Jump to content


Photo

www.johndclare.net Website


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#16 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 30 January 2011 - 10:31 PM

Done.

#17 poland first to fight

poland first to fight
  • Student
  • 67 posts

Posted 01 February 2011 - 05:03 PM

Done.


Thank you very very much! :)

#18 DavidMcL

DavidMcL
  • Student
  • 1 posts

Posted 25 February 2011 - 11:09 PM

I notice a small error in 'First Day of the Somme: Fricourt: Plan'. I think its more likely that 21st Division attacked EASTwards not Westwards.

I'm researching an audio-account of the battle by my Grandfather who commanded a Gun Battery and witnessed the Battle on 2nd July 1916 from what he called 'Fricourt Hill'.

#19 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 26 February 2011 - 02:00 AM

I notice a small error in 'First Day of the Somme: Fricourt: Plan'. I think its more likely that 21st Division attacked EASTwards not Westwards.

I'm researching an audio-account of the battle by my Grandfather who commanded a Gun Battery and witnessed the Battle on 2nd July 1916 from what he called 'Fricourt Hill'.

Of course! I am an idiot.
Westwards would have had them attacking their own side!
Changed.

#20 Alice H

Alice H
  • Student
  • 1 posts

Posted 02 April 2011 - 03:23 PM

Hi.
As you know, I am updating the www.johndclare.net website.
It will take a long time, so please be patient.

However, if you spot anything drastic - for example, a page which is massively corrupting - please report it here.
Thanks
JCL


Hi,

I'm sure you get millions of posts like this every day, but I'd love to thank you for all your hard work with www.johndclare.net and this forum, it's been so helpful for my revision! Your website has been a fantastic resource for revising the edexcell GCSE syllabus, both in itself and in the way it acts as a sort of index for each topic, listing all other useful web based resources. The ideas it's given me have been brilliant, not just for history revision but other subjects too. Thankyou!

I was wondering if I could point somthing on the Germany page. I find your memory words very helpful for revision but have noticed that there are some listed in the topic overview about the Munich Putsch that aren't on the revision sheet. Please could you tell me what these stand for?

Thanks again and apologies in advance for clogging up your inbox,
Alice H

#21 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 04 April 2011 - 09:47 PM

I was wondering if I could point somthing on the Germany page. I find your memory words very helpful for revision but have noticed that there are some listed in the topic overview about the Munich Putsch that aren't on the revision sheet. Please could you tell me what these stand for?

Fistrly, I am, glad the website has been of some use to you.
Soceondly, apologies for the delayed reply - I have been away this weekend.
Thirdly, MANY apologies for the mnemonics muddle - they are all over the place!

Locations underlined:
FIVE problems the Weimar government faced, 1919-1923 [ILRIM]
SEVEN causes of the Weimar government’s problems [CROAPOP] (look in the 'extras' box)
The FIVE causes of the Munich Putsch [Why Nazis Supported Munich Battle]
FOUR results of the Munich Putsch [Defeat? Tell Me Something!]
FOUR reasons the Weimar republic survived [FASS]
SIX things Stresemann achieved [DIFFERS]
NINE reasons Hitler came to power in 1933 [LIMP PAPER].

#22 curly

curly
  • Student
  • 2 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:52 PM

Hi, I have my IGCSE Paper 2 on Thursday (1945-1949), however I am unsure about one of the dates. In my text book "Superpower Relations and Vietnam 1945-1990" by John Wright, it states that Bizone was set up in January 1948. However, on the JohnDClare Website ( http://www.johndclar...t/cold_war9.htm ), it says Bizonia was set up on the 1st January 1947. I know that many websites have this same date, however my teachers believe that it was probably set up in 1948, and they suggested emailing you for your opinion.

Thank you for your help.

#23 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:20 PM

Hi, I have my IGCSE Paper 2 on Thursday (1945-1949), however I am unsure about one of the dates. In my text book "Superpower Relations and Vietnam 1945-1990" by John Wright, it states that Bizone was set up in January 1948. However, on the JohnDClare Website ( http://www.johndclar...t/cold_war9.htm ), it says Bizonia was set up on the 1st January 1947. I know that many websites have this same date, however my teachers believe that it was probably set up in 1948, and they suggested emailing you for your opinion.

