I think I just figured out why Sean's house has such a big garden.

[lighty]

It is evident that there WAS a house there at some point - the density of housing in the area almost insists on it.

So I was browsing BBC news and ran across an article about this project:
http://www.bombsight.org/#15/51.5050/-0.0900

Zooming in on his neighborhood shows that during the Blitz a bomb fell very, very close by.  I think that may be why there is a lot, rather than a building on the corner.

Or at least it's fun to speculate.  I'd have to dig through the archives to find the records - I'm not sure the papers were reporting every destroyed building in the city during the height of the bombing.

Very interesting and useful website, regardless - it certainly provides a fantastic overview of what the people and the city went through that year or so.

[patch]

 Interesting stuff,good luck with the research!

[lighty]

Thanks, patch.  I doubt I'll do that much research on Sean's garden . . . but the site itself is interesting.  I hope that someone does something similar for other cities - Tokyo, Dresden, etc - because the abstract nature of the data actually emphasizes the impact.

If you change the presentation from aggregate to daily, it shows that on one day - in one hour - approximately 5 bombs per MINUTE were dropping on the city.  Trying to imagine what that must have been like brings home the reality of the horror, and it doesn't matter where or who.  People are people and it was civilians who were suffering, regardless of their location.

I despise war.

[Sable899]

I spent some time in 1989 working with the Dutch Army Bomb Disposal Unit near Culemborg back when I was stationed in Germany. Their files were amazing. None of it was computerized at the time, tho I imagine it is by now. Being close to the border with Germany they had been a dumping ground for British bombers returning from strikes on Germany and Luftwaffe bombers returning from strikes on Britain. Planes would jettison any bombs on board before either crossing the Channel or before landing on a nearby major Luftwaffe airfield. Hence, there was a LOT of unexploded ordnance scattered about. Nevertheless, Dutch citizens were very meticulous about plotting every bomb that was dropped, those that were targeted against the big railroad centers in the region, bridges and factories, those that failed to explode and those that were jettisoned. They figure it will be 2030 before they have gotten to disposing of 50% of all the ordnance littering the Dutch countryside. By comparison, the London Blitz was just a sprinkle. The Dutch suffered 5 years of death from the sky. And on top of it all, there are the tons of explosive junk that the Germans dumped in the myriad of canals to prevent reuse and lighten their load during their retreat back in to Germany.

[lighty]

I spent some time in 1989 working with the Dutch Army Bomb Disposal Unit near Culemborg back when I was stationed in Germany. Their files were amazing. None of it was computerized at the time, tho I imagine it is by now. Being close to the border with Germany they had been a dumping ground for British bombers returning from strikes on Germany and Luftwaffe bombers returning from strikes on Britain. Planes would jettison any bombs on board before either crossing the Channel or before landing on a nearby major Luftwaffe airfield. Hence, there was a LOT of unexploded ordnance scattered about. Nevertheless, Dutch citizens were very meticulous about plotting every bomb that was dropped, those that were targeted against the big railroad centers in the region, bridges and factories, those that failed to explode and those that were jettisoned. They figure it will be 2030 before they have gotten to disposing of 50% of all the ordnance littering the Dutch countryside. By comparison, the London Blitz was just a sprinkle. The Dutch suffered 5 years of death from the sky. And on top of it all, there are the tons of explosive junk that the Germans dumped in the myriad of canals to prevent reuse and lighten their load during their retreat back in to Germany.

You know, I find the responses to this website fascinating.  I posted this website on FB and the immediate response was "it was worse" elsewhere.  I understand what you were trying to say and I know you don't mean to minimize suffering (so please don't take this as a criticism), but I found myself rather repelled by that "it was just a sprinkle" comment; it really makes me wonder why the reaction to seeing this data is so dismissive.

Is it because England "won" the war?  Because they were never occupied?  Because they were, for so long, the major power in the western world?  Is it simply because the number who died, were injured, orphaned, or made homeless were less - overall - than in other countries?  Is there a particular number that moves it from a scratch to a cut - from a cut to gaping wound?

It seems like there is a higher bar set for Great Britain when it comes to WWII and I honestly don't understand why.

EDITED TO ADD:
Sable - I need to reiterate that I was in no way criticising you - I think I was so taken aback by the reaction to the website on FB that when I read your comment earlier this evening, your comment stuck out more than it would have otherwise.  I absolutely agree that the Netherlands took a much greater "hit" - both deliberately aimed and dropped from convenience - than England, so from the numbers angle, the comment is very accurate . . . and that was the angle you approached it from.  I apologize if I offended.

[najinboulder]

Is it because England "won" the war?  Because they were never occupied?

From my standpoint it is because England "won" the war.  My history classes on WWII mentioned that the Germans bombed Great Britain but made it seem harmless some how.  As thou if they could bomb and kill people in England it could happen here and history wanted to make it seem worse elsewhere and it couldn't happen here.

