Brian Wolfe

I suppose the military thinking of the time didn't rule out the sword as an effective weapon. Great photos, thanks for posting them. Regards Brian

Well worth saving Jock. Well done. Regards Brian

Hi Les, Your point is well taken; this could very well be an attemt to generat PR prior to the 200th anniversary. Regards Brian

I am not totally convinced either way, regarding to digging up artifacts. My concern would be that to leave these artifacts alone, undisturbed, sounds like a good idea however I think the action of the acids in the soil and the dampness will soon deteriorate whatever might otherwise by preserved and studied to the point of just being stains in the soil. As far as comparing battlefield artifacts to a crime scene, as soon as the evidence is deposited it starts to deteriorate, either through the actions of nature or human contamination. The documentation and preservation of evidence (in a crime) is of paramount importance. To suggest that evidence should be left undisturbed until everyone is certain that nothing that will be done will harm the evidence, no matter the length of time required, and would certainly make the guilty parties quite pleased. Perhaps I have just convinced myself as to my stand on this issue. Regards Brian

Hello Bernhard, Thank you for bringing this sad anniversary to our attention. Looking back on events with calmer and clearer minds it is hard to imagine why such events took place. Regards Brian

Thank you for drawing that to our attention Les. Perhaps the greatest understatement of all time is, "War is hell". Regards Brian

Oh my. If it is a genuine artifact then it would certainly be a propoganda piece. Regards Brian

I would agree that there is little new, perhaps nothing new, in my blog that was not previously generally known. However, I don’t apologize for that as I see it as a platform upon which to express the views of the readers, which it has done to one degree or another. Next month I intend to wrap up the series with the North Africa Campaign which will include a summary that may not be as flattering as it could be but one that is as accurate as possible. I do hope that I can keep the comments within the bounds of the rules and regulations of the forum but it may be quite close to the line from time to time. Thank you for your comments, they are appreciated. Regards Brian

Well done and a fitting tribute to a brave soldier. Thanks for showing your excellent work. Regards Brian

Thank you for your comments Les, it's good to see a post grow and become more that what it starts out to be. Regards Brian

This might be of interest. http://casr.ca/bg-crr-canadian-ranger-rifle.htm Regards Brian

I missed this post when you first entered it but I'm glad I saw it this morning. Thnaks for an interesting post, Mervyn. Regards Brian

It looks like a field take down tool. I've been looking all afternoon for a photo of the one I'm think of but with no luck. Regards Brian

We're not cheap we just like to get our value out of our equipment. Regards Brian

An excellent specimen and thank you for posting the sword along with the history. A very interesting and informative post. Regards Brian

Hello Andreas, It is really hard to tell from the photos as you really need to hold a sword in your hands to tell if it is the real deal or not. I would be very careful about purchasing this sword as it is telling me that it is a Chinese made reproduction. The horse motif bothers me but the Fuchi (medal ring above the Tsuba or hand guard) looks to be about twice as wide as it should be. I also worry about the shibabiki (metal decoration) and the Ishizuke (the chape on the scabbard's end) in design and the way they fit. To my eye it lacks the usual attention to detail in the match between them and the saya (scabbard). I hope other members will weigh in on this with their opinions. Thanks for posting this. Regards Brian

Thank you Mervyn. Some stories are worth tell again and again. For many in our generations Churchill was an important part of our lives; what would current events have been without him. Regards Brian

