Latest Poll

[cam]

>German crews were free to do as they
>pleased ... Colors were WILD and ...

I dont buy that, the Americans and French were as, if not more colourful than the German squadrons. Escadrille markings are an encyclopaedia to themselves. Have a look at Bob Pearsons colourful USAS Spads at Bickendorff in 1919 for pure splashes of colour. I believe they are on his ProfileArt page, which if isnt linked from here it is linked from the AFC website.




cam

[Reinout]

Previously Stephen said,

"You don't find the hack jobs being written on German aces the way you do on Allied aces because its only considered noble by historical revisionists to bash your own side, not the other side."
Well, that is incorrect. Just look at the books that stated slanderous lies about MvR, like Richard Townshend-Bickers who came up with a crappy book just 3 years ago. It's also a matter of perception: if an ace you're interested in is getting bashed, you'll take note sooner than with an ace you're not interested in and you will experience the bashing more intense. WWII may even be worse. I've read several accounts of Allied airmen on how the Germans were big fat liars when it came to their scores - nobody could get more than a 100, bla bla bla. The bias didn't even stop at Germans, but even the Russian top pilots who outscored the top Western Allied pilots were not written about or acknowledged until around the 1970-80's. Until then, the Allied topscorer was Bong with 40.

But from the 1980's particularly, a movement that had begun earlier gained weight. New books appeared and lo and behold, they were about the "enemy"! Now that people are starting to see through much of the propaganda (of all sides) and interest in a subject isn't automatically equalled to being ideologically on a par, the interest in the other side is gaining. It's just as simple as that. For example, I know that Roman armies were glorified in history until this century when people started to investigate all aspects of Roman military life and that of their adversaries. Most masters-theses on Roman military life nowadays centre on the failure of Roman armies or on the success of their adversaries. It's a normal process because so much of one side is known already and because the other side is no longer off limits. For a long time (to keep with the example) the adversaries of the Romans were considered "evil". I think the same thing is happening with the Germans now. Germans are also made of flesh and blood (it is now widely believed) like ordinary humans and they enjoy the limelight at this moment. But what would have happened if this poll had been put forward 20 or 30 years earlier? Among the reasons for this revival is the interest in the underdog. Throughout history, winners have written the reports, but at a later date in history, some impartial person will want to learn more about the adversaries and whether what the victor wrote is actually true. Just open your eyes. For us, WWI and WWII are THE conflicts with the most relevancy as they are closest to us. We wouldn't be so involved if it were about the Eighty Years Insurrection or the Thirty Years War. This wouldn't be a problem if a few people had kept their decency and respect towards heroes of other countries. Bishop, Luke and MvR are under constant scrutiny here. Some of it is historically sound -we should NEVER shy away from asking critical questions- but others have turned it into a hate show. Unfounded arguments, rude behaviour, inconsistency, clutching at every straw, inability to see any argument other than their own etc. are just a few of the hallmarks of such internet graverobbers. I got the impression from some of the postings here and in other threads, that these men are considered to be representative of either the Allies or the Germans. Let us take an example: Bishop. According to the poll, over a 100 "IGAF supporters" (wrong term in my view) frequent the Forum, but only 4 or so guys have had a go at Bishop: Jasta, Jasta 8 and one or two guys whose names have slipped my memory. If there have been more, I am happy to know. Likewise other aces suffer from a few detractors who manage to set the entire Forum aflame. The danger of such generalisation is that before long, people will tell you:"Hey, you're just an IGAF occultist, you're not objective and you cannot talk about this subject," which will be met by a:"Well, you're just an Allied supporter, so you don't have the right nor the ability to talk about..." That's the tendency right now - and it's not helping the general atmosphere of the Forum.

My own vote went to the Germans, but I must admit: I voted twice! I had also thought that Germany would get a much more meagre vote than they eventually got as only about 20 or so actually post. It is important to remember that being interested in something more than in another thing doesn't automatically entail denying the achievements of others (though a couple of lads here are of that opinion).

Sorry for the long rant, but if it helps put things in perspective, it was worth it.

Kind regards,

Reinout

[PeterL]

I note that the poll has been changed for a new one. Now on this I feel safe in predicting overwhelming victory for our side.

Peter L