Talk:Frederick Lindemann, 1st Viscount Cherwell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

S-Branch[edit]

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on G.L.S. Shackle refers to Lindemann's wartime economics and statistics unit as "S-Branch". I was contemplating an article under that title but it does not seem to be a very widespread usage. What do people think? Cutler 11:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morgenthau Plan[edit]

Koennen wir haben something on his involvement in the negotiations surrounding the Morgenthau Plan? 86.136.88.187 01:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Koennen wir haben" is German for "Can we have". - Astrochemist (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controls of spinning aircraft[edit]

IIRC, Lindemann theory to get out of a spin required the aircraft controls to be operated in the reverse direction that the pilot might otherwise suppose, counter-intuitively. Is this correct? - Tabletop 08:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - his method - opposite rudder and then stick forward - has been the universal method of spin recovery ever since. One of the things that may have caught other pilots out was that even when the correct procedure is followed, the spin rate may actually increase before the aircraft starts to recover.
IIRC, after turning back to try and reach the airfield after engine failure on take off, spinning was the second highest cause of aircrew accident casualties in the then RFC.
Again IIRC, Lindemann's recovery method was incorporated into the flying training regime under Smith-Barry at the School of Special Flying, Gosport, (the 'Gosport System' of flying training) and subsequently taken up worldwide. Ian Dunster (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See LINDEMANN, F. A., GLAUERT, H. and HARRIS, R. G. The experimental and mathematical investigation of spinning, ACA, R & M No 411, 1918.
NOTE; "ACA" = Advisory Committee for Aeronautics and "R & M" = Reports and Memoranda.

Significance of 'dehousing paper'[edit]

"[The 'dehousing paper'] became the genesis of the assault on German civilian morale by area bombardment."

I have flagged this as a missing citation. Blake says in ODNB "But it seems unlikely that his famous minute in 1942 to Churchill on this theme was the determining factor in a decision which had its roots far back in recommendations of the chiefs of staff in 1940." Discuss. Cutler 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that the proposal predates the London Blitz, but if the proposal is dated 1942 this is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.209.68.193 (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Irving[edit]

Is Irving considered reliable? I've just finished reading Wilson's book and each point in the article that uses Irving as a reference seems to clash with my reading of Wilson. A holocaust denier doesn't sound reliable to me.DHR (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Readers should be aware that the above, unsigned, comments are complete and utter nonsense. Comments now removed. KJP1 (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Irving no doubt knows very well, the original experimental gas chamber at Auschwitz, the one that looks like a thatched cottage without windows, was decommissioned once the big gas chamber at nearby Birkenau became operational. After that it was used as an air raid shelter for the SS. In 1948 the Polish government made the mistake of restoring it to its original appearance as a gas chamber, refitting the dummy shower heads and giving it a lick of paint. This has allowed people like Irving to claim it's a fake, which it isn't, though its current appearance is 'restored'. The rest of the rant above is likewise false. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. - BetacommandBot 09:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish?[edit]

If I have read this correctly, the reference to "another Jewish emigre" (i.e. Morgenthau) suggests that Lindemann was also Jewish and yet his father was apparently Catholic and his mother Protestant (see the article on Lindemann's father). Other sources also credit Lindemann with anti-semitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmoses (talk • contribs) 14:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that, in concluding that he wasn't Jewish (ethnically or religiously), we aren't relying on, of all people, David Irving! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smlark (talk • contribs) 17:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV-wording?[edit]

"The bar charts now on display in the Cabinet War Rooms which compare allied shipping tonnage lost to newbuildings delivered each month and those comparing bomb tonnage dropped by Germany on England with that dropped by the allies on Germany each month are mute testaments to both the intellectual and the psychological power of his statistical presentations." -- does not seem exactly NPOV, but I could be reading it inappropriately. Azx2 05:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lindermann's naming does not comply with WP:SURNAME[edit]

I've just read through this article for the first time after viewing the BBC Two drama Castles in the Sky, just to cross-reference some details v.v. my previous reading on scientific advances in WW2. But to my point: I found one aspect of this article very dislocating: it does not comply with WP:SURNAME in that Lindermann is referred randomly as Lindermann and Cherwell, sometimes alternating on alternative references so you think that two people are being referenced. Not good. I feel that the article would be a lot easier if we just stuck to the manual of style and used "Lindermann" consistently. Unless any other active editor on this page can present a valid counter-argument, I'll make this change in a couple of days time. TerryE (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also fixed a broken ref whilst I was at it. :-) TerryE (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Some scholars"[edit]