Winston Churchill, Britain’s Lion Part three: In the Skies of Britain “The Battle of France is over, I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin.†– Winston Churchill, 18 June, 1940. >< In writing about Winston Churchill I often have found myself writing about the history of the Second World War itself rather than just about the man. In a way, I suppose, that is unavoidable as the story of Winston Churchill from 1939 to 1945 is about the War and the War about Winston Churchill. It would not be a stretch to even suggest that Winston Churchill was the personification of Britain itself for much of the world during this time period. >< A most interesting point is that Churchill actually named the Battle of Britain a little less than a month before the battle actually took place, starting on 10 July, 1940. One should probably not be surprised that of all leaders throughout the history of warfare it would be Winston Churchill to name the battle beforehand. Was this due to intuition or that Churchillian Luck again? I would put it at 80% intuition; however that is open to opinion and debate. Historians tend to compartmentalise history into neat linear easy to follow stories due to the complexity of the events of the Second World War. I believe this has been done so often that most people tend to think that one event takes place and then by some convenient coincidence the next follows comfortably on the heels of the other. As we know this is seldom the case and the Second World War was no exception to the general rule. The North African Campaign, as an example, started on 10 June, 1940, one month before the Battle of Britain. The Russians entered Romania in June of 1940 to take back the province of Bessarabia which put the Soviet forces alarmingly close to the Romanian oil fields so important to Germany. This triggered an action on the part of Germany in 1941 that had a profound effect on the North African Campaign as we will see later. As we have read Churchill wanted to avoid a head to head clash with the German Army on the continent. This was now a moot point as there were more Germans in France at this time than at a Bavarian Oktoberfest. To recap, Churchill, and Chamberlain, agreed that a naval blockage and aerial bombardment by the RAF would bring Hitler and his army to their knees. This would serve to avoid the war of attrition brought about by the trench warfare of the Great War. Both Britain and France thought any future wars would be static and fought from fixed positions and not the fluid warfare of the Blitzkrieg that they had just experienced. The Maginot Line was perhaps the best example of this common held, though erroneous, belief. What is not generally known is that Churchill actually lacked confidence in the British Army’s ability to meet and even hold their own against the German Army. While this sounds scandalous and perhaps even impertinent of me to say I think we need to realize that the size of the British Army was greatly reduced after World War One in favour of a large navy and air force. Added to this the material was not very modern compared with Germany’s and what they did have was, to a great degree, left behind on the beaches of Dunkirk. The situation in the aftermath of Dunkirk was that the British Army as a whole was not up to the task of an invasion. However, this is and was not to say that the individual British soldier was less than willing and capable of any challenge put before them; it was a matter of numbers and material. In order for Germany to invade England (Operation Sea Lion) they first needed control of the skies over Britain requiring the elimination of the Royal Air Force. An attempted amphibious invasion of England without the elimination of the RAF would mean that the Germans would be attempting the crossing while being attacked by the RAF and the Royal Navy, not to mention the shore batteries of costal artillery. Two factors were against the Germans using their navy as support for Operation Sea Lion, one known and one still to be realized. The first, and known, factor was that the loss of so many ships during the British invasion of Norway left the Germans short of necessary naval support. The second point was that larger battle ships are fairly easy targets for bombers. While both sides were aware of this the magnitude of this fact was not brought to the forefront of military thinking until the great sea battles in the Pacific Theater between the American and Imperial Japanese Navies, much later in the War. The Battle of Britain was to turn out to be the first major campaign fought entirely by air forces and involved the largest and most sustained aerial bombing campaign to that date. The initial targets of the Luftwaffe were coastal shipping convoys and shipping centers such as Portsmouth. It was later that the Luftwaffe shifted their concentration on RAF airfields then aircraft factories and other such infrastructure. Much late, as we will see, the German bombing targeted areas of political significance including the employment of terror bombing strategies, (as an example, the London Blitz). As stated earlier, the British put emphasis on bombers, (due to the naval blockade and bombing strategies before the War); therefore the German concentration on bombing the airfields and aircraft factories put a great strain on fighter command. Up until this time Fighter Command was operating at full capacity and without any reserve fighters to replace those lost through battle and wear and tear. Things were looking bad for Fighter Command and Britain in general at this time. It was desperate enough that a significant number of the British population and politicians favoured a negotiated peace with Hitler. Churchill and a majority of his cabinet refused to even consider negotiations with the Germans. Churchill gave the following speech on 4 June 1940; I think it is appropriate that we review it here to give some insight into his determination and resolve. “We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.†On 24 August, 1940 Churchill’s luck would once again serve him well when a German bomber accidently dropped bombs on London. Churchill grasped the opportunity handed him and ordered the bombing of Berlin. He calculated, correctly it turns out, that the bombing of the German capital would enrage Hitler and he would order his bombers away from RAF targets to the cities of England. A terrible choice had to be made but the saving of the RAF form destruction would mean the salvation of the Nation itself. It was from this point on that the Germans were at a disadvantage in the battle. The Luftwaffe was at a disadvantage from the start which was offset by the British lack of reserve fighters. The disadvantage was in the German strategic use of their bombers. Up until the Battle of Britain bombers were used to support ground troops and this worked very well. The whole “machine†was run on the theory of fighter/bomber/ground forces supporting one another. During the Battle of Britain they were faced with the use of radar giving their position away to the RAF, this included their fighter escorts. With no ground support to take out the radar stations the German fliers were in a very vulnerable position. While the London Blitz continued until May 1941 the failure of the Luftwaffe to break the RAF led to the postponement and finally the cancellation of Operation Sea Lion. The London Blitz was the one event, perhaps above all others, was the making of the image of Churchill. His tours through the bombed out areas of the City, famous hat and coat, cigar in one hand and the two fingers held up in the form of the “V for victory and numerous photo opportunities catapulted him to world celebrity. The Battle of Britain itself was the turning point of the whole war, though this was not recognized at the time. Up until Hitler lost the Battle of Britain he had not suffered a significant defeat. This is not to come as much of a surprise as the vast majority of his victories, up to this point, had almost been gifts; in some cases bloodless campaigns. This is where the Germans were stopped and from this point forward, with exceptions, the course of the war would go against the Nazis. Even the great battles such as Stalingrad, which has been held up as breaking the German military might, it was the Battle of Britain that showed both the world and the Germans themselves that Hitler was not invincible and a determined nation could indeed make a difference. Winston Churchill summed it up well in his Battle of Britain speech, “If the British Empire and its Commonwealth lasts a thousand years, men will say, ‘This was their finest hour’â€. Next month: The North Africa Campaign. Brian

