking and found it in his report from September 4, 1939.

From 20,000,000 to 40,000,000 men, from youth to middle-age, may eventually fight the battles of the second World War.

Notice that he didn't even capitalize the word "second" as we do today. It definately was not prevalently used at this point and I think I've only seen it a handful of times up to this point. I will probably take better note of it from here now that you mentioned it.

27 posted on 07/21/2010 2:13:46 PM PDT by CougarGA7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CougarGA7
"From 20,000,000 to 40,000,000 men, from youth to middle-age, may eventually fight the battles of the second World War."

An astonishing quote from 1939, for more than one reason.
First, it indicates they clearly forsaw another war would be fought on a huge scale.
But second, they had no idea how truly massive the scale would become.
Twenty to forty million was not even the death toll.
The total numbers who fought must be well over 100 million -- though I've never seen an actual estimate.

28 posted on 07/21/2010 4:24:18 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

That one could easily be added to the list as well.


29 posted on 07/21/2010 7:57:55 PM PDT by CougarGA7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson

Always such an absorbing daily read. I don’t thank you for this ping as often as I ought, so am rectifying that now.


30 posted on 07/21/2010 8:14:00 PM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (No apologies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

You know, I’ve never seen an estimate of the total number of combatants in WWII either. 100 million sounds reasonable though. That 40 million number is definitely a gross underestimate.


31 posted on 07/21/2010 8:25:21 PM PDT by CougarGA7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson

I think more than anything, The Battle of Britain showed Hitler that an invasion of Britain would not be a cakewalk.

And Hitler had bigger fish to fry, The Soviet Union.

He figured at least neutralize Britain enough that he could invade Russia without it becoming a two-front war.

However, Pearl Harbor messed up Hitler’s best-laid plans.


32 posted on 07/21/2010 9:14:52 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson