Heaven High, Hell Deep: Norman Archibald

Greetings LEB: I finished the book last night, and conclude that Archibald, writing in 1935, 17 years after the events in question, got many thing mixeds up, as follows: 1) Archie said that he was in Paris for the Bastille Day parade on 14 July 1918, in the company of his 'buddy' Beauchamp. (This was the day that Quentin Roosevelt fell.) On the 15th, Archie said that he was on the train that took him to the 1st Pursuit with Frank Luke, Beauchamp, and Granville Woodard. Hartney's narration states that Luke and six other pilots reported directly to him on the evening of 25 July and that Beauchamp and Woodard reported on the 23rd. These pilots were replacements for the nine men lost at Chateau Thierry 2) Archie states that the 27th was billeted 1/8 mile (660') from the 95th and that he did not visit his 'buddy' Beauchamp, who was only '400 feet' away (about two city blocks) until 31 July. But Archie could not have visited Beauchamp before 25 July, the day Beauchamp reported with Luke to the 27th. On page 123 Archie says, "Luke was being talked about." The talk was that Luke was making up stories about planes he claimed to have shot down, etc and that the men in the 27th and the 95th ignored him: now this was 10 days before Luke reported to the 27th, with Beauchamp...3) In the period between the end of the Chateau Thierry battle and the start of St-Mihiel (12 Sept) all pilots were ordered not to go near the German lines because they did not want the Germans to know what was going on. Luke put in a report for a confirmation of one German aircraft on 16 August as that was his first combat mission. This was the report that Hartney said Archibald and Roberts among the fliers believed. 4) On page 143 Archie learns that on 1 August, Beauchamp falls after 8 days at the Front. 5) On page 177, Archie mentions a patrol from Coincy, but he says nothing about the Luke patrol in which 11 of 13 Spads aborted, and only Luke and Hartney got to the enemy, with Hartney piqueing first. 6) On page 188, Archie talks about nonproductive attacks on balloons on 6 and 7 September, and talks of a failed balloon attack he made. On page 189 he talks of a flight that he could not remember, except that he found himself on the deck, at night; found himself on a French motorcycle being returned to Rembercourt, where his mates had divvied up his effects, per custom. 6) The next day he is shotdown by German Flak, violating the order not to cross the lines. 7) It is now October: on page 314 Archie is in the POW cage at Villingen in company with McKeown, Mitchell, Lawson, and Woodard. On page 315 Woodard brings up the topic of Luke: "Well Luke is the sensation of the Front." "What do you mean?" Woodard answers: " Just that! Luke is the most talked about man in Europe! He's the Ace of Aces: known everywhere as 'The Great Luke.' He got 15 official victories in less than two weeks. He'll get killed at the rate he's going. We gave him a banquet and he was told to take it easy, that he was worth more alive than dead. But Luke just laughed...He's a wild man in the air! He's gone crazy..."Luke?...well I'll be...." "On September 18 he shot down three Fokkers and two balloons in less than seven minutes!" "What? ...Five in seven minutes!" I am dumbfounded. Luke, that little Arizona towhead, had told the truth and fooled us all. "Yes and all confirmed." Woodard says that he was shot down on the 29th September, North of Verdun, the same as Frank Luke was: it must have been earlier in the day, as he did not know about the three balloons. Now in all this talk there is no comment from the others about Luke, pro or con. I am going to include something about Archie in the next revision, namely about the contradictions in this book. Archie was a brave and heroic flyer, but writing that book 17 years after the war; knowing that Frank Luke had been telling the truth all along, he should have refrained from calling him a 'conceited jackass.' on page 124. I feel that although the story was Archie's the syntax was his editor's. And since I do not know under what circumstances he wrote that book, and what his mental state was, I can't comment on that aspect of his post-war condition. I hope this critique was professional enough for you. I'm glad I did it because it proves that Luke was slandered by Archie ten days before he reported to the 27th, and that this part of his tale was pure fiction...I also owe you a little report on why I called Le Roy Prinz a cowardly buffoon...With utmost regards, Billy H.02/12/00.