Thank you for your help.


This document seems to prove that Bizonia was set up as the economic unification of the American and British zones on 1 January 1947:

Joint Statement by Secretary of State Byrnes and Foreign Secretary Bevin (3 December 1946)
The Secretary of State, the Honorable James F. Byrnes, and the Right Honorable Ernest Bevin, the British Foreign Secretary, made public today the agreement which they have signed on behalf of their respective Governments which provides for the full economic integration of the United States and the United Kingdom zones of occupation in Germany and comes into effect on January 1,1947.

The union was the result of talks held on 2 December 1946 between Byrnes and Bevin.

However, although it talks of a 'Bipartite Finance Committee', you need to note that this document does not use the NAME: 'Bizonia'.

Moreover, you need to note that this event refers to the ECONOMIC union of the two zones.
According to this British Library pamphlet:

In January 1948 the powers and composition of the German Economic Council for the Anglo-American bizone were changed to create the nucleus of a future German Government. The Council itself was expanded to 104 members and a second chamber, the Länderrat, consisting of two representatives of each state, was set up.

I cannot speak for Mr Wright, of course, but perhaps he was taking this political organisation as the real start of Bizonia (the political entity) - see this original proclamation doumenting this decision.

Confusingly, this edition of Life magazine (Feb 1948) states that the new Bizonian government will come into force on 1 April 1948!

The thing with Bizonia, as with many historical 'events' is that 'bizonia' did not leap into life, fully-formed, on any one date, but grew in concept and fulness over a series of decisions and events. Often it is impossible to say when something 'happened' (e.g. when did the 'Cold War' break out???), and different historians will select different dates as 'the moment' of inception.
The important thing about Bizonia was not that it had 'a date', but that it came into existence, and that it REALLY hacked off the Soviets.

I tend to be a bit wishy-washy about dates; I don't think they matter very much - it is the SEQUENCE of events which is critical.

Anyway, to continue, for many years, when I was writing my textbooks, if I needed 'A DATE', I always took the date in Encyclopaedia Britannica. It was not that it was necessarily any more 'correct' than other sources, but I regarded it as 'an authority' which we could all perhaps accept.

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, 'Bizonia' was ”the product of an economic merger between the U.S. and British occupation zones, was announced on May 29, 1947".
This is echoed in US Secretary of State Dean Acheson's memoirs:

Secretary Byrnes's speech in Stuttgart on September 6, 1946, mentioned in Chapter 21, marked a strong swing away from earlier policies. Germany, he said, should not he turned into an economic poorhouse; rather, we favored economic unification and, under proper safeguards, giving German people throughout Germany "primary responsibility for the running of their own affairs." These ideas got another push in December when Byrnes and Bevin announced the economic union of the British and American zones. "Bizonia" went into effect on May 29, 1947, when the new administration was set up in Bonn, allowing Germans to run their own economy subject to a bipartite control office. The French, in one of their noncooperative moods, refused for the time being to join their zone with the others.

Thus you see EB takes the date when the administration actually came into being - and this agreement is the document recording that agreement.


I am sure that this will merely serve to confuse you, rather than to clarify.
But that is how it is.

#24 curly

curly
  • Student
  • 2 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:43 PM

Thank you very much for replying so quickly!

#25 poland first to fight

poland first to fight
  • Student
  • 67 posts

Posted 28 May 2011 - 08:04 PM

In the section "Battle of Atlantic" it says:"The work of the British codebreakers at Bletchley Park in deciphering the German Enigma code was vital in giving the Allied navies the edge in the Battle of the Atlantic." I am not sure whenever you wanted to say that British codebraekers broke the enigma first or just continued the work of Polish codebrakers which actually broke the code first.


I think that it would be very important to mention on your website that Poles broke the enigma. Of course British kept on deciphering upgraded Enigmas but If not Poles the Enigma would be probably deciphered no earlier by the end of 1941 which would bring a lot heavier loses not only on Atlantic but also on Pacific as Japanese used a modified Enigma. I'm just trying to say that it looks like the Poles had nothing to do with Enigma and that all of the work was done by the British.

