News

Wainwright I Dest. No. 62 - History

Wainwright I Dest. No. 62 - History


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Wainwright I Dest. 62

Wainwright I(Destroyer No. 62: dp. 1,150 (n ), 1. 315'3", b. 29'67"dr. 10'8 1/4" (f.) (aft); s. 29.67 k. (tl.); cpl. 99,a. 4 4", 8 21" tt.; cl. Tucker)The first Wainwright (Destroyer No. 62) was laid down on 1 September 1914 at Camden, N.J., by the New York Shipbuilding Co.; launched on 12 June 1915; sponsored by Miss Evelyn Wainwright Turpin, and commissioned at the Philadelphia Navy Yard on 12 May 1916, Lt. Fred H. Poteet in commandAfter fitting out at Philadelphia, the destroyer rounded Cape May on 20 June and headed for Newport, R.I., to load torpedoes before joining Division 8 of the Atlantic Fleet Destroyer Flotilla. Following exercises near Eastport, Maine she remained on the New England coast until mid-September when she headed south for gunnery tests and training off the Virginia capes. Upon the completion of a fortnight's gun drills, the ship then returned to Buzzard's Bay, Mass., on 2 October. Later that month, Wainwright operated out of Newport, practiced torpedo tactics near Vineyard Sound, and visited New York to pick up cargo for the flotilla's tender, Melville (Destroyer Tender No. 2). She returned to Newport on the 18th and, eight days later, resumed torpedo practice near Vineyard Sound for the remainder of the month. She put into Boston on 1 November for extensive repairs in the navy yard.Refurbished, the destroyer got underway for the Caribbean on 8 January 1917. Steaming via Hampton Roads, she reached Culebra Island, near Puerto Rico on the 14th and conducted war games exercises with the Atlantic Fleet. In the course of those operations, she visited the Dominican Republic as well as Guantanamo Bay and Santiago in Cuba. Later that month Wainwright carried Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission from Santiago to Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Following that assignment, she conducted torpedo exercises, patrols, and power trials near Guantanamo Bay until the beginning of March.She returned to Boston on the 10th for a short period in the navy yard. On 31 March, she departed Boston for Hampton Roads where she arrived on 2 April.The following morning, in response to the imminent threat of war with Germany, Wainwright began to ". search for submarines . ." and to patrol Hampton Roads to protect the Fleet and naval bases. Two days later, other warships relieved her on patrol; and she anchored with the Fleet in the mouth of the York River. The next day, 6 April 1917, the United States entered World War I.By the spring of 1917, the unrestricted submarine warfare campaign—which Germany had launched at the beginning of February—had so succeeded that the entire Allied war effort was endangered. Strong reinforcements to the Allied antisubmarine forces were desperately needed to avert defeat and needed at once. In response to a request from the Royal Navy for the service of American antisubmarine warfare ships in European waters, the United States Navy began sending destroyers eastward across the Atlantic.Wainwright again briefly patrolled Hampton Roads before heading for the New York Navy Yard on the 14th. From there, the destroyer continued on to Boston where she arrived on 16 April to prepare for overseas duty. Eight days later, the destroyer departed Boston in company with Wadsworth (Destroyer No. 60), Porter (Destroyer No. 59), Davis (Destroyer No. 65), Conyngham (Destroyer No. 58), and McDougal (Destroyer No. 54), bound for the British Isles. This division— ably led by Comdr. Joseph K. Taussig—was the first American naval unit to be sent to Europe. The destroyers reached Queenstown on the southern coast of Ireland on 4 May and, after fueling, began patrolling the southern approaches to Liverpool and other British ports on the coast of the Irish Sea.Wainwright reported her first scrape with a German submarine on 11 May. She sighted an abandoned lifeboat at about 0800. After investigating the drifting boat for occupants and finding none, she sank the boat with gunfire. At about 0815, a lookout reported that a torpedo had missed the destroyer some 150 yards astern. Wainwright then fired several rounds from her 4-inch guns at what was thought to be a periscope. The supposed submarine disappeared soon thereafter, and despite a thorough investigation of the area, the destroyer could turn up no more evidence of the presence of a U-boat.The summer of 1917 provided few opportunities for Wainwright to test her sub-killing techniques. On Independence Day, a member of the destroyer's crew spotted a purported periscope and soon thereafter others claimed that a torpedo was reported to have passed the ship, five feet astern. Wainwright depthcharged the last indicated position of the undersea raider but to no avail. On the morning of 20 August, after Rowan (Destroyer No. 64) brought up some oil with one of her depth charges, Wainwright dropped a couple of depth charges as she passed through the faint slick. A few minutes later, she joined other ships in some sporadic gunfire but failed to prove that a submarine was in the areaThe fall, on the other hand, brought Wainwright increased activity. After spending the first two weeks of September in repairs at Birkenhead, near Liverpool she departed the yard at Laird Basin at about 0700 on the 14th to return to Queenstown. Three quarters of an hour into the afternoon watch, she received orders sending her to the scene of a submarine attack against an Allied merchantman some 15 miles south southeast of Helvick Head, Ireland. Wainwright rang up full speed, made off for the reported location, and began a search for the U-boat in conjunction with a British dirigible and other surface units. Near the end of the second dog watch, she sighted the submarine's conning tower and bow about six miles off.Wainwright charged to the attack, but the submarine submerged almost immediately. Upon reaching the spot where the submarine had been the warship located an oil slick and began dropping depth charges which failed to achieve positive results. Approaching darkness and the necessity of escorting an Admiralty oiler forced Wainwright to break off her attack. After she shephered the oiler to safety, she returned to the area of her attack and patrolled throughout the night, but the submarine had apparently retired from the neighborhood.Four days later, while searching for a U-boat in the area of Connigbeh the destroyer received word that the Connigbeh Lightship had rescued survivors from a fishing vessel. Wainwright rendezvoused with the craft to interview the four seamen of the smack Our Bairn. They revealed that the U-boat was of the latest type Germany had in action. The destroyer relieved the lighthouse vessel of the four fishermen and continued the search until dusk, when she headed back to Queenstown to land the rescued men.For a month, she carried on conducting routine patrols—routine only in the sense that they brought no action with the enemy. The inhospitable Atlantic, on the other hand, severely taxed her crew. Action finally came on the morning of 18 October, when Wainwright again received orders to Helvick Head to hunt for an enemy submarine. She arrived at the designated location at about 1115 and searched for more than two hours for clues as to the U-boat's location. Then at 1358, she sighted a submarine's conning tower about 1,500 yards off her starboard bow. The enemy appeared to be maneuvering into position for a torpedo attack but submerged the moment Wainwright charged to the attack. When the destroyer reached the estimated location of the U-boat, she dropped a depth charge and then a buoy to mark the spot. The warship followed that maneuver with a systematic, circular search out to a radius of 20 miles. Having found nothing by 0400 the following day, she gave up and shaped a course for Queenstown.The ensuing six months brought no new encounters with U-boats. She scouted areas where submarines had been reported but neither sighted nor engaged the enemy. On one occasion, she collided with a merchantman, SS Chicago City, and had to enter the drydock at Spencer Jetty that same day, 24 November 1917 for repairs.While steaming generally south on 29 April 1918 she sighted a sail bearing almost due west whose hull was down below the horizon. By the time the destroyer had swung around to an intercepting course, the sail had disappeared. While the destroyer steamed toward the estimated position of the sail, she searched for evidence of a submarine. After covering 10 miles to westward, she came upon an area marked by a number of small oil slicks. Wainwright chose the most promising of the slicks and dropped four depth charges. She then commenced another fruitless search which ended at midnight when she received orders to return to Queenstown.Wainwright continued to operate out of Queenstown until June of 1918 when she was reassigned to United States naval forces in France. On the 8th, she reported for duty at Brest, the French port from which she conducted her patrols for the remainder of the war. Those patrols brought no further encounters with the enemy. Only two events of note occurred between June and November 1918. On the night of 19 and 20 October, she sighted what appeared to be a submarine running on the surface. However, upon closer inspection, the object proved to be a derelict carrying the crew of the 77-ton schooner Aida captured by a U-boat and sunk with explosive charges. Wainwright took on the survivors and saw them safely into port. Later, during the evening of 1 November, heavy winds at Brest caused the destroyer to drag anchor: and she struck the breakwater. After Jarvis (Destroyer No. 38) had failed to pull her loose, the tug Concord took over and finally managed to refloat the warship at 1920 and towed her into Brest.Hostilities ended on 11 November 1918, and Wainwright returned home early in 1919 to resume duty with the Atlantic Fleet destroyers. She operated along the east coast and in the Caribbean until 19 May 1922 when she was decommissioned at Philadelphia. The destroyer remained in reserve until the spring of 1926. On 2 April, she was transferred to the Coast Guard, and her name was struck from the Navy list on the same day. She moved to Boston on 22 May and remained there until 27 July when she got underway for the Connecticut coast. She reached New London two days later, and, on the 30th, she was commissioned by the Coast Guard. The warship retained her name while serving with the Coast Guard's "Rum Patrol" to suppress the illegal importation of alcoholic beverages. She served at New London from the summer of 1926 until 1929. On 4 Januarv 1929, she headed south to Charleston, S.C., whence she conducted gunnery practice until 4 February when she returned north to Boston. In January 1930, she headed south again for gunnery practice but this time at St. Petersburg, Fla. During each of the two succeeding years—in January 1931 and late in March 1932—she returned to St. Petersburg for a month of target practice and afterward resumed her duties along the New England Coast.In May 1933, her permanent duty station was changed to New York, and she reported there at the end of the first week in June. After a summer of normal operations, the warship began target practice at Hampton Roads, VA., on 7 September. That duty however, was interrupted on the 9th by orders to report for duty with the Navy in the area of the Florida Strait during the series of revolts in Cuba which finally resulted in the beginning of Fulgencio Batista's 25-year dictatorship. On 6 November, Wainwright was released from duty with the Navy and was ordered back to New York. She arrived three days later and resumed duties with the Coast Guard until March 1934. On the 14th, she departed the station at Stapleton, New York, and arrived in Philadelphia the following day. She was decommissioned by the Coast Guard on 29 March; and, on 27 April, the Commandant, 4th Naval District, took possession of her for the Navy. Her name was reinstated on the Navy list briefly but was struck once again on 5 July 1934. On 22 August she was sold to Michael Flynn, Inc., of Brooklyn, N.Y., for scrapping.


Yorkshire

Yorkshire ( / ˈ j ɔːr k ʃ ər , - ʃ ɪər / abbreviated Yorks), formally known as the County of York, is a historic county of Northern England and the largest in the United Kingdom. [3] Because of its great size in comparison with other English counties, functions have been undertaken over time by its subdivisions, which have also been subject to periodic reform. Throughout these changes, Yorkshire has continued to be recognised as a geographic territory and cultural region. [4] The name is familiar and well understood across the United Kingdom and is in common use in the media and the military, [5] and also features in the titles of current areas of civil administration such as North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire.

Within the borders of the historic county of Yorkshire are large stretches of unspoiled countryside, particularly within the Yorkshire Dales, North York Moors and Peak District national parks. [6] Yorkshire has been nicknamed "God's Own County". [4] [7] [8]

The emblem of Yorkshire is the White Rose of the English royal House of York, and the most commonly used flag representative of Yorkshire is the white rose on a blue field [9] which, after nearly fifty years of use, was recognised by the Flag Institute on 29 July 2008. [10] Yorkshire Day, held annually on 1 August, is a celebration of the general culture of Yorkshire, ranging from its history to its own dialect. [11]

Yorkshire is covered by different Government Office Regions. Most of the county falls within Yorkshire and the Humber while the extreme northern part of the county, such as Middlesbrough, Redcar, Holwick and Startforth, falls within North East England. Small areas in the west of the county are covered by the North West England region.


The great ocean liners have an ability to transcend their innate body of steel, wood and mechanicals and develop a persona that draws passengers year after year. Launched in 1939, the S.S. America was thought by many to be the perfect ocean liner, not to big so as to overwhelm, not to flashy or pretentious so as to intimidate. She charmed her passengers with a comfortable interiors that combined warmth and sophistication, without being stuffy, beauty and grace without the glitz and glitter.

Seen from afar, her two great red white and blue stacks, canted aft gave her a modern jaunty American look. Up close, standing near the bow, looking down her long sleek black hull and up to the top of her ten decks she appeared immense, and capable of sailing safely through any North Atlantic storm.

The America has a great story to tell and the following pages will be enjoyed bty those who sailed on her – and those who wish they had.

THE S S AMERICA THE MANY LIVES OF A GREAT SHIP.
AMERICA GOES TO SEA 1940 – 1941

August 31, 1939, Newport News Va… Over 30,000 spectators showed up at the Newport News Shipyard. Americans were proud of their new ocean liner. A sailing ambassador the new ship represented the best of the nation’s technology, art, style and way of life at a time when ocean liners were objects of national pride.

Above the crowd newsreel cameras jostled for position and, across the country, radio listeners tuned in the live broadcast offered by three national radio networks. At 11:50 AM the tide crested in the James River and with the words ‘ I Christen Thee America”, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt smashed a bottle of Ohio Champagne against the bow and sent the new ocean liner sliding down the way.

Pre WWII sailing with ‘neutral’ markings Photo Mariners Museum

This auspicious beginning was immediately overshadowed by world events. The day after the America was launched Nazi Germany invaded Poland and engulfed the world in war. After a brief cruising career the new ship was converted to the troopship USS West Point. Her speed was her most valuable asset and she spent the war years delivering thousands of troops around the globe.

FROM AMERICA TO WEST POINT 1941 – 1946

SS America conversion to the USS West Point June 2 1941 Ken Johnson Collection

The stated mission of the USS WEST POINT was simple and to the point, “The safe transportation of troops and equipment to their destination”. In its 53-month life as a naval transport (designated AP-23) she and her dedicated crew, carried more than half a million military and civilian passengers, all the while maintaining a perfect record of never losing a passenger. By practicing and living the mission, the members of the crew provided reassurance to many a GI who had never been to sea. As one GI put it “from the moment you stepped on board… you had an overwhelming sense of security. You felt certain that this ship would take you to your destination, come hell or high water”. Passengers and crew together ran into their share of hell and high water, including close calls with U-boat torpedoes, Japanese bombers and North Atlantic storms. Her outstanding record, in the face of man-made and natural adversity was a combination of the dedication of the crew, sailing on one of the safest ships ever designed, and – perhaps – a little Old-fashioned American luck.

THE QUEEN OF THE MERCHANT MARINE 1946 = 1964

A meticulous, multi-million dollar restoration commenced immediately after the war, one benefiting her peacetime role as “Queen of the American Merchant Marine.” After sailing proudly and majestically into New York harbor on November 10,1946, SS America finally began her long delayed transatlantic career. Her 18 service with United States Lines ended in November 1964. In peacetime she transported over 500,000 passengers safely, and elegantly, while steaming over 2.8 million nautical miles in the process.

The AUSTRALIAN MAIDEN – SS AUSTRALIS 1964 -1978.

Sold to the Greek Chandris Lines for use in emigrant service from England to Australia and New Zealand. Renamed Australis, her superstructure was extended and passenger capacity doubled. For comfort sailing through the tropics a large outdoor swimming pool and air-conditioned were added . The “Australian Maiden” completed 62 global voyages (1965-1977) transporting over 300,000 hopeful souls to a new life.

