How would you summarize what you believe about the Bible? I believe that in the year 2025, if an incident happens and you ask 4 people what happened, you’ll get 4 different stories and often they will conflict with one another. This is in this day and age - so the idea of 4000 years ago, people witnessing events were able to remotely reliably convey what happened is rather ludicrous. So, I think the bible has been pained over for thousands of years trying to understand and interpret the word of God and what it means for humanity, etc, but ultimately, it’s written by unreliable witnesses and lore that is up to 300 years after the fact before it was recorded. It therefore seems to me that the bible should be looked at as something that traditions, bonding, family, and a sense of community rally around to support one another and to give positive regard to. I think its value is more so in the unity that it brings within its church and it works as a good guidebook as to how a responsi...
How did the British win the Battle of Britain?
It was looking extremely tentative at first. The Luftwaffe was sending wave after wave of bombers that were focused on air fields and radar stations which really wore the British down. The air fields were caught unprepared taking heavy losses with one big issue being the advanced warning systems to allow for the pilots to get into the air to defend against the bombers.
It was really tight for a while where the British had a hard time getting planes into the air fast enough and getting them assembled fast enough in order to be able to replace the losses that were taken in the beginning of the battle. Due to the Nazis having near air superiority over Britain it was decided that aircraft production would be splintered into pieces of industry that were scattered across Britian which would serve to lower losses when the factories were targeted.
One of the costs of assembling in pieces scattered is that the logistics of moving the pieces so they could eventually be assembled into a workable aircraft were stretched thin. This meant planes were not being created fast enough. This would prove to be a good gamble though as more and more factories were bombed it meant that should those factories had been producing the aircraft as whole then each bombed factory would have been a critical loss for Britain where scattered factories working on pieces had the ability to absorb the loss and still keep functioning.
Due to the Nazis being unable to shut down the aircraft factories the bleed on the Luftwaffe proved to be too significant. Between the losses and the British being able to install better antiaircraft gun emplacements to start blanketing the sky in puffs of aircraft destroying smoke, aligned with the increasing numbers and range of the radar stations that were being created the losses to the Luftwaffe were untenable, so Hitler decided to bomb the cities out of existence.
There is a false telling of events which state that the Nazis had attacked London and as a result Berlin was bombed which caused retaliatory strikes back onto the cities of Britain. The truth is that the Brits had been bombing German city targets since May of 1940 for military and war industry targets. The tit for tat bombing that supposedly started the bombing of British cities is a fallacy.
When the Nazis stopped bombing air fields and radar stations they allowed the British air force to build up its resistance in numbers by getting some plane in stock and pilots trained in Canada. The training efforts gave them clear skies to learn how to fly which paid off immensely in terms of combat experience and survivability.
As the cities burned the population of Britain banned together in unity to stand against the Nazis. The bombing of the cities had the opposite effect that Hitler was hoping for. Hitler figured it would break the publics will but it steeled their resolve against the Nazis and spelled the end of the hopes of invading Britain for the Nazis.
Comments
Post a Comment