Jump to content

Talk:Edward VIII

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleEdward VIII is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 8, 2008.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 1, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 26, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 9, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
June 14, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
September 16, 2008Featured topic candidateNot promoted
October 10, 2020Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 3, 2004, December 10, 2004, June 3, 2005, June 3, 2006, June 3, 2008, June 3, 2009, June 3, 2010, June 3, 2011, June 3, 2012, June 3, 2016, June 3, 2017, June 3, 2021, and June 3, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

Claims that Edward VIII encouraged the continuation of the Blitz

[edit]

An article from the CBC (see section "Captured documents suggest the duke encouraged the Germans to bomb Britain"), quotes biographer Andrew Lownie's interpretation of a cable in the Marburg Files. This cable, apparently sent in 1940, would have been sent during the Blitz. I am not a habitual contributor to pages on historical figures, but perhaps this would be a good addition to the penultimate paragraph of Edward_VIII#Second_World_War? RSXS (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I did a cursory skim and couldn't find any scholarly reviews of the book, or any evidence it had been peer reviewed prior to release. It seems that he hasn't been given much credence by historians of the period—which is telling, because contrary to what many will insist, academics love arguing with public dilettantes and cranks if it makes their field more visible for a moment. That is to say, I wouldn't call Lownie a crank, I haven't read his book, but I would need to see some scholarly engagement with it before including it in the article. Remsense 00:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already in Marburg Files#Contents with a suitable rejoinder. Typically, Nazi (or any totalitarian) sources are not given much credence by proper historians, because they are often untruthful. DrKay (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't during the Blitz, which started in September 1940, it was a cable from the German ambassador in Portugal to Ribbentrop on 10 July, asserting, 'The Duke believes with certainty that continued heavy bombing will make England ready for peace.' (Cited by Lownie to DGFP [Documents on German Foreign Policy] AA-B15/B002549, Vol.X, p.152.) This is, of course, a Nazi diplomat telling his superior what he thinks the superior wants to hear, but it is probably true, since there are so many accounts of Windsor's defeatism and Nazi sympathies at the time. He was a foolish person and he seems to have believed that Britain could not win, that the government would fall, his brother Bertie, George VI, would abdicate and he would be re-enthroned, to a rapturous public reception, as what his brother the Duke of Kent (among others) satirically called a 'Gauleiter'. The odd thing in the cable is the reference to 'continued heavy bombing', since the Germans were not doing much bombing of Britain at the time -- they started attacking Channel convoys on 10 July (a day on which the RAF lost only three Hurricanes, one of them due to an accident), but did not attack Fighter Command airfields till August, or London till September. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comma

[edit]

I don't want to get into a revert war for the sake of a comma as I don't find it productive, however with the comma included the sentence can be taken to mean all historians, not just historians such as the one cited. Therefore I felt removal of the comma appropriate to clear this ambiguity. Also, please only revert when necessary. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. WP:ONLYREVERT Itsziggyp (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wallis Simpson

[edit]

You describe Wallis Simpson as Edward’s “former” wife. She was his wife. Kindly correct. Thank you. 2603:6080:A308:2986:A060:E47B:9D9E:F8F (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text plainly uses "former spouse" to refer to Simpson's previous husband, not to Edward. Remsense ‥  03:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]