AN UPTOWN GIRL DOWN ON HER LUCK.. 1978-1980

In 1978. Chandris sold the Australis to a group of travel agents. Renamed America, she sailed on cruises to ‘nowhere’ out of New York. No where is where the business venture went. After two disastrous sailings the inexperienced owners abandoned the ship. Chandris Lines bought the ship back at a bankruptcy auction. Renamed Italis she sailed with her badly corroded forward funnel removed, giving the ship a stunted look.

At 40 years of age the old girl had a hard time keeping up with the newer ships. Although the public rooms were still grand, other areas were not at all up to current cruise ship standards. Many of the cabins were in a deteriorated state, and a bent propeller sent pulsating vibration through the lower decks. In 1979, after 40 years of carrying passengers she sailed into retirement.

From graveyard to breakup 1980-1994

For the next ten years the Ex America, West Point, Australis, America 2, and Italis languished with the other rusting hulks in the “Graveyard of Abandonment” at Elefsina Greece. In late 1992, ambitious plans to convert her to a five star hotel were announced. Renamed American Star, she left under tow for Thailand, but severed weather off the Canary Islands caused her towline to break. On January 18, 1994 she ran hard aground and ultimately broke in half, a sad end to her long, glorious and storied career.


Node.js fs.writeFileSync with options and callback and error hundler?

I looked at Node.js Documentation and I didn't find how to apply options (settings) and a callback function with error handling. And I have to use .writeFileSync (not asynchronous .writeFile):

but I found that I have to apply encoding: null, option to prevent any modifications of source data (buff), in other case the file can be broken.

Edit: After amazing answers and explanations I would like to say that I was confused with Node.js Documentation : fs.writeFileSync(file, data[, options]) is

The synchronous version of fs.writeFile().

Since this is version of fs,writeFile() method I thought it can have the same versions of function's signature.

And here my final version of code, but it still has the issue with decoding of binary files (can be any file types) (* by the way when I tried to use Axios.js I saw Errors: "Request failed with Status Code 500):


Contents

Accounts vary as to when and where Berlin wrote the song. [5] One story is that he wrote it in 1940, in warm La Quinta, California, while staying at the La Quinta Hotel, a frequent Hollywood retreat also favored by writer-director-producer Frank Capra, although the Arizona Biltmore also claims the song was written there. [6] He often stayed up all night writing. One day he told his secretary, "I want you to take down a song I wrote over the weekend. Not only is it the best song I ever wrote, it's the best song anybody ever wrote." [7]

The first public performance of the song was by Bing Crosby, on his NBC radio show The Kraft Music Hall on Christmas Day, 1941, a few weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor. [8] A copy of the recording from the radio program is owned by Crosby's estate and was loaned to CBS News Sunday Morning for their December 25, 2011 program. [5] He subsequently recorded the song with the John Scott Trotter Orchestra and the Ken Darby Singers and for Decca Records in 18 minutes on May 29, 1942, and it was released on July 30 as part of an album of six 78-rpm discs from the musical film Holiday Inn. [5] [9] At first, Crosby did not see anything special about the song. He just said "I don't think we have any problems with that one, Irving." [10]

The song established that there could be commercially successful secular Christmas songs [11] —in this case, written by a Jewish immigrant to the United States. [12] Ronald D. Lankford, Jr., wrote, "During the 1940s, 'White Christmas' would set the stage for a number of classic American holiday songs steeped in a misty longing for yesteryear." Before 1942, Christmas songs and films had come out sporadically, and many were popular. However, "the popular culture industry had not viewed the themes of home and hearth, centered on the Christmas holiday, as a unique market" until after the success of "White Christmas" and the film where it appeared, Holiday Inn. [13] Dave Marsh and Steve Propes wrote, "'White Christmas' changed Christmas music forever, both by revealing the huge potential market for Christmas songs and by establishing the themes of home and nostalgia that would run through Christmas music evermore." [14]

The song initially performed poorly and was overshadowed by Holiday Inn's first hit song: "Be Careful, It's My Heart". [9] By the end of October 1942, "White Christmas" topped the Your Hit Parade chart. It remained in that position until well into the new year. [9] It has often been noted that the mix of melancholy—"just like the ones I used to know"—with comforting images of home—"where the treetops glisten"—resonated especially strongly with listeners during World War II. The Armed Forces Network was flooded with requests for the song. The recording is noted for Crosby's whistling during the second chorus. [9]

In 1942 alone, Crosby's recording spent eleven weeks on top of the Billboard charts. The original version also hit number one on the Harlem Hit Parade for three weeks, [15] The song also topped the following weekly charts in the same year: Songs with Most Radio Plugs, National record sales, and National sheet music sales. [16] Crosby's first-ever appearance on the black-oriented chart. Re-released by Decca, the single returned to the No. 1 spot during the holiday seasons of 1945 and 1946 (on the chart dated January 4, 1947), thus becoming the only single with three separate runs at the top of the U.S. charts. The recording became a chart perennial, reappearing annually on the pop chart twenty times before Billboard magazine created a distinct Christmas chart for seasonal releases.

In Holiday Inn, the composition won the Academy Award for Best Original Song in 1942. [17] In the film, Crosby sings "White Christmas" as a duet with actress Marjorie Reynolds, though her voice was dubbed by Martha Mears. This now-familiar scene was not the moviemakers' initial plan. In the script as originally conceived, Reynolds, not Crosby, would sing the song. [9] The song would feature in another Crosby film, the 1954 musical White Christmas, which became the highest-grossing film of 1954. (Crosby made yet another studio recording of the song, accompanied by Joseph J. Lilley's orchestra and chorus, for the film's soundtrack album.)

According to Crosby's nephew, Howard Crosby, "I once asked Uncle Bing about the most difficult thing he ever had to do during his entertainment career… He said in December, 1944, he was in a USO show with Bob Hope and the Andrews Sisters. They did an outdoor show in northern France… he had to stand there and sing 'White Christmas' with 100,000 G.I.s in tears without breaking down himself. Of course, a lot of those boys were killed in the Battle of the Bulge a few days later." [18]

The version most often heard today on the radio during the Christmas season is the 1947 re-recording. The 1942 master was damaged due to frequent use. Crosby re-recorded the track on March 19, 1947, accompanied again by the Trotter Orchestra and the Darby Singers, with every effort made to reproduce the original recording session. [7] The re-recording is recognizable by the addition of flutes and celesta in the beginning.

Although Crosby dismissed his role in the song's success, saying later that "a jackdaw with a cleft palate could have sung it successfully", [19] he was associated with it for the rest of his career.

These are the formats and track listings of single releases of "White Christmas".

10-inch shellac single – U.S. (Decca – 18429) [20] [21]
No. TitleWriter(s)Length
1."White Christmas"Irving Berlin3:02
2."Let's Start The New Year Right"Irving Berlin
7-inch vinyl single – U.S. (Decca – 23778) [22]
No. TitleWriter(s)Length
1."White Christmas"Irving Berlin3:04
2."God Bless Ye Merry Gentlemen"traditional
7-inch vinyl single – U.S. (MCA – 65022) [23]
No. TitleWriter(s)Length
1."White Christmas"Irving Berlin3:04
2."God Bless Ye Merry Gentlemen"traditional
CD single – UK (MCA Records – MCSTD48105) [24]
No. TitleWriter(s)Length
1."White Christmas"Irving Berlin3:06
2."Auld Lang Syne"Robert Burns (lyrics), Scots folk melody1:38
3."Peace on Earth/Little Drummer Boy"Henry W. Longfellow, K.Davis/H.Onorati2:37

Crosby's "White Christmas" single has been credited with selling 50 million copies, the most by any release and therefore it is the biggest-selling single worldwide of all time. The Guinness Book of World Records 2009 Edition lists the song as a 100-million seller, encompassing all versions of the song, including albums. [4] [5] Crosby's holiday collection Merry Christmas was first released as an LP in 1949, and has never been out of print since.

There has been confusion and debate on whether Crosby's record is the best-selling single, due to a lack of information on sales of "White Christmas," because Crosby's recording was released before the advent of the modern-day US and UK singles charts. [25] However, after careful research, Guinness World Records in 2007 concluded that, worldwide, Crosby's recording of "White Christmas" has sold at least 50 million copies, and that Elton John's recording of "Candle in the Wind 1997" has sold 33 million. [2] However, an update in the 2009 edition of the book decided to further help settle the controversy amicably by naming both John's and Crosby's songs to be "winners" by stating that John's recording is the "best-selling single since UK and US singles charts began in the 1950s," while maintaining that "the best-selling single of all time was released before the first pop charts," and that this distinction belongs to "White Christmas," which it says "was listed as the world's best-selling single in the first-ever Guinness Book of Records (published in 1955) and—remarkably—still retains the title more than 50 years later." [26]

In 1999, National Public Radio included it in the "NPR 100", which sought to compile the one hundred most important American musical works of the 20th century. Crosby's version of the song also holds the distinction of being ranked No. 2 on the "Songs of the Century" list, behind only Judy Garland's "Over the Rainbow," as voted by members of the RIAA. [27] In 2002, the original 1942 version was one of 50 historically significant recordings chosen that year by the Library of Congress to be added to the National Recording Registry. In 2004, it ranked No. 5 on AFI's 100 Years. 100 Songs survey of top tunes in American cinema.

In a UK poll in December 2012, "White Christmas" was voted fourth (behind "Fairytale of New York", "I Wish It Could Be Christmas Everyday" and "Merry Xmas Everybody") on the ITV television special The Nation's Favourite Christmas Song. [28]

The recording was broadcast on Armed Forces Radio on April 30, 1975, as a secret, pre-arranged signal precipitating the U.S. evacuation from Saigon. [29]

The sun is shining, the grass is green,
The orange and palm trees sway.
There's never been such a day
in Beverly Hills, L.A.
But it's December the twenty-fourth,—
And I am longing to be up North— [30]

Bing Crosby version Edit

Chart (2011–2021) Peak
position
Canada (Canadian Hot 100) [31] 30
Czech Republic (Singles Digitál Top 100) [32] 41
Denmark (Tracklisten) [33] 27
Germany (Official German Charts) [34] 39
Global 200 (Billboard) [35] 42
Greece International Digital Singles (IFPI) [36] 36
Hungary (Stream Top 40) [37] 20
Ireland (IRMA) [38] 24
Latvia (LAIPA) [39] 14
Netherlands (Single Top 100) [40] 4
New Zealand (Recorded Music NZ) [41] 24
Portugal (AFP) [42] 64
Slovakia (Singles Digitál Top 100) [43] 28
Sweden (Sverigetopplistan) [44] 8
Switzerland (Schweizer Hitparade) [45] 40
UK Singles (OCC) [46] 5
US Billboard Hot 100 [47] 12
US Adult Contemporary (Billboard) [48] 3
US Holiday 100 (Billboard) [49] 5
US Rolling Stone Top 100 [50] 16

Michael Bublé version Edit

Chart (2011–2020) Peak
position
Australia (ARIA) [51]
with Shania Twain
50
Austria (Ö3 Austria Top 40) [52]
Solo version
35
Canada (Canadian Hot 100) [53]
with Bing Crosby
72
Canada (Canadian Hot 100) [53]
with Shania Twain
86
Canada AC (Billboard) [54]
with Bing Crosby
45
Canada AC (Billboard) [54]
with Shania Twain
12
Canada AC (Billboard) [54]
2019 version
12
Germany (Official German Charts) [55]
with Shania Twain
39
Hungary (Stream Top 40) [56]
with Shania Twain
13
Italy (FIMI) [57]
Solo version
18
Italy (FIMI) [58]
with Shania Twain
53
Netherlands (Single Top 100) [59]
with Shania Twain
36
Portugal (AFP) [60] 166
Sweden (Sverigetopplistan) [61]
with Shania Twain
35
Switzerland (Schweizer Hitparade) [62]
with Shania Twain
58
US Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles (Billboard) [63]
with Bing Crosby
24
US Adult Contemporary (Billboard) [64]
with Bing Crosby
2
US Adult Contemporary (Billboard) [64]
with Shania Twain
10
US Holiday 100 (Billboard) [65]
with Shania Twain
22
US Holiday Digital Song Sales (Billboard) [66]
with Bing Crosby
5
US Holiday Digital Song Sales (Billboard) [66]
Solo version
49
US Holiday Digital Song Sales (Billboard) [66]
2019 version
7

Glee Cast version Edit

Gwen Stefani version Edit

Chart performance for "White Christmas"
Chart (2017–2019) Peak
position
Canada AC (Billboard) [69] 39
Slovakia (Rádio Top 100) [70] 86
UK Singles (OCC) [71] 62
US Holiday Digital Song Sales (Billboard) [72] 27

Meghan Trainor version Edit

Bing Crosby version Edit

^ Shipments figures based on certification alone.
Sales+streaming figures based on certification alone.

Michael Buble version Edit

Sales+streaming figures based on certification alone.

"White Christmas" is the most-recorded Christmas song there have been more than 500 recorded versions of the song, in several different languages. [82] The following have received some charting success.

Gordon Jenkins and his Orchestra (with Bob Carroll on lead vocal) released a version on Capitol Records that reached No. 16 on Billboard magazine's pop singles chart in 1942 [83] and Charlie Spivak and his Orchestra (with Garry Stevens on lead vocal) released a version for Columbia Records that reached No. 18 on Billboard ' s pop singles chart [84] as did Freddy Martin and his Orchestra (with Clyde Rogers on lead vocal) for RCA Victor, reaching No. 20 on Billboard ' s pop singles chart (and again in December 1945, reaching No. 16). [85]

In 1944, Frank Sinatra with a backing orchestration under the direction of Axel Stordahl for Columbia, reached No. 7 on Billboard ' s pop singles chart (two more times: December 1945, No. 5 December 1946, No. 6) [86] Jo Stafford reaching No. 9 on Billboard ' s pop singles chart in 1946, with backing vocals by the Lyn Murray Singers and backing orchestration by Paul Weston for Capitol. [84] Eddy Howard and his Orchestra released a version on the Majestic label that reached No. 21 on Billboard ' s pop singles chart the same year [87] while Perry Como, with backing orchestration by Lloyd Shaffer, recorded the song for RCA Victor in 1947 and reached No. 23 on Billboard ' s pop singles chart Como recorded a stereo version of the song in 1959. [88]

In 1949, The Ravens peaked at No. 9 on Billboard ' s Rhythm & Blues Records chart in January 1949 on National Records. [89] while Ernest Tubb, with female backing vocals by The Troubadettes on Decca, peaked at No. 7 on Billboard ' s Country & Western Records chart. [90]

In 1952, Mantovani and his orchestra reached No. 23 on Billboard ' s pop singles chart [85] while The Drifters showcased the talents of lead singer Clyde McPhatter and the bass vocals of Bill Pinkney in 1954, peaking at No. 2 on Billboard ' s Rhythm & Blues Records chart. It returned to the same chart in the next two years. [91] The Drifters rendition of this song can be heard in the films Home Alone and The Santa Clause. [92] [93]

In 1953, Bing Crosby sang "White Christmas" in a film made in Paris as part of the The Ford 50th Anniversary Show, a two-hour television special broadcast on NBC and CBS. [94]

Andy Williams recorded the song for Columbia in 1963 on The Andy Williams Christmas Album, where it reached No. 1 on Billboard ' s weekly Christmas Singles chart. [95] It was released in 1968 on Atco Records as a posthumous single from Otis Redding, and reached No. 12 on the Christmas Singles chart. [89] In 1980, Darts's version peaked at No. 48 on the UK singles chart. [ citation needed ]

Michael Bolton performed it on his 1992 non-holiday album, Timeless: The Classics, where it peaked at No. 73 on Billboard ' s Hot 100 Airplay chart in January 1993. [96] Garth Brooks version included on his first holiday album, Beyond the Season, peaked at No. 70 on Billboard ' s Hot Country Singles & Tracks chart in January 1995. [97] In 1998 Martina McBride recorded it for her album White Christmas, charting twice, reaching No. 75 on Billboard ' s Hot Country Singles & Tracks chart in 1999, and No. 62 on the same chart in 2000 [98]

Bette Midler's version, released on her non-holiday album, Bette Midler Sings the Rosemary Clooney Songbook, reached No. 15 on Billboard ' s Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks chart in 2003. [99] The version released on Andrea Bocelli 2009 album, My Christmas, reached No. 16 on the Portuguese Singles Chart. [100] Despite not being released as a single, Marco Mengoni's version, released on the compilation album X Factor – The Christmas Album, charted at No. 13 on the Italian Singles Chart based on digital downloads of the track. [101]

The Glee cast's version of the song entered the UK charts for the first time in 2018, four years after its release, at No. 98. [102]

In 2020, a version by Meghan Trainor, featuring Seth MacFarlane, went to No. 1 on Billboard ' s Adult Contemporary chart. [103]


Corruption Runs Wild

Becoming mayor of a big city in the Gilded Age was like walking into a cyclone. Demands swirled around city leaders. Better sewers, cleaner water, new bridges, more efficient transit, improved schools, and suitable aid to the sick and needy were some of the more common demands coming from a wide range of interest groups.