[lighty]

Interesting perspective, najin.  I guess because I've always been particularly interested in British history, the reaction seems odd to me.  The people on FB didn't want to discuss how the website presented the data, just what happened elsewhere and how trivial what happened in London was to what occurred in those other places.

[Annie]

Different countries and nationalities have widely differing perspectives on something as big as this. Britain didn't win the war all on its own - where bombing was concnered - we had help from airmen from accross the world.  The US had several air bases in the UK and took part in bombing missions (remember the Memphis Belle?)

What a lot of people (including Brits) also forget is that part of Great Britain did get occupied.  The Channel Islands were invaded and suffered horribly during the war years with many of the island citizens being shipped off to concentration camps. The local museums (if you ever venture that way) have exhibits, and copies of testimonies from those who survived, that shock and horrify.

I'm not saying that the RAF didn't jettison bombs or that other areas didn't suffer.  Every country wrote its own history books in the years after the war and teach their children in their own way.  And let's face it - there were an awful lot of political shenanigans going on in the 50s and 60s.

[lighty]

Different countries and nationalities have widely differing perspectives on something as big as this. Britain didn't win the war all on its own - where bombing was concnered - we had help from airmen from accross the world.  The US had several air bases in the UK and took part in bombing missions (remember the Memphis Belle?)

What a lot of people (including Brits) also forget is that part of Great Britain did get occupied.  The Channel Islands were invaded and suffered horribly during the war years with many of the island citizens being shipped off to concentration camps. The local museums (if you ever venture that way) have exhibits, and copies of testimonies from those who survived, that shock and horrify.

I'm not saying that the RAF didn't jettison bombs or that other areas didn't suffer.  Every country wrote its own history books in the years after the war and teach their children in their own way.  And let's face it - there were an awful lot of political shenanigans going on in the 50s and 60s.

Annie - I know Britain didn't "win" the war on its own (I teach history for a living, so I'd better know that!) - it was an attempt to understand a possible perception - the Allies, led by Britain and the US, won the war . . . ergo, Britain "won" the war. 

I'm going to stand by the not occupied comment, not to minimise what happened to the Channel Islanders, but because the enemy never made it to the mainland in a substantive way, or gained control of the government, transportation hubs, communications and media.  Again, it was more of a shorthand and I should have taken the time to explain my question.

Apologies - and an admittedly feeble attempt to explain what I'm trying to ask.

I agree that history is extremely subjective and I know it informs viewpoint.  What I wonder about is the general tendency (and I think that's what I'm responding to, writ small on this topic) to look for comparisons when discussing anything that involves physical and/or emotional pain.

When we consider it, none of us really think that way - we do not say "the suffering of that family of three is not as extreme because the family of six over there suffered more" BUT we do practice a weird sort of oneupsmanship when we discuss these events - more the further removed from them we are.

The reason I find the bombsight website so fascinating is not because it is London.  Yes, my primary research focus is British history, but the reason it is interesting is because it presents data as an abstract that allows the viewer to "see" the Blitz in a comprehensive way - to realize that over the course of 57 days the city was indeed "carpeted" with destruction.  When I did the math on bombs per minute on that first day, I tried to imagine what it must have been like to listen during that single hour when five per minute dropped.  Twelve seconds.  Just long enough to think that maybe you can lift your head.  Then another.  And again.  For what probably felt like a lifetime.

That is useful for me - both as a person, as a reminder of the reality of war, and as a teacher trying to reach students who have no frame of reference and are increasing inured to violent imagery through film and video games.

London is not the only city that suffered.  This happened all over Europe and Asia; perhaps not as many bombs - or perhaps more; perhaps not as long a period or perhaps for much longer.  Yes, in a way London was lucky.  The Germans used more high explosive bombs than fire bombs, so it was not Tokyo or Dresden or any of the others that suffered through those.  But that doesn't lessen the impact for those who survived - that would be like saying the Napoleonic wars weren't that bad because they didn't have bombs dropping from the sky.  Tell that to the person who took a shrapnel loaded artillery round . . .

Pain is relative to the experience of it.  It isn't for me to say that someone doesn't suffer because they lost a limb, simply because I know someone who lost two.

Frankly, I don't think anyone would say that, so I wonder at the psychology that makes us - all of us - practice this comparison game.  I know that I've done it - not with war so much as other things . . . "my cold is worse that your cold" sort of thing.  I'm never happy with myself after I've done that, but it's a very hard thing to stop from doing.

I guess that talking about war in this way is just an example of that psychology - and I wonder why we do it.

Does that make more sense?  I hope so, because I'm digging myself a pretty deep hole here!

