Only a question, not a theory on who dunnit

Some have suggested in other threads that the views concerning the death of MvR as presented by Carisella and Franks, suggesting Cedrick Popkin as MvR's victor, constitute revisionism.

Clearly the most well-known version of the Baron's death has MvR being killed by Roy Brown. However, it should be noted that a multitude of observing ground personnel, mostly but not entirely Australian, reported in April 1918 that ground fire was responsible. Given that the conflicting descriptions of MvR's death were proposed from Day 1, is it correct to label the more recent research supporting ground fire as revisionist?

Mark,
I am a big fan of the Red Baron, and have done a lot of study on the events that took place that twenty-first day of April 1918. Again this is just my thoughts on what happened.
Capt. Roy A. Brown went up that day in April with a long time friend Capt. May. May being the less skilled of the two pilots was told by Capt. Brown that if the fighting got to be too much he was to return to the aerodrome and Brown would catch up. That very thing happened. Brown and Mays run into a squad of Fokker Dr I Triplanes. One of which was Von Richthofen. Mays broke off from the rest of the planes and made a break for home. Brown was engaged with one of the planes while another was tring to get in his six. Brown just got a glimps of Mays making a break for it and also say a bright red Fokker Triplane fall in behind him. Knowing the possibility that that could be the Baron He fled the battle to catch Mays. When he caught up to Mays and the red crate, the Baron was hot on Mays's tail about to make the kill. Brown dove hard put a few shells in the side of the red plane, banked up and around to take another pass. Before Brown could get back in potition on the Baron he swung down to the right and crashed. Here is the catch. The Baron flew another mile to a mile and a half before disengaging with Mays. Brown said in a bio. "I swung to see the plane still engaged with Mays matching his every move. Then he just swung down and was gone." The killing shot on the Baron entered his left chest somewhere between his left breast and shoulderblade. Brown could not have inflicted this would attacking from 4 o'clock like he did. The Baron was known to stand in the plane slightly when he dove to get a better veiw in doing so he exposed himself from about the waste up. This is what maid it possible for the Australian gunner to put the killing shot on Richthofen. Had it not been for the gunner I believe in my heart that Brown and Mays would have been 81 and 82!!

I don't think that saying MvR was shot down by ground fire should be classed as revisionism.
The many eye witnesses on the ground stated for the next god knows how many years that only two planes were present when MvR crashed.
It's more a case of the authors/researchers not doing their search for facts in the correct manner.
It's very sloppy research not bringing in the views of those on the ground which leaves one to believe that those who claim MvR was shot down by Brown have a seperate Agenda.

So I do not believe that saying MvR was shot down by ground fire constitues revisionism. The facts had been there for all to see. It's just a matter if they wanted to see it.

In fact I would call the claim that Brown shot MvR down as one of the early cases of revisionism.

[stephen]

I'd say no based on my view of revisionism. I don't classify revisionism as purely a different view of history, though that is a valid definition. I tend to think of revisionism as having a political factor; i.e., the writer generally has some larger viewpoint in mind that he's trying to propogate, and this revision of history is necessary to support his thesis. Example: US-Indian wars. The initial revision was that Americans were all holy and pure and that the Indians were scumbag savages. The more recent revision is just the opposite; that the Americans were rotten land-stealers and the Indians wore halos. Neither is true and both theories were designed for political purposes. So I wouldn't call the theory that ground fire brought MvR down "revisionism" because it lacks this sort of political and social motive.

That's not a universal definition, but it is what comes immediately to my mind when one utters the phrase "revisionism."

Might Rittmeister von Richthofen have turned in his seat to see who was firing at him from behind? There never will be an end to this debate, because WE DON'T KNOW WHO FIRED THE BULLET THAT STRUCK von RICHTOFEN! Lieutenant (not Captain) May (not Mays) was lucky that day, he met the best the Germans had and didn't end up dead. Captain Brown was lucky too. Von Richthofen had been shot down once before (by a lowly FE2!) so was not immune from gunfire. The Australian ground troops did the right thing. They fired on the enemy aircraft, and may have hit it. Brown fired on an enemy aircraft, and may have hit it. If we're going to get into name calling, this isn't revisionism, it's contraversy. The disagreement has been there from the start. The current trend seems to favor Sargeant Popkin and the Australian ground troops. I personally am unconvinced and still in Captain Brown's camp. So convince me.

[Michael]

A revisionist is anyone who doesn't agree with you.

I don't know who got MvR - all I know is that I had nothing to do with it.

Michael

In fact Brown did say he saw MvR turn to look behind him as brown was shooting, the whole thing not half as cut and dried as most forumites state.

I'm not convinced anyone of them did it...could have been Popkin or Brown. IMO

I do believe only two were present, after MvR fell out of the sky, the big evidence of MvR's death could have several meanings, when he stood, he gould have twisted around to see Brown, that could be the point when Brown got him.

[mike_baram]

If MvR had stood to turn around, his center of gravity would have been physically out of the cockpit. A bullet hitting him at that point would have caused a physical reaction (such as his torso being flung back against the windshield or his body slumping) which would have indicated the hit..and Brown would have mentioned it.
Most probably the fatal wound was sustained while he was seated and facing forward.

i thought snoopy killed the red baron,a gunner on a harry tate gave him the lump on his bonce.