To cope with the city's problems, government officials had a limited resources and personnel. Democracy did not flourish in this environment. To bring order out of the chaos of the nation's cities, many political bosses emerged who did not shrink from corrupt deals if they could increase their power bases. The people and institutions the bosses controlled were called the political machine .

The Political Machine

Personal politics can at once seem simple and complex. To maintain power, a boss had to keep his constituents happy. Most political bosses appealed to the newest, most desperate part of the growing populace — the immigrants. Occasionally bosses would provide relief kitchens to receive votes. Individuals who were leaders in local neighborhoods were sometimes rewarded city jobs in return for the loyalty of their constituents.

Bosses knew they also had to placate big business, and did so by rewarding them with lucrative contracts for construction of factories or public works. These industries would then pump large sums into keeping the political machine in office. It seemed simple: "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." However, bringing diverse interests together in a city as large as New York, Philadelphia, or Chicago required hours of legwork and great political skill.

All the activities mentioned so far seem at least semi-legitimate. The problem was that many political machines broke their own laws to suit their purposes. As contracts were awarded to legal business entities, they were likewise awarded to illegal gambling and prostitution rings. Often profits from these unlawful enterprises lined the pockets of city officials. Public tax money and bribes from the business sector increased the bank accounts of these corrupt leaders.

Voter fraud was widespread. Political bosses arranged to have voter lists expanded to include many phony names. In one district a four-year-old child was registered to vote. In another, a dog's name appeared on the polling lists. Members of the machine would "vote early and often," traveling from polling place to polling place to place illegal votes. One district in New York one time reported more votes than it had residents.

Boss Tweed

The most notorious political boss of the age was William "Boss" Tweed of New York's Tammany Hall . For twelve years, Tweed ruled New York. He gave generously to the poor and authorized the handouts of Christmas turkeys and winter coal to prospective supporters. In the process he fleeced the public out of millions of taxpayer money, which went into the coffers of Tweed and his associates.

Attention was brought to Tweed's corruption by political cartoonist Thomas Nast . Nast's pictures were worth more than words as many illiterate and semi-literate New Yorkers were exposed to Tweed's graft. A zealous attorney named Samuel Tilden convicted Tweed and his rule came to an end in 1876. Mysteriously, Tweed escaped from prison and traveled to Spain, where he was spotted by someone who recognized his face from Nast's cartoons. He died in prison in 1878.


MAIETTA CONSTRUCTION INC v. WAINWRIGHT

MAIETTA CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al. v. Theodore WAINWRIGHT.

Docket No. Cum-03-538.

Decided: April 15, 2004

[¶ 1] Maietta Construction, Inc., Louis Maietta Sr., Robert L. Maietta, Michael L. Maietta, Louis B. Maietta Jr., Vincent A. Maietta, Thomas S. Maietta, James D. Maietta, Robert D. Maietta, and Neil L. Maietta (Maietta) appeal from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Crowley, J.) in favor of Theodore Wainwright dismissing all five counts of Maietta's complaint alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false light, interference with an advantageous relationship, and requesting punitive damages. Maietta argues that the Superior Court erred in finding that (1) the Anti-SLAPP statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 556 (2003), applies to its claims (2) there is a basis in fact for Wainwright's statements and (3) Maietta was not injured in fact by Wainwright's statements. Wainwright cross-appeals, arguing that the court exceeded the bounds of its discretion in refusing to award him attorney fees. We disagree with both Maietta and Wainwright and affirm the judgment.

[¶ 2] This case stems from a grievance concerning a parcel of land, which Wainwright conveyed to the City of South Portland in January 1999. Wainwright had owned a 400-acre potato and turf farm partially located in South Portland. “Wainwright sold 150 acres of the property to the City subject to the condition ․ that soil or loam could not be removed from the property.” Maietta was awarded a contract to develop the property into a recreational complex for the City. The contract contained terms prohibiting Maietta from removing any topsoil or loam from the property.

[¶ 3] Upon visiting the property, Wainwright became convinced that Maietta was removing loam, in violation of Maietta's contract with the City, as well as the condition of sale. Wainwright brought his concerns to the City Council, and eventually retained an attorney in the hope of encouraging the City to take action against Maietta's alleged removal of the loam from the site. Unhappy with the City's response to his concerns, Wainwright extended his campaign, allowing his attorney to contact local news reporters. This resulted in a series of newspaper articles and television reports about the dispute.

[¶ 4] Maietta filed suit against both Wainwright and his attorney, David Lourie, alleging that they had been defamed by Wainwright's public campaign accusing Maietta of stealing loam. 1 Wainwright and Lourie filed special motions to dismiss pursuant to section 14 M.R.S.A. § 556, 2 accompanied with supporting affidavits and exhibits. In their motions they asserted that any statements they made to City officials or the press were solely part of an effort to compel the City to enforce restrictions placed in the deed, as well as the terms of the contract between the City and Maietta.

[¶ 5] The Superior Court found that Wainwright and Lourie had satisfied their burden of asserting that the suit was based on Wainwright exercising his constitutional right of petition. Consequently, the burden shifted to Maietta to show that the Defendants' petitioning activity lacked “any arguable basis in law,” or lacked any “reasonable factual support.” Morse Bros. v. Webster, 2001 ME 70, ¶ 20, 772 A.2d 842, 849 (quoting 14 M.R.S.A. § 556). The Superior Court held that Maietta had been unsuccessful in showing that Wainwright's petitioning lacked an arguable basis in fact or law. The Superior Court awarded attorney fees to Lourie, determining that “the Plaintiffs were attempting to intimidate or silence an attorney who was representing a client with potentially legitimate concerns involving property sold with conditions to the City of South Portland.” Conversely, the Superior Court held that there was some merit to Maietta's claims against Wainwright, and therefore the court refused to award attorney fees to Wainwright.

[¶ 6] Section 556 was designed to combat “litigation without merit filed to dissuade or punish the exercise of First Amendment rights of defendants.” Morse Bros., 2001 ME 70, ¶ 10, 772 A.2d at 846 (quoting Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ'g Co., 37 Cal.App.4th 855, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 46, 48 (1995)). Section 556 targets plaintiffs who “do not intend to win their suits rather they are filed solely for delay and distraction, and to punish activists by imposing litigation costs on them for exercising their constitutional right to speak and petition the government for redress of grievances.” Morse Bros., 2001 ME 70, ¶ 10, 772 A.2d at 846 (quoting Dixon v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.App.4th 733, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 687, 693 (1994)). Maietta's suit was based on the petitioning activity of Wainwright.

A. Special Motion to Dismiss

[¶ 7] Maietta's complaint cites letters written by Wainwright or Lourie, addressed to the City Council and the Mayor, as well as statements made to the newspapers. These communications clearly amount to petitioning activity. Moreover, contrary to Maietta's contention, this is the sort of petitioning activity envisioned by the statute. In Morse, we held that the “typical mischief that [section 556] intended to remedy was lawsuits directed at individual citizens of modest means for speaking publicly against development projects.” Morse Bros., 2001 ME 70, ¶ 10, 772 A.2d at 846 (quoting Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Prods. Corp., 427 Mass. 156, 691 N.E.2d 935, 940 (1998)). Therefore, the trial court did not err in holding that section 556 applied to the facts of this case.

[¶ 8] In Morse Bros., we articulated the standard of review:

We “review the judge's decision regarding such a special motion to dismiss to determine whether there was an abuse of discretion or error of law. [ ] When reviewing the motion, the Court should view the evidence in the light most favorable to the moving party because the responding party bears the burden of proof when the statute applies.”

Morse Bros., 2001 ME 70, ¶ 18, 772 A.2d at 849 (citations omitted). The Superior Court was required to dismiss Maietta's complaint unless Maietta could show that there was no reasonable factual basis for Wainwright's petitioning. 14 M.R.S.A. § 556. Wainwright's motion for dismissal included affidavits stating that he had personally witnessed Maietta's employees removing soil from the property. The affidavit also averred that Wainwright had presented the issue to the City Council, but had not received a satisfactory explanation. Wainwright also included in his motion photos that purport to show Maietta employees removing loam. Because this evidence is viewed most favorably to the moving party, it cannot be said that the trial court exceeded the bounds of its discretion by holding that there was enough evidence to conclude that there was “arguably a legitimate basis for Defendant Wainwright to bring his concerns to the attention of the City of South Portland and to the press.”

B. Section 556 Requires Proof of Actual Damages

[¶ 9] Maietta asserts that the trial court erred in concluding that it did not suffer an actual injury based on Wainwright's petitioning activity. Maietta points out that certain categories of defamation are deemed sufficiently serious that damages are presumed. Hence, Maietta contends that because the allegations, if established, constitute defamation per se, they also constitute actual damages. Maietta misinterprets the actual injury requirement.

[¶ 10] Maietta is incorrect in suggesting that damages per se are equivalent to actual damages. “Recovery for slander per se requires no showing of special harm beyond the publication itself.” Rippett v. Bemis, 672 A.2d 82, 86 (Me.1996). “When recovery may be had only for actual damage sustained [however] the record must contain evidence from which damage in a definite amount may be determined with reasonable certainty.” Dairy Farm Leasing Co. v. Hartley, 395 A.2d 1135, 1140 (Me.1978) (quoting McDougal v. Hunt, 146 Me. 10, 14, 76 A.2d 857, 860 (1950)). Such a determination “must not be left to mere guess or conjecture.” Id. at 1141. Generally, Legislatures are deemed to draft legislation against the backdrop of the common law, and do not displace it without directly addressing the issue. See Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280, 285, 123 S.Ct. 824, 154 L.Ed.2d 753 (2003). Therefore, the Legislature imposed the requirements of section 556 understanding that they would require plaintiffs to produce affirmative evidence of an injury.

[¶ 11] The trial court granted attorney fees to Lourie but not to Wainwright. Wainwright cross-appeals for attorney fees. 3 “We review the Superior Court's determination of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion.” Lee v. Scotia Prince Cruises Ltd., 2003 ME 78, ¶ 18, 828 A.2d 210, 215 (citations omitted). The trial court distinguished between Wainwright and Lourie based upon the premise that the lawsuit against Wainwright has more merit than the suit against his attorney, and therefore better conforms to the policy behind the statute. Wainwright contends, as does the dissent, that the distinction between Wainwright and his attorney does not further the statute's policy, and is not supported by the record. We disagree.

[¶ 12] We note at the outset that the trial court's use of the merit of the respective cases, as a measure of whether attorney fees are appropriate, is logical because the anti-SLAPP statute is aimed at preventing litigation that has no chance of succeeding on the merits. Morse Bros., 2001 ME 70, ¶ 10, 772 A.2d at 846 (“SLAPP litigation, generally, is litigation without merit filed to dissuade or punish the exercise of First Amendment rights of defendants.”) (citation omitted).

[¶ 13] The record supports the trial court's findings with respect to the merit of the suit against Wainwright. The merit of a case is simply its likelihood of success. The determination of merit requires the trial court to weigh the evidence and assess its probative value. The trial court did not exceed the bounds of its discretion in its determination that the case against Wainwright is stronger than the case against Lourie. 4 The gravamen of Maietta's complaint is that Maietta, Inc. has been publicly (and falsely) accused of stealing, a serious criminal allegation which could irreparably injure its professional reputation.

[¶ 14] While there is direct evidence that Wainwright publicly accused Maietta of stealing loam, it is not clear that Lourie made such an assertion. In a sworn affidavit, Maietta refers to a meeting in August of 2002, during which “Mr. Wainwright accused Maietta Construction of stealing loam [but] provided neither a basis for his accusations nor information evidencing such a claim.” The chronology of events submitted by Jeffrey K. Jordan, South Portland city manager, makes reference to instances in which Wainwright directly (not through his attorney) alleged that Maietta was stealing loam. The record reveals Lourie calling for an investigation, criticizing the City for dragging its heels with respect to an inquiry, and even questioning whether Maietta had removed loam in contravention of the terms of the land grant. While these are serious accusations, they are less likely to support a defamation claim. It was not, therefore, an abuse of discretion for the trial court to conclude that there is less merit to the claim against Lourie, and therefore the suit against him more closely resembles a classic SLAPP suit.

[¶ 15] It should be noted, however, that the varying merit assigned to the cases by the trial court is of little relevance, from the standpoint of our dissenting colleagues. They believe that we should interpret the statute to command the award of attorney fees in all cases, “unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.”

[¶ 16] The dissent begins with an unremarkable premise: the “Legislature knew that in exercising its discretion a court would apply relevant case law and analogize to similar statutes.” From this undisputable starting point, the dissent concludes that we should borrow an interpretation of a federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, requiring that attorney fees be awarded unless special circumstances exist.

[¶ 17] The plain language of section 556 needs little help from our case law for interpretation. Further, to the extent that the statute must be interpreted, the proposed nexus between Maine's anti-SLAPP legislation and § 1988 (designed to protect a citizen's civil rights against state actors) is tenuous, and imposes an interpretation of a federal statute that is incongruous with this Court's interpretation of Maine statutes. 5

[¶ 18] Generally, courts rely on case law when a statute is ambiguous, or silent on an issue. In this case, however, the statute is clear-attorney fees are not awarded as a matter of course, but may be granted at the discretion of the trial court. The Legislature is familiar with the difference between the term “may” and alternatives such as “shall” or “will.” There is no reason to believe that the Legislature would have so clumsily implied a “special circumstances” standard for denying attorney fees, when in the past they have articulated it expressly. See e.g. 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4452(3)(D) (1996) (“If the municipality is the prevailing party, the municipality must be awarded reasonable attorney fees, expert witness fees and costs, unless the court finds special circumstances make the award of these fees and costs unjust.”) (emphasis added). The existence of this concept, written plainly into statutory language, demonstrates the Legislature's ability to create a presumption of attorney fees without the assistance of this Court.

