In this months “Britain at War” magazine is an article by Robert Mitchell called “The Folly of The Few”. This is just a heads up, posted without further comment. I have little doubt that further comment might well be forthcoming when said article is read and digested.
Details at:
http://www.britain-at-war-magazine.com
…or available from most bigger W H Smith stores, I think.
By: captainslow - 29th June 2008 at 15:33
As George ‘Johnny’ Johnson so aptly put it in the Channel 5 Dambusters documentary the other week in reference to these self appointed armchair experts, Question 1-‘Were you there? Question 2- Do you know what the conditions were like at the time? I expect the answer to both is no in Mr Mitchell’s case. As is often the case in all aspects of life, not just aviation and warfare if an untruth is repeated in word and print enough it becomes a truth to some eventually. . . .
By: antoni - 29th June 2008 at 15:21
Who is Robert Mitchell and what qualifies him to write on this subject?
When I was very young my father gave me three pieces of good advice that were far more useful then than 16 years of full time education.
Never assume always check.
You cannot understand a subject just from reading one book.
Just because you don’t understand the reason for something it does not mean that the reason is stupidity.
They say a little knowledge is a bad thing. The article as a whole gives me the impression Mr Mitchell has read a handful of books and has come to the conclusion, all by on his own, that the answer to everything is everybody was stupid. His conceit is that he believes in the infallibility of his own conclusions and therefore does not need to look for explanations or reasons for events. For example, he complains that priority was not given to the development of the Spitfire over the Hurricane and as a result Britain had more Hurricanes than Spitfires at the outbreak of war. “Incredibly, the initial order from the Air Ministry was for just 310 Spitfires whereas the order for the Gloster Gauntlet was 600!”
He does not seem to have the slightest understanding that the Spitfire was completely new technology, that completely new production techniques needed to be developed and that Supermarine was a small company with only 500 employees and could not produce Spitfires in larger quantities. That Supermarine had to subcontract the work and there were great problems and delays in producing the elliptical wings in not exactly a secret. The Hurricane was a technology that was understood and much easier to build. I don’t think it is really necessary to explain how the Air Ministry was its priorities.
I would like to see this gentleman taken to task but by academics and historians that thoroughly understand the subject and the reasons and motivations for decisions. Perhaps they might not find it worth the bother and just sit back in their chairs letting their eyeballs roll towards the ceiling or just roll on the floor laughing.
By: Pete Truman - 29th June 2008 at 10:15
Treading round this one a bit carefully aren’t we.
Quite frankly, I think that the suggestive nature of the title sums the article up, not impressed at all and the poor old Hurricane gets a bit of a guarded slagging off too, perhaps it’s true achievements could have got a mention.
Nice pictures of the wreck of the Exeter though, and a good bit of local stuff about the Zep being brought down over Essex, thats about all I’ve managed to read on the toilet this morning.
Can we start a Braintree thread now.
Which reminds me, for any of you who are aware of the remains of the former German POW camp at High Garrett, I’ve noticed quite a bit of activity up there lately and by chance have found out that it’s being turned into a crematorium, shame as the surviving buildings will get flattened, another piece of local history lost.
Cest la morte.
By: Arabella-Cox - 28th June 2008 at 19:46
I have never read that book, so no idea!!
By: Robert Hilton - 28th June 2008 at 18:39
No, not the Royal Navy. Just a dissertation on leadership of Fighter Command in 1940, questioning aspects of Dowding, Leigh-Mallory and Park’s leadership and the deployment of front line fighters in the UK during 1940. That about sums up its nature, I think. As for the detailed content, then it needs to be read and I am not going precis it! Anyway….I don’t want to be the messenger who gets shot 😀
It wouldn’t happen to be a rehash the the John Ray book on the Battle of Britain? That was also somewhat scathing of Dowding and Park.
By: Arabella-Cox - 28th June 2008 at 18:16
Ah…so its their fault, then!
By: ZRX61 - 28th June 2008 at 16:33
The last time I was in Braintree (hopefully it was the last time:D) it was bad for the blood pressure…period! With apologies to any offended of Braintree, of course!!
It was nice when I used to go there & visit my uncles farm in the ’60’s. They sold up & ******** off to canada tho & now their fields are houses…:mad:
By: Rlangham - 28th June 2008 at 14:36
The Royal Navy Battle of Britain discussion was covered in the April issue of Britain at War, which also featured an article by yours truly
By: Arabella-Cox - 28th June 2008 at 14:33
“A battle of Britain myth challenged” ; its not the Royal Navy again is it? come on Tangmere, spill the beans, I can’t be @rsed to go and buy a copy….
No, not the Royal Navy. Just a dissertation on leadership of Fighter Command in 1940, questioning aspects of Dowding, Leigh-Mallory and Park’s leadership and the deployment of front line fighters in the UK during 1940. That about sums up its nature, I think. As for the detailed content, then it needs to be read and I am not going precis it! Anyway….I don’t want to be the messenger who gets shot 😀
By: Arabella-Cox - 28th June 2008 at 14:11
I can’t comment on the article. However, the PR of this magazine stinks and that’s paying it a compliment. I believe it went ‘belly-up’ once: it could not have happened to a more deserving cause.
Best Wishes.
Robert.
Just curious to know why you think that? Perhaps you’d share with us your thoughts on why their “PR stinks”??
By: stuart gowans - 28th June 2008 at 14:02
“A battle of Britain myth challenged” ; its not the Royal Navy again is it? come on Tangmere, spill the beans, I can’t be @rsed to go and buy a copy….
By: northeagle - 28th June 2008 at 13:51
I can’t comment on the article. However, the PR of this magazine stinks and that’s paying it a compliment. I believe it went ‘belly-up’ once: it could not have happened to a more deserving cause.
Best Wishes.
Robert.
By: Pete Truman - 28th June 2008 at 10:10
The last time I was in Braintree (hopefully it was the last time:D) it was bad for the blood pressure…period! With apologies to any offended of Braintree, of course!!
Now, now, it’s not that bad, I’m off up into town on me bike and I might be tempted to put a copy of this posting on me crossbar.
By: Arabella-Cox - 28th June 2008 at 09:36
The last time I was in Braintree (hopefully it was the last time:D) it was bad for the blood pressure…period! With apologies to any offended of Braintree, of course!!
By: Pete Truman - 28th June 2008 at 09:23
In this months “Britain at War” magazine is an article by Robert Mitchell called “The Folly of The Few”. This is just a heads up, posted without further comment. I have little doubt that further comment might well be forthcoming when said article is read and digested.
Details at:
www.britain-at-war-magazine.com
…or available from most bigger W H Smith stores, I think.
It looks an interesting magazine, pity I didn’t look on here before I went into town, try parking in Braintree after 9:00 on a saturday and it’s not good for the blood pressure.
Has anyone read it yet, is it worth it, does it tell us things we don’t know, I judge from Tangmeres mood that it may be a little contraversial.
I think I’ll get out the old pushbike and chain it to W H Smiths doorway and hope they have a copy, just in case they haven’t, is the sunken warship HMS Exeter.
Sign In
June 28, 2008 at 9:04 am