#26 Cyfer

Cyfer
  • Student
  • 322 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 14 August 2011 - 10:31 PM

May I also add my thanks to that of Alice H., your website sir has been incredibly helpful in my understanding of the Russian Revolution and how the key figures developed. May I also add that adding links to names was a great idea, as it allowed for more in depth reading where your work gave a basic understand and the foundations.

#27 Cyfer

Cyfer
  • Student
  • 322 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 22 August 2011 - 09:33 PM

I am not sure whether or not this is an error:
http://www.johndclare.net/Basics_Russia.htm
"St Petersburg; members of the Duma met him and forced him abdicate"

whilst in 'A People's Tragedy' Orlando Figes said it was the voice of the generals and military command that convinced the Tsar to abdicate who then chose to pass the 'tsardom'(?) to the Grand Duke Mikhail under the wish that he wanted to be with his family (normally his son Alexei would be Tsar). The Grand Duke Mikhail was then convinced to abdicate by the Duma.

Not sure whether this is an error or simply vague. It could be updated to clear up some confusion I believe.

#28 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 23 August 2011 - 10:47 AM

Not sure whether this is an error or simply vague. It could be updated to clear up some confusion I believe.

Thank you.

Spartacus says that: 'On 13th March, 1917, the Russian Army High Command recommended that Nicholas abdicated. Two days later the Tsar renounced the throne.' This is true, but it does not tell you what happened in those two days.

This document shows that it was the Duma, not the military, which engineered the abdication of the Tsar - February 1917 was a constitutional uprising, not a military coup.

The decree of abdication states that he was doing so: ‘In agreement with the Imperial Duma’.

Please let me know if you spot any other problems.

#29 Cyfer

Cyfer
  • Student
  • 322 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 23 August 2011 - 11:28 AM

That's strange. 'A People's Tragedy' mentions Guchkov and Shul'gin on their way to the Tsar to force him to abdicate in favour of his son although it says that the generals convinced him.

I'll check out the book's sources however I doubt I'll find much, seeing how many of them are from books which aren't on google.

Thanks anyway.

#30 poland first to fight

poland first to fight
  • Student
  • 67 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 09:11 PM

  1. "Thirdly, the British developed two brilliant planes – the Hurricane (Nov 1935) which was reliable and was used to shoot down the Luftwaffe bombers; and the Spitfire (March 1936), the fastest plane in the world, which was used to destroy the Nazi fighters which protected the bombers."

Spitfire was not the fastest plane in the world. The fastest plane during that period was Me 209. Not a fastest service plane but definitely the fastest plane out there. Bf 109 E was also faster than the spitfire at altitudes above 26 000 feet and had better acceleration. Spitfire was only up to 20 km/h faster which is close to nothing. Considering better acceleration and engine reliability both planes could be considered equal in speed. Manoeuvrability was the strongest side of Spitfire in which it a large advantage over Bf 109 E. 

 

Don't quote me on this (more research needed!) but I don't know what was the extent of co operation between Spitfires and Hurricanes. Squadrons would be equipped with one type of aircraft only. Squadrons would be assigned with missions and it might well be that one squadron faced both fighters and bombers regardless of the type of aircraft flown. 64  out of 126 confirmed victories of the Polish 303 squadron (which flew Hurricanes) come from shooting down Bf 109 which does not prove the above statement. In fact there were days when the Hurricanes of the 303 only engaged fighters or days when it engaged both bombers and fighters. It would have been logical for Spitfires to take on fighters whilst Hurricanes could take the bombers but in practice I think this was something quite hard to achieve for two reasons-1.Having two different squadrons in the same place (doubt that you would always have this kind of possibility) 2.Bf 109's would try to engage Hurricanes which would inevitably lead to Hurricane vs Bf 109 fights (a wingman of the Hurricane pilot attacking the bomber would have the duty to protect him from enemy fighters and the wingman of Bf 109 pilot had duty to protect him from the wingman of the first Hurricane-hope this makes sense). 

 

I know its much beyond GCSE knowledge but I don't think such generalisation is correct. I don't think it is Mr. Clare who came up with this. Sometimes generalisations might hurt however... It certainly never hurts to learn something new!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users