[¶ 19] The dissent notes that laws are drafted against the backdrop of case law. The federal court's interpretation of § 1988, however, does not accurately reflect our general posture towards attempts to infer attorney fees from Maine statutes. We have held:

It is well settled that Maine courts have no authority to award such fees in the absence of express statutory authorization or agreement by the parties. Because of the unique nature of attorneys' fees, a statutory right to recover attorneys' fees will be found only in the clearest kind of legislative language. Accordingly, a cause of action for attorneys' fees cannot be implied from legislative intent and must be articulated in unmistakable terms.

Goodwin v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 35, 1998 ME 263, ¶ 13, 721 A.2d 642, 646 (citation and quotation omitted) see also Vance v. Speakman, 409 A.2d 1307, 1312 (Me.1979) (“Against the background of the firmly established common law rule denying the award of attorneys' fees and Maine's failure in this regard to follow the model of federal antidiscrimination laws, this court is unwilling to infer that the legislature meant such an award ․”).

[¶ 20] These cases are not directly on point, as they interpret statutes that make no mention of attorney fees. They are emblematic, however, of the state of the common law in Maine, and our disinclination to infer attorney fees from statutory language. Just as we will not infer attorney fees in the absence of an express statutory grant, neither will we infer a presumption of attorney fees in the face of a permissive statutory grant. The grant of attorney fees in section 556 is permissive, not presumptive, and therefore the trial court did not exceed the bounds of its discretion by awarding attorney fees to Lourie or by declining to award attorney fees to Wainwright.

[¶ 21] I respectfully dissent from the Court's decision on Wainwright's cross-appeal to affirm the denial of attorney fees to Wainwright.

[¶ 22] I would vacate the Superior Court's denial of attorney fees because it abused its discretion in denying attorney fees to Wainwright by (1) weighing the relative merits of Maietta's claims against Wainwright and Lourie and concluding, without support in the record, that there was more merit to the claim against Wainwright (2) distinguishing between Wainwright and Lourie on the basis of Lourie's attorney/agent role and (3) imposing impermissible burdens on Wainwright that were not imposed on Lourie. Alternatively, I would construe the anti-SLAPP 6 statute as granting discretion to the trial court to deny attorney fees only when special circumstances exist that would make an award unjust, and no such circumstances exist here.

[¶ 23] My reasons for vacating are premised on the policy considerations of the anti-SLAPP statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 556 (2003), which we described in Morse Bros., Inc. v. Webster, 2001 ME 70, ¶ 10, 772 A.2d 842, 846. In enacting the Maine anti-SLAPP statute, the Legislature intended to deter the filing of lawsuits whose purpose is to intimidate defendants from petitioning the government to redress grievances or from making statements designed to elicit public support for the defendants' position in the controversy under consideration before the governmental body. A SLAPP is effective intimidation, even though it has no chance of succeeding on the merits, because defendants have to pay lawyers to defend the SLAPP, thereby diverting their resources from petitioning the government. The mere threat of a SLAPP, even when it will be dismissed pursuant to section 556, is intimidating because of attorney expenses. If SLAPP plaintiffs are successful in defeating the SLAPP defendants' request for attorney fees, they will have defeated the purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute.

I. THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING ATTORNEY FEES TO WAINWRIGHT

[¶ 24] The trial court's basis for granting attorney fees to Lourie and denying them to Wainwright is set forth succinctly in its decision as follows:

The awarding of costs and reasonable attorney's fees requires additional analysis. [Footnote omitted.] One of the ways in which the Plaintiffs' case resembles a “typical” SLAPP suit is that the Plaintiffs sued Defendant Lourie in his capacity as the attorney/agent of Defendant Wainwright. In this respect, it appear that the Plaintiffs were attempting to intimidate or silence an attorney who was representing a client with potentially legitimate concerns involving property he sold with conditions to the City of South Portland. Therefore, awarding costs and reasonable attorney's fees to Defendant Lourie is appropriate.

On the other hand, Defendant Wainwright has not demonstrated that the Plaintiffs never intended to win their case, or were actually attempting to punish him for speaking out on a public matter, or were forcing him to incur excessive legal fees. Arguably there was some merit to the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Wainwright concerning, say, allegations of improper billing. Even though the anti-SLAPP statute applies in the present case, the court in the exercise of its discretion will not award costs and reasonable attorney's fees when the underlying policy rationale for the anti-SLAPP statute has not been met. Therefore such costs and fees are not awarded to Defendant Wainwright.

[¶ 25] By denying attorney fees to Wainwright, the trial court abused its discretion in three different ways. First, to the extent that it weighed the merits of Maietta's claims against the two defendants and concluded that the claim against Wainwright was stronger, the conclusion is not supported by the record. Second, the trial court abused its discretion by making a distinction between Lourie and Wainwright on the basis of Lourie's role as the attorney/agent of Wainwright, and that distinction is not warranted by the purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute. Third, the trial court abused its discretion by imposing impermissible burdens on Wainwright for the recovery of attorney fees that it did not impose on Lourie.

[¶ 26] In spite of the fact that Maietta's allegations against Wainwright and Lourie are almost identical, this Court and the trial court conclude that the merits of Maietta's claims against Wainwright are stronger than the merits of Maietta's claims against Lourie and that the difference justifies an award of attorney fees for Lourie but not for Wainwright. The trial court focused on Maietta's allegation that Wainwright had accused Maietta of improper billing, while this Court concentrates on Maietta's allegation that Wainwright “publicly (and falsely) accused [Maietta] of stealing, a serious criminal allegation which could irreparably injure its professional reputation.” Both allegations form the basis for Maietta's defamation claims against Wainwright and Lourie. 7

[¶ 27] To fully explore whether the defamation claim against Wainwright had more merit than the defamation claim against Lourie, it is necessary to provide a more extensive recitation of the record. The evidentiary record, consisting primarily of three affidavits provided by Maietta, does not support a determination that Maietta's defamation claim against Wainwright had more merit than the claim against Lourie. The affidavits demonstrate that the statements were privileged, and they fail to demonstrate that Wainwright made the statements publicly. One affidavit is by the City's attorney, and it authenticates and attaches letters received from Lourie. Another is by the city manager detailing the history of the City's acquisition of the Wainwright Farms land and the contract with Maietta to construct the recreational complex on the land. The third is the affidavit of Maietta's vice-president.

[¶ 28] The city manager's affidavit lists and attaches letters from Lourie to the City and letters from City officials to Lourie. In addition, various documents related to the Maietta contract to build the recreation field are attached to the manager's affidavit, as is a lengthy chronology of events. The chronology includes Wainwright's first statement in July to a member of the City Council that Maietta was “using the City's loam on the sides of the access road to Wainwright Farms.” The manager's chronology also describes a meeting on August 27, 2002, in the city manager's office, between Wainwright, Maietta's vice-president, the city manager, and the parks and recreation director, during which Wainwright “stated that he felt that the City had violated the deeded covenant of the restriction to removing loam from the fields” and inferring that Maietta had taken loam.

[¶ 29] The Maietta vice-president's affidavit describes the construction on the recreational complex and denies that Maietta ever billed the City for loam. The affidavit avers that Maietta removed some loam to Maietta property for temporary storage to keep children from playing on it. The affidavit also recounts the August 27 meeting where “Wainwright accused Maietta Construction of stealing loam from the Wainwright Farms property” and at which the vice-president denied the accusation.

[¶ 30] There is nothing in the affidavits or attachments that indicates the August 27 meeting was a public meeting. There is nothing in the record that suggests that Wainwright personally went to the media or members of the public to make his accusations against Maietta. His accusations were made to City officials or council members.

[¶ 31] As stated above, the trial court gave “allegations of improper billing” as the basis for its conclusion that Maietta's defamation claim against Wainwright had more merit than the claim against Lourie. However, the only accusation of improper billing appears in a September 27, 2002, letter from Lourie to the mayor and council members, which is attached to the City attorney's affidavit. In this letter, Lourie asserts that Maietta's use of loam from Wainwright Farms “appears to have been a double payment by the City to Maietta, where no payment should have been made at all.” 8 This sentence in Lourie's letter is not support for a conclusion that Maietta's defamation claim against Wainwright has more merit than Maietta's claim against Lourie. The allegation of improper billing was made by Lourie, albeit on behalf of Wainwright. Furthermore, it was an accusation made to City officials about City business. 9 For the defamation claim concerning the accusation of improper billing to have more merit against Wainwright than Lourie, the record would have to show some differentiation between the two defendants concerning the improper billing accusation. Other than the fact that Lourie was the attorney/agent for Wainwright, there is no difference.

[¶ 32] With regard to the accusation of stealing loam, relied upon by this Court in concluding that Maietta's defamation claim against Wainwright had more merit than Maietta's claim against Lourie, the Court states: “While there is direct evidence that Wainwright publicly accused Maietta of stealing loam, it is not clear that Lourie made such an assertion.” The record demonstrates that Wainwright's accusations were made to City officials and council members, not to members of the public. The matter became public with the newspaper accounts of Lourie's September 27 letter. Again, there is virtually no distinction between Wainwright and Lourie concerning the accusation of theft, except that Lourie was acting on behalf of Wainwright.

[¶ 33] The record simply does not support the trial court's conclusion of “[a]rguably ․ some merit to [Maietta's] claims against ․ Wainwright concerning ․ allegations of improper billing.” Nor does the record support this Court's assertion that the merits of the defamation claim against Wainwright are stronger than the merits against Lourie.

[¶ 34] Actually, neither defamation claim has merit. Both Lourie and Wainwright's accusations are privileged because they were to City officials complaining about the implementation of a City contract. See Restatement (Second) TortsSSSSSSSSS § 594 (1977) (“An occasion makes a publication conditionally privileged if the circumstances induce a correct or reasonable belief that (a) there is information that affects a sufficiently important interest of the publisher, and (b) the recipient's knowledge of the defamatory matter will be of service in the lawful protection of the interest.”) quoted in Rice v. Alley, 2002 ME 43, ¶¶ 22-25, 791 A.2d 932, 936-37 (holding that a club member's accusation to the membership that another was stealing was conditionally privileged). The anti-SLAPP statute itself is the basis for a conditional privilege when the communication is one within the statutory definition of “right of petition.” 14 M.R.S.A. § 556. That definition includes statements likely to “enlist public participation.” Because the statements in question were privileged, the defamation claims against Wainwright and Lourie were equally without merit.

[¶ 35] In summary, this Court's conclusion that the merits of Maietta's defamation claim against Wainwright were relatively stronger than the merits of its claim against Lourie is not borne out by the record, and the trial court's conclusion that Maietta's claim against Wainwright arguably had more merit is not supported by the record and is, therefore, an abuse of discretion.

[¶ 36] Distinguishing between Lourie and Wainwright on the basis that one is the attorney/agent of the other is not a sufficient ground for denying fees and constitutes an abuse of discretion. The distinction does not serve the purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute, which is to protect a citizen who is petitioning the government from intimidation. Sometimes, as here, citizens obtain the assistance of a lawyer for the petitioning activities. When a SLAPP is brought against the citizen and the lawyer, both may need to obtain the services of another attorney to defend against the SLAPP. The cost of retaining an attorney to bring the special motion to dismiss the SLAPP can be substantial and, in itself, chill the right to petition. It gives the citizen little comfort to know that the lawyer, who was helping the citizen petition the government, will get attorney fees. Such a distinction between the attorney/agent and the citizen/principal may foster a policy of protecting attorneys or of making attorneys more likely to help citizens in petitioning efforts, but it does little to foster the policy of protecting the citizen from intimidation or of encouraging a citizen's public participation.

[¶ 37] If the basis for the distinction between the attorney/agent and the citizen/principal is that the attorney/agent is only acting on behalf of the principal, then the distinction will apply to all situations where the citizen/principal hires a lawyer to assist in the petitioning of the government and where, as here, the allegations in the SLAPP against both the citizen and his attorney are the same. This distinction will always place the principal/citizen more at risk than the attorney/agent engaged to assist the principal/citizen because the principal is responsible for the authorized actions of the agent.

[¶ 38] There is simply no basis in the language, spirit, or purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute for giving a court the discretion to grant or deny attorney fees based on the status of the SLAPP defendant as an attorney/agent or a citizen/principal. Such a distinction has the danger of turning the attorney fee provision of the anti-SLAPP statute into an attorney protection statute and thwarting its purpose of protecting the citizen from intimidation.

[¶ 39] In addition to the rationale in the Court's opinion for granting attorney fees to Lourie while denying them to Wainwright, the trial court stated that Wainwright failed to demonstrate that Maietta never intended to win the action against him. The trial court also said that Wainwright failed to demonstrate that Maietta's lawsuit was an attempt to punish him for speaking out or to require him to incur excessive attorney fees. The court abused its discretion in imposing these burdens on Wainwright, particularly because the burdens are not customarily imposed and were not imposed on Lourie.

[¶ 40] SLAPP defendants should not have to demonstrate the SLAPP plaintiffs' intentions. Furthermore, such a showing would be difficult to make at the stage of the special motion to dismiss. The policy behind the anti-SLAPP statute is to swiftly identify a SLAPP case and dismiss it so that the defendants' petitioning activity can continue. L.D. 781, Statement of Fact (117th Legis. 1995) (stating that the anti-SLAPP statute is meant to allow “the motion [to be] heard as soon as possible and if the motion to dismiss is granted, to have the case dismissed as soon as possible”). To impose a greater burden of proof on SLAPP defendants for an award of attorney fees than is necessary to succeed on the special motion is contrary to the policy behind the statute. Requiring Wainwright to demonstrate that Maietta was attempting to punish him or force him to incur excessive legal fees places a further impermissible burden on a SLAPP defendant. It is highly doubtful that Wainwright could make such a showing without engaging in discovery, which defeats the purpose of the special motion to dismiss. 10 The court abused its discretion by imposing these additional burdens on Wainwright.

[¶ 41] For these reasons, I conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying attorney fees to Wainwright, and I would vacate and remand for a determination of the amount of fees.

II. THE STATUTE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO GRANT ATTORNEY FEES EXCEPT IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

[¶ 42] As an alternative ground for vacating the judgment, I would interpret the anti-SLAPP statute to give the trial courts less discretion than the Court's opinion does in determining when fees are to be awarded. I analogize to the federal civil rights attorney fee statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

[¶ 43] The anti-SLAPP statute is a civil rights statute because it protects the rights of citizens to petition their government for grievances and to express their grievances to the public in order to obtain public support. It differs from the predominant federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in that it is more of a shield than a sword, and it applies against private actors, whereas § 1983 enforces civil rights against persons acting under color of state law. Attorney fees are awarded to prevailing parties in federal civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Section 1988(b) provides that a court “in its discretion, may” award attorney fees. Following federal authority, we have construed the phrase “in its discretion, may” in § 1988 as meaning that a prevailing party ordinarily recovers attorney fees “unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.” Bangs v. Town of Wells, 2003 ME 129, ¶ 17, 834 A.2d 955, 960 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)). Furthermore, the burden of demonstrating the special circumstances is on the party opposing the fee award. See Morscott, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 936 F.2d 271, 273 (6th Cir.1991) Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 883 F.2d 739, 744 (9th Cir.1989) J & J Anderson, Inc., v. Town of Erie, 767 F.2d 1469, 1474 (10th Cir.1985).