You are not only trying to re-write history, now you are trying to re-write other writer's books.
Do you have proof that an editor wrote the parts you find offensive? If not, state that it is purely your own questionable judgment.
Why would you believe Hartney over another flyer? What proof do you have that Hartney was telling the truth? Do records back up his statements? Show us the proof.

Is that you LEB? If it is you and you carefully read my riposte you will note that I did not re-write Archibald's story: I merely referenced by page number the things he himself stated. You keep asking for proof. What kind of proof? If I had to chose between a flyer who spent 53 days at the Front, a flyer who couldn't remember being shot down on 7 September, and one who was a squadron and group commander, was an attorney in civilian life, an ace who had been shotdown, with about three years service with Infantry experience, the weight of experience and truth is with Hartney...Archibald came from Seattle, but the syntax and vocabulary used in his book are strictly IVY League. What I said about the style in Rickenbaker's book applies to this one: expressions like 'technically supercilious' 'oration on Discipline' 'two extremities' 'pathetically droll appearance' and so on through the entire book...Archie wrote the same way Rickenbacker did, like an Ivy Leaguer, and we know that Rick never went to high school...Even that expression 'conceited jackass' we thought does not ring true...About Le Roy Prinz: If you refer to page 195 of "The American Heritage of Flight" American Heeritage Publishing Co, New York, 1962, Prinz describes a flight in which he fires at the shadow of his own plane, thinking it was an E.A.; shoots at at a plane from the 94th Aero; flies in the wrong direction; makes a downwind landing, crashing the plane, then lies about attacking German planes. In his own words he admits faking his way through flight training, admits being, well...a buffoon and a coward. I was going to quote the whole column, but as you said, "What proof do I have?" outside of his own words that he was a buffoon and a coward. Kindest regards, Billy H.02/13/00.

[Vin]

Billy

I happened upon the following site recently

http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/airserv2.htm

From what I can work out it is an extract from/summary of The American Air Service in the World War by Bg Gen William Mitchell (is this the Billy Mitchell of bombing ships fame ?). He suggests that Luke destroyed his balloons by strafing them on the ground after nightfall when they had been winched in rather than when in the air at work, so to speak. Is this consistent with the results of your research ?