Adding the phrase "Some scholars say" is a violation of WP:WEASEL and WP:YESPOV, unless sources are provided contradicting the view of these scholars. The ones currently given do not do this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C. P. Snow lecture[edit]

There is useful 2010 article in ‘’Scientific American’’ here, that is already used as a source in this article. Lindemann was the subject of a 1960 lecture at Harvard by fellow physicist and writer C. P. Snow. The lecture, which focused on Lindemann’s friendship with, and influence on, Winston Churchill, was so long it was split over three successive nights and was broadcast live. Amongst other fascinating trivia Snow told his audience that Lindemann ".. lived on salads, egg whites, olive oil, and a specific variety of cheese." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frederick Lindemann, 1st Viscount Cherwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible source for prior proposal on solar wind[edit]

@Attic Salt:

Three days ago Attic Salt requested a source for the claim that Birkeland proposed 3 years before Lindemann that the solar wind contains particles of both positive and negative charge. Birkeland's original 1916 paper is cited on this point in the articles on solar wind and on Kristian Birkeland. However I hesitate to include that reference as a source in this article on Lindemann for several reasons:

  • I have not read the article or even seen a summary.
  • I cannot find it on the Internet, not even in Norwegian and behind a paywall.
  • As the original paper, it is a primary source and really should be supplemented by a later secondary source by a reliable author who said that Birkeland's proposal anticipated Lindemann.

Perhaps someone else can find more information about this paper. Dirac66 (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirac66:, thanks for this. I did a bit of poking around only to find that I had a relevant and useful (non-primary) source to cite on this matter sitting on my desk! I've added it. Attic Salt (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in intro:[edit]

@Valetude:.

I have recently added “Citation needed” tags to 3 sentences in the second paragraph of the intro. These tags have been removed by the author of the 3 sentences, with the edit summary “Deleting cn requests - these belong in the relevant parts of the main article."

Wikipedia policy on this subject (see MOS:LEADCITE), is that the need for cites in the intro depends on how controversial the text is. Non-controversial statements which repeat the text do not require redundant citations in the lead, but complex or controversial subjects may require citations. “The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.”

In this case I believe that the 3 sentences in question do not merely repeat information that is in the body, but rather present it with a significantly more controversial choice of wording, so that sources are needed in the introduction to confirm the actual statements made. Let’s take the statements one at a time.

1. “Lindemann was a brilliant scholar, who openly despised all who fell below his intellectual level …” The phrase “openly despised” implies public speeches or writings. But the article makes clear that Lindemann was primarily a behind-the-scenes adviser to Churchill and other governmental officials. So we need either a source for “openly despised” or a change of wording. Perhaps “Lindemann believed that … the intelligent and the aristocratic should run the world”, as in the Early life section.

2. “He was particularly adept at converting data into clear charts that could promote an agenda.” The article does talk about clear charts and statistical analysis, but the phrase “that could promote an agenda” suggests that he analyzed the data in a biased or dishonest way. This is not justified in the article, so again we need a source for “promote an agenda” or else a change of wording. Perhaps “clear charts so that the conclusions could be instantly evaluated”, as in the WW2 section.

3. “inventing false research”. In science this phrase means deliberately claiming to have done experiments or calculations which were not in fact done, which is a very serious sin. What the article actually says in the Strategic section bombing is that his paper was based on a false premise, which in science means an unintentional mistake and is much less serious. Many famous scientists have made mistakes, but they have not claimed false research. Again we need either a real source for “false research” or a change in wording.