[¶ 44] I recognize that the Legislature could have chosen to use the word “shall” instead of “may” with regard to attorney fees in the anti-SLAPP statute. 11 In my opinion, by using the word “may,” the Legislature decided not to compel the award of fees in all cases, but gave courts the ability to withhold fees when the circumstances warrant. The Legislature knew that in exercising its discretion a court would apply relevant case law and analogize to similar statutes.

[¶ 45] Because the anti-SLAPP statute, like § 1988, is concerned with providing attorney fees for enforcing civil rights, it is likely that the Legislature intended that the attorney fee provision be interpreted in the same manner as § 1988. I would interpret the anti-SLAPP statute similarly as the same discretionary language in § 1988 and require the imposition of attorney fees to a party who successfully obtains a dismissal of the SLAPP unless the court finds “special circumstances.”

[¶ 46] The anti-SLAPP statute cannot completely fulfill the Legislature's purpose if it only works to dismiss a SLAPP at a relatively early stage. 12 Unless the SLAPP filer knows that it will be routinely required to pay the attorney fees of the defendant, it will be worthwhile to take the gamble of filing the SLAPP. Such a result would undermine the policy of the anti-SLAPP statute.

[¶ 47] As set forth above, the Superior Court articulated several reasons for denying fees to Wainwright. However, just as none of its stated conclusions justify distinguishing between Wainwright and Lourie, none of them constitute special circumstances. For the same reasons I give above for my viewpoint that the court abused its discretion in denying fees to Wainwright, I determine that the Superior Court's conclusions do not support a finding of special circumstances. Furthermore, I find nothing in the record that demonstrates that an award of attorney fees to Wainwright would be unjust.

1. Maietta concedes that it removed loam from the property, however, it asserts that it did so only to prevent children from playing on mounds of it at the construction site.

2. The statute provides, in part:When a moving party asserts that the civil claims, counterclaims or cross claims against the moving party are based on the moving party's exercise of the moving party's right of petition under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of Maine, the moving party may bring a special motion to dismiss. The court shall advance the special motion so that it may be heard and determined with as little delay as possible. The court shall grant the special motion, unless the party against whom the special motion is made shows that the moving party's exercise of its right of petition was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law and that the moving party's acts caused actual injury to the responding party. In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleading and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.14 M.R.S.A. § 556 (2003).

3. The statute provides:If the court grants a special motion to dismiss, the court may award the moving party costs and reasonable attorney's fees.14 M.R.S.A. § 556 (emphasis added).

4. The dissent notes that Wainwright and Lourie are in “almost identical positions.” While joined in a single complaint, however, there were two separate suits before the court. Very little of the evidence has equal probative value against both Wainwright and his attorney. Rather, most of it is applicable against one or the other. For instance, Wainwright's public declaration that Maietta, Inc. was involved in the theft of valuable loam would have some probative value in a defamation suit against Wainwright, but would be virtually irrelevant in a defamation suit against Lourie. This is not, as the dissent suggests, a distinction without a difference. The distinction lies not in the allegations but in the evidence. Also, due to agency principles, some evidence that may have probative value against Wainwright will have no probative value with respect to Lourie, while evidence against Lourie may very well be applied against Wainwright.

5. In analogizing section 556 to § 1988, the dissent cites two Maine cases, and states that “[f]ollowing federal authority, we have construed ․ § 1988 as meaning that a prevailing party ordinarily recovers attorney fees ‘unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.’ ” We implemented the “special circumstances” standard, however, because we were constrained to follow federal case law while interpreting a federal statute. Hence, we imposed the special circumstances test in spite of our interpretation of the statutory language, not because of it:The text of § 1988 purports to give discretion to the trial court judge in awarding attorney fees. However, this discretion has been substantially restricted by federal courts, necessitating the judicially created “special circumstance exception,” which holds that a “prevailing party should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, although judicial discretion is not explicitly restricted by federal statute, we are constrained by the substantial federal jurisprudence on this point.Bangs v. Town of Wells, 2003 ME 129, ¶ 17, 834 A.2d 955, 960.

6. “SLAPP” stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation.

7. Maietta's complaint contained four claims against Lourie and Wainwright: defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false light, and interference with an advantageous relationship. The elements of a defamation claim are: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another (2) an unprivileged publication to a third party (3) fault amounting to at least negligence on the part of the publisher and (4) special harm or actionability regardless of special harm. Cole v. Chandler, 2000 ME 104, ¶ 5, 752 A.2d 1189, 1193. The false light claim is similar and requires (1) the actor giving publicity to a matter that places another in a false light (2) when the false light would be highly offensive to a reasonable person (3) the actor knowing of, or acting in reckless disregard to, the falsity and the false light in which the other would be placed and (4) publicity means communication to the public at large or to enough people that it is substantially certain to become public knowledge. Id. ¶ 17, 752 A.2d at 1197.

8. The complaint includes an allegation that Wainwright and Lourie embarked “on a campaign publicly accusing [Maietta] of stealing loam, and falsely charging the City of South Portland for loam used in construction of the Recreation Complex in excess of $100,000.”

9. The letter was quoted in press accounts, but the record does not indicate whether it was Lourie or Wainwright or someone else that brought the letter to the attention of the press. However, the trial court found that it was Lourie who discussed the events with the media.

10. The anti-SLAPP statute requires that all discovery be stayed once the special motion to dismiss is filed unless the court orders specific discovery upon a showing of good cause. 14 M.R.S.A. § 556 (2003).

11. Most states with an anti-SLAPP statute mandate attorney fees by using the word “shall” or similar language. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c) (Deering, LEXIS through 2003-04 3d extra sess.) fla. stat. ch. 768.295(5) (Bender, LEXIS through 2003 sess.) 34 Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634F-2(8)(B) (Michie, LEXIS through 2003 sess.) Ind. Code Ann. § 34-7-7-7 (Burns, LEXIS through 2003 sess.) La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 971(B) (LEXIS through 2003 sess.) 231 Mass. Gen. Laws § 59H (Bender, LEXIS through Mar. 25, 2004) Minn. Stat. Ann. § 554.04(1) (LEXIS through 2003 legislation) Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 41.670(1) (Bender, LEXIS through 2003 legislation) N.M. Stat. Ann. § 38-2-9.1(B) (Michie, LEXIS through July 16, 2003) Ore. Rev. Stat. § 30.144(3) (LEXIS through 2001 sess.) R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-33-2(d) (LEXIS through 2003 sess.) Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-1003(c) (LEXIS through 2003 sess.) and Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 4.24.510 (Bender, LEXIS through 2003 3d spec. sess.).States, in addition to Maine, that use “may” include: Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8138(a)(1) (LEXIS through 2004 sess.) Ga. Code Ann. § 9-11-11.1(b) (LEXIS through 2003 sess.) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21, 241 (Bender, LEXIS through 2003 sess.) N.Y. Civ. Rights § 70-a(1)(a) (Bender, LEXIS through Mar. 10, 2004) and Utah Code Ann. § 78-58-105(1)(a) (Bender, LEXIS through 2003 2d spec. sess.).

12. As this lawsuit demonstrates, the anti-SLAPP statute, in practice, does not work particularly expeditiously. Over four months elapsed between the filing of the special motion to dismiss and an argument on the motion. The delay demonstrates, at least partially, that even the best intentions of the Legislature to expedite a process cannot be put into practical effect without the appropriate resources.


Contents

Origins Edit

During 1933, the Technisches Amt (C-Amt), the technical department of the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) ("Reich Aviation Ministry"), concluded a series of research projects into the future of air combat. The result of the studies was four broad outlines for future aircraft: [7]

  • Rüstungsflugzeug I for a multi-seat medium bomber
  • Rüstungsflugzeug II for a tactical bomber
  • Rüstungsflugzeug III for a single-seat fighter
  • Rüstungsflugzeug IV for a two-seat heavy fighter

Rüstungsflugzeug III was intended to be a short range interceptor, replacing the Arado Ar 64 and Heinkel He 51 biplanes then in service. In late March 1933, the RLM published the tactical requirements for a single-seat fighter in the document L.A. 1432/33. [8]

The projected fighter needed to have a top speed of 400 km/h (250 mph) at 6,000 m (19,690 ft), to be maintained for 20 minutes, while having a total flight duration of 90 minutes. The critical altitude of 6,000 metres was to be reached in no more than 17 minutes, and the fighter was to have an operational ceiling of 10,000 metres. [8] Power was to be provided by the new Junkers Jumo 210 engine of about 522 kW (700 hp). It was to be armed with either a single 20 mm MG C/30 engine-mounted cannon firing through the propeller hub as a Motorkanone, or two synchronized, engine cowl-mounted 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 machine guns, or one lightweight engine-mounted 20 mm MG FF cannon with two 7.92 mm MG 17s. [9] The MG C/30 was an airborne adaption of the 2 cm FlaK 30 anti-aircraft gun, which fired very powerful "Long Solothurn" ammunition, but was very heavy and had a low rate of fire. It was also specified that the wing loading should be kept below 100 kg/m 2 . The performance was to be evaluated based on the fighter's level speed, rate of climb, and maneuverability, in that order. [8]

It has been suggested that Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (BFW) was originally not invited to participate in the competition due to personal animosity between Willy Messerschmitt and RLM director Erhard Milch [nb 1] however, recent research by Willy Radinger and Walter Shick indicates that this may not have been the case, as all three competing companies—Arado, Heinkel and BFW—received the development contract for the L.A. 1432/33 requirements at the same time in February 1934. [8] A fourth company, Focke-Wulf, received a copy of the development contract only in September 1934. [8] The powerplant was to be the new Junkers Jumo 210, but the proviso was made that it would be interchangeable with the more powerful, but less developed Daimler-Benz DB 600 powerplant. [11] Each was asked to deliver three prototypes for head-to-head testing in late 1934.

Prototypes Edit

Design work on Messerschmitt Project Number P.1034 began in March 1934, just three weeks after the development contract was awarded. The basic mock-up was completed by May, and a more detailed design mock-up was ready by January 1935. The RLM designated the design as type "Bf 109," the next available from a block of numbers assigned to BFW. [8]

The first prototype (Versuchsflugzeug 1 or V1), with civilian registration D-IABI, was completed by May 1935, but the new German engines were not yet ready. To get the "R III" designs into the air, the RLM acquired four Rolls-Royce Kestrel VI engines by trading Rolls-Royce a Heinkel He 70 Blitz for use as an engine test-bed. [nb 2] Messerschmitt received two of these engines and adapted the engine mounts of V1 to take the V-12 engine upright. V1 made its maiden flight at the end of May 1935 at the airfield located in the southernmost Augsburg neighborhood of Haunstetten, piloted by Hans-Dietrich "Bubi" Knoetzsch. After four months of flight testing, the aircraft was delivered in September to the Luftwaffe's central test centre at the Erprobungsstelle Rechlin to take part in the design competition.

In 1935, the first Jumo engines became available, so V2 was completed in October using the 449 kW (600 hp) Jumo 210A engine. V3 followed, the first to be mounted with guns, but it did not fly until May 1936 due to a delay in procuring another Jumo 210 engine.

Design competition Edit

After Luftwaffe acceptance trials were completed at their headquarters Erprobungsstelle (E-Stelle) military aviation test and development facility at Rechlin, the prototypes were moved to the subordinate E-Stelle Baltic seacoast facility at Travemünde for the head-to-head portion of the competition. The aircraft participating in the trials were the Arado Ar 80 V3, the Focke-Wulf Fw 159 V3, the Heinkel He 112 V4 and the Bf 109 V2. The He 112 arrived first, in early February 1936, followed by the rest of the prototypes by the end of the month.

Because most fighter pilots of the Luftwaffe were used to biplanes with open cockpits, low wing loading, light g-forces and easy handling like the Heinkel He 51, they were very critical of the Bf 109 at first. However, it soon became one of the frontrunners in the contest, as the Arado and Focke-Wulf entries, which were intended as "backup" programmes to safeguard against failure of the two favourites, proved to be completely outclassed. The Arado Ar 80, with its gull wing (replaced with a straight, tapered wing on the V3) and fixed, spatted undercarriage was overweight and underpowered, and the design was abandoned after three prototypes had been built. The parasol winged Fw 159, potentially inspired by the same firm's earlier Focke-Wulf Fw 56, was always considered by the E-Stelle Travemünde facility's staff to be a compromise between a biplane and an aerodynamically more efficient, low-wing monoplane. Although it had some advanced features, it used a novel, complex retractable main undercarriage which proved to be unreliable. [12]

Initially, the Bf 109 was regarded with disfavour by E-Stelle test pilots because of its steep ground angle, which resulted in poor forward visibility when taxiing the sideways-hinged cockpit canopy, which could not be opened in flight and the automatic leading edge slats on the wings which, it was thought, would inadvertently open during aerobatics, possibly leading to crashes. This was later borne out in combat situations and aerobatic testing by various countries' test establishments. The leading edge slats and ailerons would flutter rapidly in fast tight turns, making targeting and control difficult, and eventually putting the aircraft into a stall. They were also concerned about the high wing loading. [13]

The Heinkel He 112, based on a scaled-down Blitz, was the favourite of the Luftwaffe leaders. Compared with the Bf 109, it was also cheaper. [14] Positive aspects of the He 112 included the wide track and robustness of the undercarriage (this opened outwards from mid wing, as opposed to the 109s which opened from the wing root), considerably better visibility from the cockpit and a lower wing loading that made for easier landings. In addition, the V4 had a single-piece, clear-view, sliding cockpit canopy and a more powerful Jumo 210Da engine with a modified exhaust system. However, the He 112 was also structurally complicated, being 18% heavier than the Bf 109, and it soon became clear that the thick wing, which spanned 12.6 m (41 ft 4 in) with an area of 23.2 m 2 (249.7 ft 2 ) on the first prototype (V1), was a disadvantage for a light fighter, decreasing the aircraft's rate of roll and manoeuvrability. As a result, the He 112 V4 which was used for the trials had new wings, spanning 11.5 m (37 ft 8.75 in) with an area of 21.6 m 2 (232.5 ft 2 ). However, the improvements had not been fully tested and the He 112 V4 could not be demonstrated in accordance with the rules laid down by the Acceptance Commission, placing it at a distinct disadvantage.