[Sable899]

When it comes to WW2 I have a different perspective on it simply because of what my Army occupation was for 20 years. The Blitz truly was an horrific thing to have lived through and the way that the British people dealt with it with quiet stoicism is legendary. The fact that anyone could survive it with their sanity intact still amazes me. However, I had the privilege of working with German, Dutch, Belgian, British and Norwegian bomb disposal people when I was stationed in Germany and got to see how man-made hell affected the lives of the people in each of those countries. My point about the Dutch was not to compare but to contrast. It just seems that historians and teachers tend to focus on the Blitz when teaching about the civilian side of the war, while the experiences of the people of the other countries seem to be overshadowed or forgotten completely.  I pointed out how things stand now because the shear volume of unexploded ordnance that is buried in the Dutch countryside today simply stuns the mind. Ordnance that fell from the sky. Imagine being woken from sleep by a 1000 pound bomb plunging through your roof, embedding itself in your basement and you sitting there waiting for it to go off. A bomb that has a better than even chance of still being there, embeded in your basement. Does it compare to the people in the bomb shelters during the Blitz? I don't know.   I think that the tendency to compare various aspects of the war comes from people being defensive about how the British seem to have forgotten that anyone besides themselves suffered during the war. I've been to Dresden. I've been to Munich. I've been to Frankfurt. I've been to the villages around Utah and Omaha Beach and I've helped sift through the mud of countless Dutch and Belgian canals. Contrasting the Dutch experience with the British experience is simply my way of saying that I'm not happy with how the victors have written history. Yes, that bomb site is quite interesting, but it simply reinforces my opinion that the modern history education is horribly unbalanced.

[lighty]

When it comes to WW2 I have a different perspective on it simply because of what my Army occupation was for 20 years. The Blitz truly was an horrific thing to have lived through and the way that the British people dealt with it with quiet stoicism is legendary. The fact that anyone could survive it with their sanity intact still amazes me. However, I had the privilege of working with German, Dutch, Belgian, British and Norwegian bomb disposal people when I was stationed in Germany and got to see how man-made hell affected the lives of the people in each of those countries. My point about the Dutch was not to compare but to contrast. It just seems that historians and teachers tend to focus on the Blitz when teaching about the civilian side of the war, while the experiences of the people of the other countries seem to be overshadowed or forgotten completely.  I pointed out how things stand now because the shear volume of unexploded ordnance that is buried in the Dutch countryside today simply stuns the mind. Ordnance that fell from the sky. Imagine being woken from sleep by a 1000 pound bomb plunging through your roof, embedding itself in your basement and you sitting there waiting for it to go off. A bomb that has a better than even chance of still being there, embeded in your basement. Does it compare to the people in the bomb shelters during the Blitz? I don't know.   I think that the tendency to compare various aspects of the war comes from people being defensive about how the British seem to have forgotten that anyone besides themselves suffered during the war. I've been to Dresden. I've been to Munich. I've been to Frankfurt. I've been to the villages around Utah and Omaha Beach and I've helped sift through the mud of countless Dutch and Belgian canals. Contrasting the Dutch experience with the British experience is simply my way of saying that I'm not happy with how the victors have written history. Yes, that bomb site is quite interesting, but it simply reinforces my opinion that the modern history education is horribly unbalanced.

I understand what you're saying - and think you did a good job of defending your position (and illustrating how an unexploded bomb could be as emotionally traumatizing as one that went off).

I don't think that history is quite as unbalanced as you think, though.  This particular website is an effort by English researchers, using modern techniques and taking advantage of the records that were compiled.  Of course it's about the Blitz - because those are the records they used.
Part of the reason that history often seems unbalanced is because we don't see all the work that is done - for Americans, in particular, we tend to focus on research (monographs, papers, etc) that are written in English.  But that certainly isn't all there is out there (for example; a quickie search of WorldCat gave me almost 300 citations for a query on "World War II" in Dutch). 
I'm guilty of narrowing my focus because I do not read German (or Dutch).  I can read French, but not very well (there are downsides to concentrating on dead languages).  So if I want to read a Dutch monograph or essay, I need to find a translation.
Another reason is that yes, nations tend to present their own histories front and center, leaving others more to the periphery.  That's not just an American problem, though - look at one of the hot-button issues confronting Japan at the moment; whether or not to admit that the actions of the Japanese Army in China were justified . . . or even happened.

Really, dead white guy history is really not being taught too much anymore - nor, in most of the western world, is national triumphalism (I get the feeling, from my international students, that is still the case in many parts of the world).  For me, the biggest problem is time.  I never have enough of it to do a decent job of covering everything I'm "supposed" to cover in a semester.  When you have to compress hundreds (or thousands) of years of history into 15 weeks, the result is going to be less than satisfactory for everyone.
Makes me - and many of my peers - crazy.  That's why visuals like the website are exciting to me - they offer a method of getting through to students that I didn't have before and allow them to explore on their own, which is important.  I wouldn't care if it were London, or Dresden, or Tokyo, or all of the Netherlands - because I'm not trying to push an agenda of who was right or who was wrong; who suffered more or who suffered less.  I want them to understand - as much as they can in such a vicarious way - the impact of war on daily life.

I very much hope that other researchers will expand on this idea and use their records - you said the Dutch kept very good records - to do something similar.  As a teacher, I would find that just as useful as the Blitz information . . . because it isn't about the PLACE, but the impact of what happened.