Finally I question whether all these points are important enough to even be included in the intro. The sourced versions are already in the article which should be sufficient. Dirac66 (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you, Dirac, for your careful rationale about the Lindemann lede, and for drawing my attention to the relevant provisions of MOS:LEADCITE, of which I was unaware.
On the points you raise:
1. Yes, he was a behind-the-scenes advisor, but his elitist views would not have been known unless he had been declaring them repeatedly in front of influential people.
2. I realise, of course, that ‘Agenda’ is often used to indicate a hidden personal motive. But he was pressing his own agendas, all the same.
3. I very much doubt that his ‘false premise’ was an ‘unintentional mistake’. But I agree that the charge would need supporting reference.
I have suggested a new toned-down version without cites, as you will see.
As for whether these aspects of Lindemann’s career belong in the lede, I feel that they provide substance and ‘meat’ that was missing from the previous version, as in many other ledes that I have fleshed-out, often attracting thanks from the relevant editors. Valetude (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you. I think the wording is much better now. Dirac66 (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article is bad -- I'm not even going to talk about the usual Bengal famine nonsense -- but the 'Strategic bombing' section is particularly bad. The first sentence is cited to a junk source on the BBC website that doesn't say what the sentence claims and bizarrely refers to Cherwell as 'exiled German scientist Professor Franz Lindemann.'
The second sentence goes like this:- 'His proposal that "bombing must be directed to working class houses. Middle class houses have too much space round them, so are bound to waste bombs" changed accepted conventions of limiting civilian casualties in wartime".' The words in quotes appear nowhere in Cherwell's minute. The Wiki editor responsible has just made stuff up.
The third sentence reads:- 'His dehousing paper was criticised by many other scientific minds in government service who felt such a force would be a waste of resources.' This is cited to Max Hastings, who in fact says no such thing. He only refers to Sir Henry Tizard's famous 15 April 1942 letter to Cherwell. In fact Patrick Blackett, director of Operational Research at the Admiralty, also criticised Cherwell's minute, but Hastings does not mention this and Blackett was wrong anyway: he demanded that Bomber Command's resources be taken away and poured into the Battle of the Atlantic, failing to observe that the Battle of the Atlantic was wholly defensive and what the War Cabinet urgently required, and Bomber Command offered, was an offensive policy.
The fourth sentence reads:- 'Lindemann's paper was based on the false premise that bombing could cause a breakdown in society but was used in support of Bomber Command's claim for resources.' In fact the Hull and Birmingham study referred to by Cherwell did show that there was a considerable morale effect from losing one's home, and after the war it was found that, for instance, a BMW aero-engine factory in Germany suffered a high rate of absenteeism and a vast loss of manhours in 1944 due to Allied bombing of workers' housing. Cherwell's social-Darwinist attitude to what he considered the lower orders was unsavoury, but he was not entirely wrong about civilian morale -- the claim that he was wrong is an artefact of 'revisionist' history since the 1960s, which tends to be associated with Nazi apologists like David Irving. Hastings used to borrow Irving's research files, and then there's this:- 'Ten years ago, when there was a furore around the Oxford Union’s highly controversial invitation to David Irving to speak, Max Hastings wrote an article for the Guardian in which he revealed that he had read all of Irving’s work: “No serious historian of the second world war can exclude Irving’s books from the reading list”. Hastings described Irving as an unashamed apologist for the Third Reich, but noted the breadth of his research and the usefulness of testing ideas “from the opposite polarity”.' https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/milo-yiannopoulos-value-free-expression/ Makes you think, rather.
In addition, the effect of Cherwell's 'de-housing' paper was insignificant and bureaucratic. Cherwell was simply giving the Prime Minister a plausible (though not technically correct, because some of the numbers were made up) rationale for an established policy. The decision on area bombing had already been taken, as a result of the Butt Report. And the Chief of the Air Staff's papers were probably more influential than Cherwell's.
The Wiki paragraph goes on:- 'Lindemann played an important part in the battle of the beams, championing countermeasures against German radio navigation devices to increase the precision of their bombing campaigns. Lindemann undermined the vital work of Sir Henry Tizard and his team who developed all the important radar technology.' This is badly garbled. Cherwell was correct in arguing in late 1940 that the Germans were using navigational radio beams to bomb Britain, and Tizard was completely wrong to contradict him. This mistake destroyed Tizard's credibility in Whitehall. A few months earlier, Cherwell had made a bad mistake of his own, dismissing the importance of radar and arguing for 'infra-red beams' instead, and Tizard had got rid of him in the classic Whitehall manner by forming a new air-defence committee without Cherwell. This gave Cherwell a grudge, and, when Tizard messed up over radio beams, Cherwell was not slow to take advantage. It meant that Tizard's criticism of the 'de-housing' paper in 1942 was disregarded, and Tizard soon retired into academic life. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this entire article looks like it was written by David Irving himself, it's pseudohistory garbage and should be entirely rewritten Antiparcialidade (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudohistory[edit]

Churchill's secret war has been debunked multiple times, it's written by a journalist and ignores any type of reliable data, any text using it should be removed Antiparcialidade (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frederick_Lindemann,_1st_Viscount_Cherwell&oldid=1217385923"