Because of its smaller, lighter airframe, the Bf 109 was 30 km/h (20 mph) faster than the He 112 in level flight, and superior in climbing and diving. The Commission ultimately ruled in favour of the Bf 109 because of the Messerschmitt test pilot's demonstration of the 109's capabilities during a series of spins, dives, flick rolls and tight turns, throughout which the pilot was in complete control of the aircraft. [15]

In March, the RLM received news that the British Supermarine Spitfire had been ordered into production. It was felt that a quick decision was needed to get the winning design into production as soon as possible, so on 12 March, the RLM announced the results of the competition in a document entitled Bf 109 Priority Procurement, which ordered the Bf 109 into production. At the same time, Heinkel was instructed to radically redesign the He 112. [16] The Messerschmitt 109 made its public debut during the 1936 Berlin Olympics when the V1 prototype was flown. [17]

Design features Edit

As with the earlier Bf 108, the new design was based on Messerschmitt's "lightweight construction" principle, which aimed to minimise the number of separate parts in the aircraft. Examples of this could be found in the use of two large, complex brackets which were fitted to the firewall. These brackets incorporated the lower engine mounts and landing gear pivot point into one unit. A large forging attached to the firewall housed the main spar pick-up points and carried most of the wing loads. Contemporary design practice was usually to have these main load-bearing structures mounted on different parts of the airframe, with the loads being distributed through the structure via a series of strong-points. By concentrating the loads in the firewall, the structure of the Bf 109 could be made relatively light and uncomplicated. [18]

An advantage of this design was that the main landing gear, which retracted through an 85-degree angle, was attached to the fuselage, making it possible to completely remove the wings for servicing without additional equipment to support the fuselage. It also allowed simplification of the wing structure, since it did not have to bear the loads imposed during takeoff or landing. The one major drawback of this landing gear arrangement was its narrow wheel track, making the aircraft unstable while on the ground. To increase stability, the legs were splayed outward somewhat, creating another problem in that the loads imposed during takeoff and landing were transferred up through the legs at an angle. [19]

The small rudder of the Bf 109 was relatively ineffective at controlling the strong swing created by the powerful slipstream of the propeller during the early portion of the takeoff roll, and this sideways drift created disproportionate loads on the wheel opposite to the swing. If the forces imposed were large enough, the pivot point broke and the landing gear leg would collapse outward into its bay. [19] Experienced pilots reported that the swing was easy to control, but some of the less-experienced pilots lost fighters on takeoff. [20]

Because of the large ground angle caused by the long legs, forward visibility while on the ground was very poor, a problem exacerbated by the sideways-opening canopy. This meant that pilots had to taxi in a sinuous fashion which also imposed stresses on the splayed undercarriage legs. Ground accidents were a problem with inexperienced pilots, especially during the later stages of the war when pilots received less training before being sent to operational units. [20] At least 10% of all Bf 109s were lost in takeoff and landing accidents, 1,500 of which occurred between 1939 and 1941. [21] The installation of a fixed "tall" tailwheel on some of the late G-10s and −14s and the K-series helped alleviate the problem to a large extent. [22]

From the inception of the design, priority was given to easy access to the powerplant, fuselage weapons and other systems while the aircraft was operating from forward airfields. To this end, the entire engine cowling was made up of large, easily removable panels which were secured by large toggle latches. A large panel under the wing centre section could be removed to gain access to the L-shaped main fuel tank, which was sited partly under the cockpit floor and partly behind the rear cockpit bulkhead. Other, smaller panels gave easy access to the cooling system and electrical equipment. [19] The engine was held in two large, forged, Elektron magnesium alloy Y-shaped legs, one per side straddling the engine block, which were cantilevered from the firewall. Each of the legs was secured by two quick-release screw fittings on the firewall. All of the main pipe connections were colour-coded and grouped in one place, where possible, and electrical equipment plugged into junction boxes mounted on the firewall. The entire powerplant could be removed or replaced as a unit in a matter of minutes, [19] a potential step to the eventual adoption of the unitized-powerplant Kraftei engine mounting concept used by many German combat aircraft designs, later in the war years.

Another example of the Bf 109's advanced design was the use of a single, I-beam main spar in the wing, positioned more aft than usual (to give enough room for the retracted wheel), thus forming a stiff D-shaped torsion box. Most aircraft of the era used two spars, near the front and rear edges of the wings, but the D-box was much stiffer torsionally, and eliminated the need for the rear spar. The wing profile was the NACA 2R1 14.2 at the root and NACA 2R1 11.35 at the tip, [23] with a thickness to chord ratio of 14.2% at the root and 11.35% at the tip.

Another major difference from competing designs was the higher wing-loading. While the R-IV contract called for a wing-loading of less than 100 kg/m 2 , Messerschmitt felt this was unreasonable. With a low wing-loading and the engines available, a fighter would end up being slower than the bombers it was tasked with catching. [ citation needed ]

A fighter was designed primarily for high-speed flight. A smaller wing area was optimal for achieving high speed, but low-speed flight would suffer, as the smaller wing would require more airflow to generate enough lift to maintain flight. To compensate for this, the Bf 109 included advanced high-lift devices on the wings, including automatically opening leading edge slats, and fairly large camber-changing flaps on the trailing edge. The slats increased the lift of the wing considerably when deployed, greatly improving the horizontal maneuverability of the aircraft, as several Luftwaffe veterans, such as Erwin Leykauf, attest. [24] [25] Messerschmitt also included ailerons that "drooped" when the flaps were lowered (F series and later the lower radiator flap operated as part of the flap system), thereby increasing the effective flap area. When deployed, these devices effectively increased the wings' coefficient of lift.

Fighters with liquid-cooled engines were vulnerable to hits in the cooling system. For this reason, on later Bf 109 F, and K models, the two coolant radiators were equipped with a cut-off system. If one radiator leaked, it was possible to fly on the second or to fly for at least five minutes with both closed. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] In 1943, Oberfeldwebel Edmund Roßmann got lost and landed behind Soviet lines. He agreed to show the Soviets how to service the plane. Soviet machine gun technician Viktor M. Sinaisky recalled:

The Messer was a very well designed plane. First, it had an engine of an inverted type, so it could not be knocked out from below. It also had two water radiators with a cut-off system: if one radiator leaked you could fly on the second or close both down and fly at least five minutes more. The pilot was protected by armour-plate from the back, and the fuel tank was also behind armour. Our planes had fuel tanks in the centre of their wings: that's why our pilot got burnt. What else did I like about the Messer? It was highly automatic and thus easy to fly. It also employed an electrical pitch regulator, which our planes didn't have. Our propeller system, with variable pitch was hydraulic, making it impossible to change pitch without engine running. If, God forbid, you turned off the engine at high pitch, it was impossible to turn the propeller and was very hard to start the engine again. Finally, the German ammo counter was also a great thing. [30]

Armament and gondola cannons Edit

Reflecting Messerschmitt's belief in low-weight, low-drag, simple monoplanes, the armament was placed in the fuselage. This kept the wings very thin and light. Two synchronized machine guns were mounted in the cowling, firing over the top of the engine and through the propeller arc. An alternative arrangement was also designed, consisting of a single autocannon firing through a blast tube between the cylinder banks of the engine, known as a Motorkanone mount in German. [7] [nb 3] This was also the choice of armament layout on some contemporary monoplane fighters, such as the French Dewoitine D.520, or the American Bell P-39 Airacobra, and dated back to World War I's small run of SPAD S.XII moteur-canon, 37 mm cannon-armed fighters in France.

When it was discovered in 1937 that the RAF was planning eight-gun batteries for its new Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfire fighters, it was decided that the Bf 109 should be more heavily armed. The problem was that the only place available to mount additional guns was in the wings. Only one spot was available in each wing, between the wheel well and slats, with room for only one gun, either a 7.92 mm MG 17 machine gun, or a 20 mm MG FF or MG FF/M cannon. [32]

The first version of the 109 to have wing guns was the C-1, which had one MG 17 in each wing. To avoid redesigning the wing to accommodate large ammunition boxes and access hatches, an unusual ammunition feed was devised whereby a continuous belt holding 500 rounds was fed along chutes out to the wing tip, around a roller, and then back along the wing, forward and beneath the gun breech, to the wing root, where it coursed around another roller and back to the weapon. [32]

The gun barrel was placed in a long, large-diameter tube located between the spar and the leading edge. The tube channeled cooling air around the barrel and breech, exhausting from a slot at the rear of the wing. The installation was so cramped that parts of the MG 17's breech mechanism extended into an opening created in the flap structure. [32]

The much longer and heavier MG FF had to be mounted farther along the wing in an outer bay. A large hole was cut through the spar allowing the cannon to be fitted with the ammunition feed forward of the spar, while the breech block projected rearward through the spar. A 60-round ammunition drum was placed in a space closer to the wing root causing a bulge in the underside. A small hatch was incorporated in the bulge to allow access for changing the drum. The entire weapon could be removed for servicing by removing a leading edge panel. [32]

From the 109F-series onwards, guns were no longer carried inside the wings. Instead, the Bf 109F had a 20 mm gun firing through the propeller shaft. The change was disliked by leading fighter pilots such as Adolf Galland and Walter Oesau, but others such as Werner Mölders considered the single nose-mounted gun to compensate well for the loss of the two wing guns. [33] Galland had his Bf 109F-2 field-modified with a 20 mm MG FF/M autocannon, the "/M" suffix indicating the capability of firing thin-walled 20mm mine shells, installed internally in each wing. [nb 4]

In place of internal wing armament, additional firepower was provided through a pair of 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons installed in conformal gun pods under the wings. The conformal gun pods, exclusive of ammunition, weighed 135 kg (298 lb) [34] and 135 to 145 rounds were provided per gun. The total weight, including ammunition, was 215 kg. [34] Installation of the under-wing gun pods was a simple task that could be quickly performed by the unit's armourers, and the gun pods imposed a reduction of speed of only 8 km/h (5 mph). [34] By comparison, the installed weight of a similar armament of two 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon inside the wings of the Fw 190A-4/U8 was 130 kg (287 lb), without ammunition. [35]

Although the additional armament increased the fighter's potency as a bomber destroyer, it had an adverse effect on the handling qualities, reducing its performance in fighter-versus-fighter combat and accentuating the tendency of the fighter to swing pendulum-fashion in flight. [33] [36]

Some of the projected 109K-series models, such as the K-6, were designed to carry 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 cannons in the wings. [37]

Designation and nicknames Edit

Originally the aircraft was designated as Bf 109 by the RLM, since the design was submitted by the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (literally "Bavarian Aircraft Works", meaning "Bavarian Aircraft Factory" sometimes abbreviated B.F.W., [38] akin to BMW) during 1935. The company was renamed Messerschmitt AG after 11 July 1938 when Erhard Milch finally allowed Willy Messerschmitt to acquire the company. All Messerschmitt aircraft that originated after that date, such as the Me 210, were to carry the "Me" designation. Despite regulations by the RLM, wartime documents from Messerschmitt AG, RLM and Luftwaffe loss and strength reports continued to use both designations, sometimes even on the same page. [39]

All extant airframes bear the official [40] "Bf 109" designation on their identification plates, including the final K-4 models. [41] The aircraft was often referred to by the folk-designation, 'Me 109', particularly by the Allies.

The aircraft was often nicknamed Messer by its operators and opponents alike the name was not only an abbreviation of the manufacturer but also the German word for "knife". In Finland, the Bf 109 was known as Mersu, although this was originally (and still is) the Finnish nickname for Mercedes-Benz cars.

Soviet aviators nicknamed the Bf 109 "the skinny one" (худо́й, khudoy), for its sleek appearance compared, for example, to the more robust Fw 190.

The names "Anton", "Berta", "Caesar", "Dora", "Emil", "Friedrich", "Gustav", and "Kurfürst" were derived from the variant's official letter designation (e.g. Bf 109G – "Gustav"), based on the German spelling alphabet of World War II, a practice that was also used for other German aircraft designs. [42] The G-6 variant was nicknamed by Luftwaffe personnel as Die Beule ("the bump/bulge") because of the cowling's characteristic, bulging covers for the breeches of the 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine guns, with the separate Beule covers eliminated by the time of the G-10 model's introduction of a subtly reshaped upper cowling.

Record-setting flights Edit

In July 1937, not long after the public debut of the new fighter, three Bf 109Bs took part in the Flugmeeting airshow in Zürich under the command of Major Seidemann. They won in several categories: First prize in a speed race over a 202 km course, first prize in the class A category in the international Alpenrundflug for military aircraft, and victory in the international Patrouillenflug category. [17] On 11 November 1937, the Bf 109 V13, D-IPKY flown by Messerschmitt's chief pilot Dr. Hermann Wurster, powered by a 1,230 kW (1,650 hp) DB 601R racing engine, set a new world air speed record for landplanes with piston engines of 610.95 km/h (379.62 mph), winning the title for Germany for the first time. Converted from a Bf 109D, the V13 had been fitted with a special racing DB 601R engine that could deliver 1,230 kW (1,650 hp) for short periods. [43] [44] [nb 5]

Heinkel, having had the He 112 rejected in the design competition of 1936, designed and built the He 100. On 6 June 1938, the He 100 V3, flown by Ernst Udet, captured the record with a speed of 634.7 km/h (394.4 mph). On 30 March 1939, test pilot Hans Dieterle surpassed that record, reaching 746.61 km/h (463.92 mph) with the He 100 V8. Messerschmitt, however, soon regained the lead when, on 26 April 1939, Flugkapitän Fritz Wendel, flying the Me 209 V1, set a new record of 755.14 km/h (469.22 mph). For propaganda purposes, the Me 209 V1 aircraft (possibly from its post-July 1938 first flight date) was given the designation Me 109R, with the later prefix, never used for wartime Bf 109 fighters. [45] The Me 209 V1 was powered by the DB 601ARJ, producing 1,156 kW (1,550 hp), but capable of reaching 1,715 kW (2,300 hp). This world record for a piston-engined aircraft was to stand until 1969, [46] when Darryl Greenamyer's modified Grumman F8F Bearcat, Conquest I, broke it with a 777 km/h (483 mph) record speed. [47]

When the Bf 109 was designed in 1934, by a team led by Willy Messerschmitt and Robert Lusser, [48] its primary role was that of a high-speed, short-range interceptor. [49] It used the most advanced aerodynamics of the time and embodied advanced structural design which was ahead of its contemporaries. [50] In the early years of the war, the Bf 109 was the only single-engined fighter operated by the Luftwaffe, until the appearance of the Fw 190. The 109 remained in production from 1937 through 1945 in many different variants and sub-variants. The primary engines used were the Daimler-Benz DB 601 and DB 605, though the Junkers Jumo 210 powered most of the pre-war variants. The most-produced Bf 109 model was the 109G series (more than a third of all 109s built were the G-6 series, 12,000 units being manufactured from March 1943 until the end of the war). [51] The initial production models of the A, B, C and D series were powered by the relatively low-powered, 670–700 PS (660–690 HP) Junkers Jumo 210 series engines. A few prototypes of these early aircraft were converted to use the more powerful DB 600. [52]

The first redesign came with the E series, including the naval variant, the Bf 109T (T standing for Träger, carrier). The Bf 109E (Emil) introduced structural changes to accommodate the heavier and more powerful 1,100 PS (1,085 HP) Daimler-Benz DB 601 engine, heavier armament and increased fuel capacity. Partly due to its limited 300 km (186 mile) combat radius on internal fuel alone, resulting from its 660 km (410 mile) range limit, later variants of the E series had a fuselage ordnance rack for fighter-bomber operations or provision for a long-range, standardized 300 litre (79 US gallon) drop-tank and used the DB 601N engine of higher power output. [5] [53] The 109E first saw service with the "Condor Legion" during the last phase of the Spanish Civil War and was the main variant from the beginning of World War II until mid-1941 when the 109F replaced it in the pure fighter role. [54] (Eight 109Es were assembled in Switzerland in 1946 by the Dornier-Werke, using licence-built airframes a ninth airframe was assembled using spare parts.) [55]

The second big redesign during 1939–40 gave birth to the F series. The Friedrich had new wings, cooling system and fuselage aerodynamics, with the 1,175 PS (1,159 HP) DB 601N (F-1, F-2) or the 1,350 PS (1,332 HP) DB 601E (F-3, F-4). Considered by many as the high-water mark of Bf 109 development, the F series abandoned the wing cannon and concentrated all armament in the forward fuselage with a pair of synchronized machine guns above and a single 15 or 20 mm Motorkanone-mount cannon behind the engine, the latter firing between the cylinder banks and through the propeller hub, itself covered by a more streamlined, half-elliptical shaped spinner that better matched the streamlining of the reshaped cowling, abandoning the smaller, conical spinner of the Emil subtype. The F-type also omitted the earlier stabilizer lift strut on either side of the tail. The improved aerodynamics were used by all later variants. Some Bf 109Fs were used late in the Battle of Britain in 1940 but the variant came into common use only in the first half of 1941. [56]