Hi George, I have a fair collection of these and yours certainly look authentic to me. From what I understand there are so many sake cups on the market due to their popularity that reporducing them would not be profitable. Thanks for posting them and I hope others with more knowledge than I have will respond. Regards Brian

Hi Tony, I was afraid you didn't have any left and was really happy to see them featured here today. An excellent job and very creative. Made from the scrap bin? Now that is near and dear to my heart. Regards Brian PS, Just to show you how impressed I was, I NEVER use the icon.

Hello Miles, Welcome to the forum. While I can't help with any more information than you already have I wanted to say that you have a real family treasue and well worth keeping safe for generations to come. Regards Brian

Hello Lambert, Excellent job on the mounting, well done. Regards Brian

Thanks Tony. The other day I thought that I would "Google" "helmet stand images", which I had never done before, and was surprised at how much mine looks like many on the internet. So much for originality. Too bad your stands are all gone, I would have liked to have seen them. Regards Brian

Hi Eric, It`s been a while since I sold my example of the Australian Machette Bayonet Mk. I, but if memory serves me well the one side is flat with the other side having the sharpened edges. This allows the bullet to pass along the side of the blade rather than passing over it as in most other bayonets. The blade edge on the bottom is sharpened as is 4 inches of the top edge, the idea was to make this a better thrusting weapon. Some bayonets used in other countries are mounted with the sharp edge upward allowing for a slashing injury when withdrawn with a slightly upward action. This Australian bayonet was developed in 1944 for jungle combat and was originally developed for paratroopers. As the name suggests this bayonet did double duty as a machette. Sorry, I don`t have any photos of the bayonet in use. Regards Brian

Hi Eric, I like the low profile stand as well though I do make some much taller, it just depends on where they will be displayed and if I want to display something else beneath the helmet, a badge for example. The great thing about the low profile is that you can always make some more disk shaped pieces and put them on top of the helmet support piece to give it a higher profile. That is a lot easier than trying to shorten a tall one after is has been built, I know. I have done it. Regards Brian