Vin

Billy: No: "3" isn't me. I suggest your nemesis from the past "Spook 3" might be again finding your presumptions unwarranted.
I am second to none in my awe for Luke's feats. However if NA felt that the term "conceited jackass" was descriptive of FL, then I want to hear that opinion. No historian should defer to survivor's sensibilities and modulate his narrative accordingly. BTW did you know LeRoy has several family members still around? Norman Hall,in writing of Luke in '28, saw him as "conceited as a movie star". Do you really prefer this more genteel euphemism? When NA wrote the book they, who had lived the experiences of the First Pursuit, were in their late 30's or early 40's. They knew the book and had no quarrel with NA. And no, he didn't have a ghost-writer as he, being ex- Cornell, was quite capable of expressing his own conclusions. Moreover, I'm surprised you didn't know that Latourette Driggs "ghosted" EVR's book. So enough for that "Ivy League" portion of your missive? What's your major problem here? It is merely, to me, the old "killing the messenger approach" "Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and now, Archibald, are Dead?"! You have written yourself that after the loss of Roberts and Wehner that Luke had no friends left. Hartney has written as you know that "only three... believed him." what of the other 80 or so pilot's or so who didn't believe him? So you think they made these assements of Luke without verbalizing about it to a significant extent during his time in the First? The documentation of this dissatisfaction with him sees its inception in the matter re. the claim FL made after the sortie of Aug. 16th (FL's initial patrol); recall how the one flyer said, in derision, "I betcha Luke will come over here and claim he "got one"? Which Luke did amidst much disbelief by those present. Doubts about the boy were pervasive for the initial weeks of his tenure in the "First" and we should want to know why. BTW: Norman Hall absolutely stated that this claim IS confirmed by official records he personally "has seen". Contradictions enough for everyone? Do we dismiss all of Hall?
I'd like to know why- and here we have first person testimony from Lt. Norman Archibald of the 95th- as to why Luke was subject to the derision he faced in the major portion of the tenure with the First Pursuit. (and as you know, Hartney has said that even after Luke was widely acclaimed and then died a hero's death there were still among his peers those who felt no regard for him). But then again- is Hartney totally credible? Isn't this the same Hartney who claimed he- or his gunner actually- downed 11 "Eindeckers" in one fight? (Did you read my posting on "Hartney's "Eindekker" Massacre"?) You are the one who demands as infinitum: "Where is the proof", "what are the sources?" (as if there were irrefutable sources!) So you argue a minor and easily correctable anachronism in "HHHD" should disqualify NA as an authority on Luke? Do we disqualify all USAS records because they give Luke credit for a victory over a Hannover on the day following his death at Murvaux? Didn't three signers of the "Second" Murvaux deposition state there was never a "First"? (Even though their names appear on the "First"? Using your criteria must we not have to refute any Murvaux testimony on the basis of these paradoxes?
NA's assessment of Luke would be accepted as expert testimony "in any court in the land". You have curiously failed in your refutation of the well credentialed NA, to appreciate a dominant theme in the FL saga and this, in at least my opinion, very generally lessens your own credentials as a narrativist of things historical and most specifically has impaired your attempt in "SR" to depict the essential FL. As Archie enthuses, FL, finally "fooled them all"- that cannot be said of you Billy as long as I (and apparently "Spook 3") are still around! (Just kidding Billy!). Still regard you with the highest personal (if not professional!) esteem. You'll come around some day and then I expect Schlitz by the case with tacos aplenty. My best. LEB. PS. Now don't direct a irate response to Drew on this occasion! Regards to Drew should he read this..Amy: See what you started!!

Vinnie: Greetings:
Maybe Stephen Skinner or Barrett will lend you his copy of September Rampage, in which I present an affidavit from the observeres of American Balloon Company 4. They were the ones who confirmed Luke's first balloon at Marieulles; they were the ones who told Luke how to attack German balloons. I could give you the answer, but then you would miss reading all of the other things I said about balloon warfare.
September Rampage, besides telling you all about Frank, is a story that tells you about the USAS (AEF) and integrates how that service supported the ground action in the St Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne offensives, and how Luke's destruction of the German balloon line in that part of the front was crucial to the advance of our infantry, as it took the artillery pressure off the troops and let them advance. Kind regards, Billy H. 02/16/2000.

[Vin]

At about the same time, September 1918, the lads from 4AFC were hunting balloons in much the same way. Select them the evening before, note carefully their position and then go out the next morning, before daylight, and drop bombs on them.



Vin

Greetings Lee:
1. How would Hall know Luke was conceited as a movie star? Hom many movie stars did Hall know personally in 1918?
2. Hall joined the 94th in April 1918; he was shot down in May, 1918. He never met Luke personally, so how would he know that.
3. Hall did write that in his book but he balanced that phrase off phrases of praise.
4. Prinz's kinfolk have only his own words to mark his character. He made absolutely no contribution to the war effort, endangered the lives of his squadron mates, and was eventually transferred to the rear where he belonged.
5. When Rickenbacker assumed command of the 94th, he cut out the silly drinking parties and put his pilots to work, in much the same way ttthat MvR got his jasta pilot to score.
6. No American soldier in his right mind would use that expression: "conceited jackass" when he could have been more pedantic by calling Luke a lieing SOB, or some other euphemistic term. But why did he use that term 17 years later when he knew it was a falsehood?
7. Will answer more later. Billy H.02/17/00.