The G series, or Gustav, was introduced in mid-1942. Its initial variants (G-1 through G-4) differed only in minor details from the Bf 109F, most notably in the more powerful 1,475 PS (1,455 HP) DB 605 engine. Odd-numbered variants were built as high-altitude fighters with a pressurized cockpit and GM-1 boost, while even-numbered variants were un-pressurized, air superiority fighters and fighter-bombers. Long-range photo-reconnaissance variants also existed. The later G series (G-5 through G-14) was produced in a multitude of variants, with uprated armament and provision for kits of packaged, generally factory-installed parts known as Umrüst-Bausätze (usually contracted to Umbau) and adding a "/U" suffix to the aircraft designation when installed. Field kits known as Rüstsätze were also available for the G-series but those did not change the aircraft title. By early 1944, tactical requirements resulted in the addition of MW-50 water injection boost and high-performance superchargers, boosting engine output to 1,800–2,000 PS (1,775–1,973 HP). From early 1944, some G-2s, G-3s, G-4s and G-6s were converted to two-seat trainers, known as G-12s. An instructor's cockpit was added behind the original cockpit and both were covered by an elongated, glazed canopy. [57]

The final production version of the Bf 109 was the K series or Kurfürst, introduced in late 1944, powered by the DB 605D engine with up to 2,000 PS (1,973 HP). Though externally akin to the late production Bf 109G series, a large number of internal changes and aerodynamic improvements were incorporated that improved its effectiveness and remedied flaws, keeping it competitive with the latest Allied and Soviet fighters. [6] [58] The Bf 109's outstanding rate of climb was superior to many Allied adversaries including the P-51D Mustang, Spitfire Mk. XIV and Hawker Tempest Mk. V. [59]

After the war, the 109 was built in Czechoslovakia, as the Avia S-99 and Avia S-199 (with twenty-five S-199s serving with Israel in 1948) and in Spain as the Hispano Aviación Ha 1109 and Ha 1112. [60]

Total Bf 109 production was 33,984 units [2] wartime production (September 1939 to May 1945) was 30,573 units. Fighter production totalled 47% of all German aircraft production, and the Bf 109 accounted for 57% of all German fighter types produced. [61] A total of 2,193 Bf 109 A–E was built prewar, from 1936 to August 1939. [ citation needed ]

In January 1943, as part of an effort to increase fighter production, Messerschmitt licensed an SS-owned company, DEST, to manufacture Bf 109 parts at Flossenbürg concentration camp. Messerschmitt provided skilled technicians, raw materials, and tools and the SS provided prisoners, in a deal that proved highly profitable for both parties. Production at Flossenbürg started in February. [62] The number of prisoners working for Messerschmitt increased greatly after the bombing of Messerschmitt's Regensburg plant on 17 August 1943. [63] Erla, a subcontractor of Messerschmitt, established Flossenbürg subcamps to support its production: a subcamp at Johanngeorgenstadt, established in December 1943, to produce tailplanes for the Bf 109, and another subcamp at Mülsen-St. Micheln which produced Bf 109 wings, in January 1944. [64] The Flossenbürg camp system had become a key supplier of Bf 109 parts by February 1944, when Messerschmitt's Regensburg plant was bombed again during "Big Week". Increased production at Flossenbürg was essential to restoring production in the aftermath of the attacks. [64]

The Austrian resistance group, led by Heinrich Maier, very successfully passed on plans and production facilities in the Austrian area for Messerschmitt Bf 109 to the Allies from 1943. With the location of the production sites, the Allied bombers were able to attempt "precise" air strikes. [65] [66] [67] [68]

After the August 1943 Regensburg raid, some Bf 109 production was relocated to Gusen concentration camp in Austria, [69] [70] where the average prisoner's life expectancy was six months. [71] In order to make the new production facilities bomb-proof, other prisoners were forced to build tunnels so that production could be relocated underground. Many died while performing this hazardous duty. [72] By mid-1944, more than a third of the production at the Regensburg factory originated in Flossenbürg and Gusen alone only the final assembly was done in Regensburg. [69] [64] Separately, Erla employed thousands of concentration camp prisoners at Buchenwald on 109 production. [73] Forced labor at Buchenwald produced approximately 300 Bf 109 fuselages, tail sections, and wings before the end of the war. [73]

Some 865 Bf 109G derivatives were manufactured postwar under licence as Czechoslovak-built Avia S-99 and S-199s, with the production ending in 1948. [3] Production of the Spanish-built Hispano Aviación HA-1109 and HA-1112 Buchons ended in 1958. [3]

New-production Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters, 1936–45. [74]
Factory, location Up to 1939 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945* Totals*
Messerschmitt GmbH, Regensburg 203 486 2,164 6,329 1,241 10,423
Arado, Warnemünde 370 370
Erla Maschinenwerk,
Leipzig
683 875 2,015 4,472 1,018 9,063
Gerhard-Fieseler-Werke, Kassel 155 155
W.N.F., Wiener Neustadt 836 1,297 2,200 3,081 541 7,892
Győri Vagon- és Gépgyár, Győr 39 270 309
AGO, Oschersleben
(switched to Fw 190A production)
381 381
Totals 1,860 1,540 1,868 2,628 2,658 6,418 14,152 2,800 33,984

* Production up to end of March 1945 only.

The first Bf 109As served in the Spanish Civil War. By September 1939, the Bf 109 had become the main fighter of the Luftwaffe, replacing the biplane fighters, and was instrumental in gaining air superiority for the Wehrmacht during the early stages of the war. During the Battle of Britain, it was pressed into the role of escort fighter, a role for which it was not originally designed, and it was widely employed as a fighter-bomber, as well as a photo-reconnaissance platform. Despite mixed results over Britain, with the introduction of the improved Bf 109F in early 1941, the type again proved to be an effective fighter during the Invasion of Yugoslavia (where it was used by both sides), the Battle of Crete, Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of the USSR) and the Siege of Malta.

In 1942, it began to be partially replaced in Western Europe by a new German fighter, the Focke-Wulf Fw 190, but it continued to serve in a multitude of roles on the Eastern Front and in the Defense of the Reich, as well as in the Mediterranean Theatre of Operations and with Erwin Rommel's Afrikakorps. It was also supplied to several of Germany's allies, including Italy, Finland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and Slovakia.

More aerial kills were made with the Bf 109 than any other aircraft of World War II. [77] Many of the aerial victories were accomplished against poorly trained and badly organized Soviet forces in 1941 during Operation Barbarossa. The Soviets lost 21,200 aircraft at this time, about half to combat. [78] If shot down, the Luftwaffe pilots might land or parachute to friendly territory and return to fight again. Later in the war, when Allied victories began to bring the fight closer, and then in German territory, bombing raids supplied plenty of targets for the Luftwaffe. This unique combination of events — until a major change in American fighter tactics occurred very early in 1944, that steadily gave the Allies daylight air supremacy over the Reich — led to the highest-ever individual pilot victory scores. [79] One hundred and five Bf 109 pilots were each credited with the destruction of 100 or more enemy aircraft. [nb 7] Thirteen of these men scored more than 200 kills, while two scored more than 300. Altogether, this group of pilots was credited with a total of nearly 15,000 kills. [77] Though no official "ace" status existed in the Luftwaffe - the term Experte (expert) was used for an experienced pilot irrespective of his number of kills - using the Allied definition of pilots who scored five or more kills, more than 2,500 Luftwaffe fighter pilots were considered aces in World War II. [80] Against the Soviets, Finnish-flown Bf 109Gs claimed a victory ratio of 25:1. [81]

Bf 109s remained in foreign service for many years after World War II. The Swiss used their Bf 109Gs well into the 1950s. The Finnish Air Force did not retire their Bf 109Gs until March 1954. Romania used its Bf 109s until 1955. The Spanish Hispanos flew even longer. Some were still in service in the late 1960s. They appeared in films (notably Battle of Britain) playing the role of Bf 109Es. Some Hispano airframes were sold to museums, which rebuilt them as Bf 109s.

Note, this list includes operators who used Bf 109s for active service or combat. It does not include the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union, which all operated small numbers of captured aircraft for testing and evaluation (see: Messerschmitt Bf 109 operational history#Allied Bf 109s).


The compiler placed your destination buffer, s, in read-only memory since it is a constant.

Should fix this problem. This allocates the destination array on the stack, which is writable.

The obvious potential problem is that your output buffer doesn't have enough memory allocated, or you've passed in NULL for dest . (Probably not for src or it would have failed on the line before.)

Please give a short but complete program to reproduce the problem, and we can check.

Here's an example which goes bang for me on Windows:

Note that in this case I had to exceed the actual allocated memory by a fair amount before I could provoke the program to die - just "hello" didn't crash, although it certainly could depending on various aspects of the compiler and execution environment.

Your strcpy() is fine. You are writing to read-only memory. See this description here.

If you had written this, you'd be fine:

There is a problem with calling of your reinvented strcpy routine in the main routine, both character array: char* s = "hello" char* t = "abc" will land into memory READ ONLY segment at compile time. As you're trying to write to memory pointed by s in the routine strcpy, and since it points to a location in a READ ONLY segment, it will be caught, and you'll get an exception. These strings are READ ONLY!

Make sure dest has it's memory allocated before calling that function.

Probably an issue with the caller: did you check the dest pointer? Does it point to something valid or just garbage? Besides that, the least you could do is check for null pointers, like if (!dest || !source) < /* do something, like return NULL or throw an exception */ >on function entry. The code looks OK. Not very safe, but OK.

  1. You don't allocate a return buffer that can hold the copied string.
  2. You don't check to see if src is null before using *src
  3. You are both tring to get the answer in a parameter and return the value. Do one or the other.
  4. You can easily overrun the dest buffer.

when ever the code starting execution(generaly it starts from main function). here the code means sequence of execution.so, when the process(sequence of execution) starts , the PCB(process control block) is created,the pcb having complete infromation about the process like process address space,kernal stack,ofdt table like this.

this is the what you have taken inputs of two strings like this.

here, the the strings(which means double quoted) which are present in text section of the process address space . here text section is the one of the section which is present in the process address space and text section only having the permissions of read-only. that is why when you trying to modify the source string/destination string, we MUST NOT allowable to change the whatever data is present in the text setion. so, this is what the reason for your code you need to be CAUTIOUS. hope you understand.


Contents

"Hallelujah", in its original version, is in 12
8 time, which evokes both early rock and roll and gospel music. Written in the key of C major, the chord progression matches lyrics from the song: "goes like this, the fourth, the fifth, the minor fall, and the major lift": C, F, G, A minor, F. [6]

Cohen wrote around 80 draft verses for "Hallelujah", with one writing session at the Royalton Hotel in New York where he was reduced to sitting on the floor in his underwear, banging his head on the floor. [7] His original version, as recorded on his album Various Positions, contains several biblical references, most notably evoking the stories of Samson and Delilah from the Book of Judges ("she cut your hair") as well as King David and Bathsheba ("you saw her bathing on the roof, her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you"). [6] [8]

Following his original 1984 studio-album version, Cohen performed the original song on his world tour in 1985, but live performances during his 1988 and 1993 tours almost invariably contained a quite different set of lyrics. Numerous singers mix lyrics from both versions, and occasionally make direct lyric changes for example, in place of Cohen's "holy dove", Canadian-American singer Rufus Wainwright substituted "holy dark", while Canadian singer-songwriter Allison Crowe sang "holy ghost".

Cohen's lyrical poetry and his view that "many different hallelujahs exist" is reflected in wide-ranging covers with very different intents or tones, allowing the song to be "melancholic, fragile, uplifting [or] joyous" depending on the performer: [6] The Welsh singer-songwriter John Cale, the first person to record a cover version of the song (in 1991), promoted a message of "soberness and sincerity" in contrast to Cohen's dispassionate tone [6] the cover by Jeff Buckley, an American singer-songwriter, is more sorrowful and was described by Buckley as "a hallelujah to the orgasm" [6] [9] Crowe interpreted the song as a "very sexual" composition that discussed relationships [6] Wainwright offered a "purifying and almost liturgical" interpretation [6] and Guy Garvey of the British band Elbow made the hallelujah a "stately creature" and incorporated his religious interpretation of the song into his band's recordings. [6]

Canadian singer k.d. lang said in an interview shortly after Cohen's death that she considered the song to be about "the struggle between having human desire and searching for spiritual wisdom. It's being caught between those two places." [10] Former Barenaked Ladies frontman Steven Page, who sang the song at Canadian politician Jack Layton's funeral, described the song as being "about disappointing [other] people". [11]

Chart (1985–2016) Peak
position
Australia (ARIA) [12] 59
Austria (Ö3 Austria Top 40) [13] 13
Canada (Canadian Hot 100) [14] 17
Czech Republic (Singles Digitál Top 100) [15] 65
Finland Download (Latauslista) [16] 4
France (SNEP) [17] 1
Germany (Official German Charts) [18] 27
Ireland (IRMA) [19] 55
Italy (FIMI) [20] 66
Netherlands (Single Top 100) [21] 27
New Zealand Heatseekers (RMNZ) [22] 1
Portugal (AFP) [23] 69
Scotland (OCC) [24] 30
Slovakia (Singles Digitál Top 100) [25] 58
Spain (PROMUSICAE) [26] 3
Sweden (Sverigetopplistan) [27] 16
Switzerland (Schweizer Hitparade) [28] 2
UK Singles (OCC) [29] 36
US Billboard Hot 100 [5] 59
US Hot Rock & Alternative Songs (Billboard) [30] 20

^ Shipments figures based on certification alone.

Since 1991, "Hallelujah" has been performed by a wide variety of singers: over 300, and in various languages. [4] Statistics from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Canadian Recording Industry Association, the Australian Recording Industry Association, and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, show that, by late 2008, more than five million copies of the song sold in CD format. [ citation needed ] It has been the subject of a BBC Radio documentary, a book, [2] and been in the soundtracks of numerous films and television programs. [31] Different interpretations of the song may include different verses, out of the over 80 verses Cohen originally wrote. [32]

In an April 2009 CBC Radio interview, Cohen said he found the number of covers of his song "ironic and amusing", given that his record label refused to release it when he first wrote it however, he then claimed the song could benefit from a break in exposure:

I was just reading a review of a movie called Watchmen that uses it and the reviewer said – "Can we please have a moratorium on 'Hallelujah' in movies and television shows?" And I kind of feel the same way . I think it's a good song, but I think too many people sing it. [33] [34]

Conversely, in early 2012, while promoting his then-current album, Old Ideas, Cohen stated he wasn't tired of the song being covered:

There's been a couple of times when other people have said can we have a moratorium please on "Hallelujah"? Must we have it at the end of every single drama and every single Idol? And once or twice I've felt maybe I should lend my voice to silencing it but on second thought no, I'm very happy that it's being sung. [35]

John Cale Edit

John Cale's cover first appeared on I'm Your Fan (1991), a Leonard Cohen tribute album, and later on his live album Fragments of a Rainy Season (1992). Cale's version has vocals, piano, and different lyrics that Cohen had only performed live such as "I used to live alone before I knew you" and "All I ever learned from love was how to shoot at someone who outdrew you". Cale had watched Cohen perform the song and asked Cohen to send him the lyrics. [2] Cohen then faxed Cale 15 pages of lyrics. Cale claims that he "went through and just picked out the cheeky verses." [32]

Cale's version forms the basis of most subsequent performances, including Cohen's performances during his 2008–09 world tour. Cale's version is used in the film Shrek (2001), but Rufus Wainwright's version appears on the soundtrack album. [6] [2] Cale's also appears on the first soundtrack album for the TV series Scrubs [36] [37] and as the ending song of the Cold Case episode "Death Penalty, Final Appeal".

Jeff Buckley Edit

Jeff Buckley, inspired by Cale's earlier cover, recorded one of the most acclaimed versions of "Hallelujah" for his only complete album, Grace, in 1994. It was released as a single in 2007, ten years after Buckley's death.

Critical reception Edit

In 2004, Buckley's version was ranked number 259 on Rolling Stone's "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time". [9] The same year Time called Buckley's version "exquisitely sung," observing "Cohen murmured the original like a dirge, but . Buckley treated the . song like a tiny capsule of humanity, using his voice to careen between glory and sadness, beauty and pain . It's one of the great songs." [38]

In September 2007, a poll of fifty songwriters conducted by the magazine Q listed "Hallelujah" among the all-time "Top 10 Greatest Tracks" with John Legend calling Buckley's version "as near perfect as you can get. The lyrics to 'Hallelujah' are just incredible and the melody's gorgeous and then there's Jeff's interpretation of it. It's one of the most beautiful pieces of recorded music I've ever heard." [39] In July 2009, the Buckley track was ranked number three on the 2009 Triple J Hottest 100 of All Time, a listener poll held every decade by the Australian radio station Triple J. [40] In 2017, The International Observer named Buckley's version of "Hallelujah" the greatest song of all time. [41]

On 2 April 2014, it was announced that Buckley's version of the song will be inducted into the Library of Congress's National Recording Registry. [42]

Commercial performance Edit

Buckley's version was not an instant hit, nor did Buckley live to see the full measure of the reception his recording would ultimately have he died in 1997. The album on which it appeared did not go Gold in the U.S. until 2002, nine years after its release. In fact, like Cohen's original, the Buckley version was not released as a single until much later, and it didn't chart until 2006, posthumously for Buckley. In March of that year, Buckley had his first national top 10 best-seller when "Hallelujah" was at number seven in Norway. In 2007, it made the top 3 on the Swedish charts. In March 2008, it topped Billboard's Hot Digital Songs in the U.S. after a performance of the song by Jason Castro in the seventh season of American Idol. [43] [44] [45] The sudden resurgence of interest provided both Gold and Platinum status, the RIAA certifying the digital track on 22 April 2008. [46] It has sold 1,144,000 digital copies in the US as of May 2010. [47] It also hit number one in France in March 2008.

Usage in media Edit

The Buckley version has been widely used in film and television dramas, including the series The West Wing, [38] Crossing Jordan, [38] Without a Trace, [38] The O.C., [38] Third Watch, [38] LAX, [38] and Justiça. [48] "Hallelujah can be joyous or bittersweet, depending on what part of it you use", Time quoted Buckley's publisher as saying. The magazine opined that its liberal use in some cases was "a tacit admission that neither the writers nor the actors could convey their characters' emotions as well as Buckley." [38]

On 20 April 2013, Buckley's version of the song was played at Fenway Park during a tribute honoring the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing before the Red Sox played their first home game following the tragedy. [49]

Charts Edit

Weekly charts Edit
Chart (2006–16) Peak
position
Australia (ARIA) [50] 70
Austria (Ö3 Austria Top 40) [51] 38
Canadian Digital Songs (Billboard) [52] 2
European Hot 100 Singles [53] 10
France (SNEP) [54] 64
France Downloads Chart (SNEP) [55] 1
Finland (Suomen virallinen lista) [56] 14
Ireland (IRMA) [57] 8
Italy (FIMI) [58] 45
Netherlands (Single Top 100) [59] 3
New Zealand (Recorded Music NZ) [60] 22
Norway (VG-lista) [61] 7
Sweden (Sverigetopplistan) [62] 5
Switzerland (Schweizer Hitparade) [63] 38
UK Singles (The Official Charts Company) [64] 2
US Digital Songs (Billboard) [65] 1
Year-end charts Edit

Certifications Edit

* Sales figures based on certification alone.
^ Shipments figures based on certification alone.
Sales+streaming figures based on certification alone.

Rufus Wainwright Edit

Canadian-American musician and singer Rufus Wainwright had briefly met Jeff Buckley and recorded a tribute to him after his 1997 death. That song, "Memphis Skyline", referenced Buckley's version of "Hallelujah", which Wainwright would later record, though using piano and a similar arrangement to Cale's. Wainwright's version is included on the album Shrek: Music from the Original Motion Picture, although it was Cale's version that was used in the film itself. [76] The Shrek soundtrack, containing Wainwright's cover, was certified 2× Platinum in the United States in 2003 as selling over two million copies.

Rufus Wainwright, his sister Martha Wainwright, and Joan Wasser performed the song in the film Leonard Cohen: I'm Your Man.

Charts Edit

K.d. lang Edit

In 2004, k.d. lang recorded a version of "Hallelujah" on her album Hymns of the 49th Parallel. She has since sung it at several major events, such as at the Canadian Juno Awards of 2005, [80] where it "brought the audience to its feet for a two-minute ovation." [81] Lang also sang it at the 2006 Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame when Cohen was inducted into the Hall of Fame. [82] Cohen's partner, singer Anjani Thomas, said: "After hearing k.d. lang perform that song at the Canadian Songwriter's Hall of Fame in 2006 we looked at each other and said, 'well, I think we can lay that song to rest now! It's really been done to its ultimate blissful state of perfection'." [83] Lang sang it at the opening ceremony of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver, before a claimed TV audience of three billion. [84]

Lang again performed the song at the 2017 Tower of Song: A Memorial Tribute to Leonard Cohen concert. [85]

Charts Edit

Chart (2010) Peak
position
Australia (ARIA) [86] 13
Canada (Canadian Hot 100) [87] 2
Denmark (Tracklisten) [88] 40
Netherlands (Single Top 100) [89] 23
Norway (VG-lista) [90] 11
Sweden (Sverigetopplistan) [91] 12
Switzerland (Schweizer Hitparade) [92] 21
US Billboard Hot 100 [93] 61

Certifications Edit

* Sales figures based on certification alone.

Alexandra Burke Edit

Alexandra Burke, the winner of the fifth series of the reality television show The X Factor, released a condensed cover version of the song as a prize for her victory. It reached Christmas number one on the UK Singles Chart on 21 December 2008. [95]

Chart battle with other versions Edit

The release of Burke's cover created interest in the previous versions of the song, including a Buckley fan campaign to take Buckley's cover to the top of the Christmas chart and therefore deny Burke the top spot. [96] The campaign was fuelled by Buckley fans' dislike of The X Factor ' s commercialism and the song's arrangement, [97] [98] as well as their desire to introduce younger people to Buckley's version. [99] Burke herself was not enamoured of the choice of song, remarking "It just didn't do anything for me." [98]

Commercial performance Edit

Burke's version broke a European sales record after selling over 105,000 digital downloads in just one day, breaking the previous record set by Leona Lewis. [100] The song sold 576,000 copies in its first week, becoming the fastest-selling single released by a woman in the United Kingdom and the 2008 Christmas number one, while Buckley's cover charted at number two and Cohen's original version at number 36. [95]

On 28 December 2008, the UK Singles Chart listed Burke's version as the biggest-selling single of the year, [100] [101] with NME announcing sales of over one million copies since its release. [102] This also made Burke the first ever female British artist to have a million-selling single in the UK. [103] It has sold 1.330 million as of August 2016, making it the biggest-selling X Factor winner's single to date. [104]

Charts Edit

Chart (2008–17) Peak
position
Austria (Ö3 Austria Top 40) [105] 53
Czech Republic (Rádio Top 100) [106] 27
European Hot 100 Singles [107] 6
France (SNEP) [108] 175
Ireland (IRMA) [57] 1
Scotland (OCC) [109] 1
Slovenia (SloTop50) [110] 25
UK Singles (OCC) [111] 1
Certifications
Region Certification Certified units/sales
United Kingdom (BPI) [112] 2× Platinum 1,330,000 [104]

Pentatonix Edit

The a cappella group Pentatonix covered the song in the quintet's 2016 album, A Pentatonix Christmas. On 21 October 2016, Pentatonix also released a music video for its cover filmed in the California Mojave Desert. [113] [114]

Chart (2016–2020) Peak
position
Austria (Ö3 Austria Top 40) [115] 1
Belgium (Ultratop 50 Flanders) [116] 22
Belgium (Ultratip Wallonia) [117] 14
Canada (Canadian Hot 100) [118] 16
Czech Republic (Singles Digitál Top 100) [119] 83
France (SNEP) [120] 20
Germany (Official German Charts) [121] 4
Global 200 (Billboard) [122] 86
Hungary (Single Top 40) [123] 2
Italy (FIMI) [124] 19
Netherlands (Single Top 100) [125] 87
Slovakia (Singles Digitál Top 100) [126] 53
Spain (PROMUSICAE) [127] 23
Sweden (Sverigetopplistan) [128] 70
Switzerland (Schweizer Hitparade) [129] 7
US Billboard Hot 100 [130] 23
US Holiday 100 (Billboard) [131] 2
US Rolling Stone Top 100 [132] 68

Certifications Edit

^ Shipments figures based on certification alone.
Sales+streaming figures based on certification alone.

Other cover versions Edit

Bob Dylan was among the first to perform Cohen's song in concert with his earliest noted performance being in Montreal on 8 July 1988. [141] Other notable singers who have covered "Hallelujah" include Brandi Carlile, Regina Spektor, Willie Nelson, Susan Boyle, Tim Minchin, Myles Kennedy, and Bono. Bono's version, which is mostly spoken, was included in Tower of Song, an all-star tribute to Cohen in 1995. Bon Jovi has covered the song several times in concert, including on their 2008 Live at Madison Square Garden DVD. [142]

In 2006, the Norwegian quartet of Espen Lind, Kurt Nilsen, Alejandro Fuentes and Askil Holm released a cover of the song. After debuting at number 8 on the Norwegian VG-lista, the single reached number one in January 2007. [143] The song remained listed on the Norwegian top 20 for 37 (non-consecutive) weeks between 2006 and 2007. [144] The song also appears on the 2006 album Hallelujah Live, credited to Lind with Nilsen, Fuentes and Holm, which also reached the top of the Norwegian VG-lista. [145]

International group Il Divo released a Spanish-language adaptation with different lyrics on their album The Promise (2008), which topped the charts in the UK. The song was performed by recording artist Damien Rice at the 2008 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductions when Cohen was inducted. That same year Welsh mezzo-soprano Katherine Jenkins recorded a classical-crossover version for her album Sacred Arias. [141] Kate Voegele performed it in character as Mia Catalano in the U.S. teen drama One Tree Hill. Also appearing on an album, her version made the Hot 100 Billboard charts and reached number 53 in the UK shortly after airing of the episode there. [146] Also in 2008, the Welsh band Brigyn released a version in Welsh. [147] In 2009 Swedish artist Ebba Forsberg released a version sung in Swedish.

The song has become a staple of television talent shows. Jason Castro, an American Idol season 7 contestant, performed a version on 4 March 2008, [148] which propelled Jeff Buckley's version of the song to the top of the Billboard digital song chart. [43] [44] His version was included in his self-titled debut album and his second studio album, Who I Am. Lisa Hordijk, winner of the 2009 Dutch X Factor, released "Hallelujah" as her debut single, which went double platinum and remained at the top of the Dutch charts for ten weeks. [149]

A 2009 hit by Orthodox Jewish singer Ohad Moskowitz, "Bo'i Kala", featuring the words of the traditional tune accompanying a Jewish bride to the chuppah, is a musical adaptation of "Hallelujah". [150] [151]

On 22 January 2010, American musicians Justin Timberlake, Matt Morris, and Charlie Sexton performed a live cover version of "Hallelujah" during the Hope for Haiti Now telethon in support of those affected by the 2010 Haiti earthquake. A recorded version was released the following day on the Hope for Haiti Now soundtrack album and reached a peak of No. 13 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. [152]

On 16 April 2010, the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra and the Richard Eaton Singers conducted by Jack Everly premiered a new arrangement for orchestra and chorus by Claude Lapalme. [153] Also in 2010, the Maccabeats of Yeshiva University released Voices from the Heights, with an a cappella version of "Hallelujah" set to the Hebrew words of the Shabbat liturgical poem "Lecha Dodi". [154] [155]

Steven Page performed the song live at the state funeral of Canadian Opposition Leader Jack Layton on 27 August 2011. [156]

Raul Esparza performed the song live at the Kennedy Center's 11 September Memorial Concert on 8 September 2011. [157]

In May 2012, Canada's Royal Winnipeg Ballet presented the World Premiere of The Doorway – Scenes from Leonard Cohen, created and choreographed by Jorden Morris – with "Hallelujah" performed by Allison Crowe (voice and piano) and ballerinas Sophia Lee and Jo-Ann Gudilin dancing alternate dates. [158]

On the 17 December 2012 episode of The Voice, the song was covered in tribute to the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting by coaches Christina Aguilera, Adam Levine, Blake Shelton and Cee Lo Green. [159]

American actor, comedian and musician Adam Sandler performed an off-color parody of "Hallelujah" in December 2012 at Madison Square Garden in New York City as part of 12-12-12: The Concert for Sandy Relief, with Paul Shaffer on piano. Sandler's version contained numerous references to Hurricane Sandy and contemporary events in local culture, sports and politics. [160]

Singer Tori Kelly recorded a cover of "Hallelujah" for the animated film Sing and has done two notable live performances of the song: during the "In Memoriam" portion of the 68th Primetime Emmy Awards, and alongside Luis Fonsi during the 2017 Hand in Hand: A Benefit for Hurricane Relief telethon. [161] [162] In August 2020, Cohen fans were incensed when Kelly's recording was played after Donald Trump's speech at the Republican National Convention. [163] A legal representative for the Cohen estate said they had "specifically declined the RNC's use request" for "one of the most important songs in the Cohen song catalogue". She added that the estate might have approved the use of Cohen's "You Want It Darker". [164]

On 12 November 2016, an episode of Saturday Night Live opened with cast member Kate McKinnon as Hillary Clinton performing a rendition of the song in tribute to both Cohen and Clinton. The preceding week had seen both Cohen's death and Clinton's unexpected loss to Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. [165]

Linkin Park frontman Chester Bennington sang "Hallelujah" during his eulogy to Chris Cornell at Hollywood Forever Cemetery on 26 May 2017. [166]

The American alt-right conspiracy theorist and comedian Owen Benjamin used the music of "Hallelujah" with new lyrics in his song titled "How They Rule Ya" in support of freeing British far right activist and notorious anti-Semite Tommy Robinson, who was held at the time for contempt of court charges for violating a press gag order and encouraging vigilante action against and illegally filming some of the defendants [167] in the trial of the Huddersfield grooming gang. Released on 12 June 2018 under the alternative title "Free Tommy Robinson", it charted in the UK iTunes Charts. [168] Robinson as a tribute and gratitude to Owen Benjamin, upon his release led the crowd outside the Old Bailey to a rendition of the song written by Benjamin. [169]


Watch the video: Daughter - Loudon Wainwright III unofficial video (July 2022).


Comments:

  1. Tur

    Is there something analogous?

  2. Willhard

    Why so much?

  3. Feandan

    Straight to the bull's eye



Write a message