Mannock's Mercy - Sources

Captain Lewis,
That was it!!! *Alan Clark's ACES HIGH!!....Knew I'd seen it somewhere...Not the most memorable book I've ever read, I must admit....Still, if you didn't read the duff ones, how could you ever appreciate the great ones.
Regards
Paul

Not having read (or remembered) all the books mentioned in this thread, may I assume that Mr.Clark's book is one of those "dogs" (like Quentin Reynolds' THEY FOUGHT FOR THE SKY) that plagerizes and reprints claptrap and facts in roughly equal amounts ? One that the uninitiated will nevertheless cite as gospel ("But I read it in a book"), fervently, doggedly and repeatedly ?

[EARTHLING]

Hugh

Alan Clarke was an historian as well as a Conservative MP for Chelsea and Kensington in London. He was also a member of both the Margaret Thatcher and John Major Governments.
He is the late Alan Clarke who published salacious personal diaries to receive much largesse from the royalties
His Father was a renowned Art critic and collector.
Whilst I had no time for him, he was a writer of distinction and style. His history of the Conservative party and other works were exemplary.
Quentin Reynolds had no such claim being a hack but received considerable claim for broadcasts supporting us Brits in the war. I speak from experience because I heard them. He was an American journalist working over here.
Memorable line ? "The only difference between our two countries is that you drive on the left and we on the right."
VBR
Peter S

I am beginning to warm to Mr.Clark as a historian, but as he was not a contemporary of Mannock I assume that if his book describes the incident in question, he also acknowledges his source (that, after all, is what footnotes and endnotes are all about). So what is the source that he gives ?

In starting this thread, my rather pedantic aim was to emphasize the need to get back to reliable sources. When I wrote "Not in the Face of the Enemy" I tried to use documented facts rather than repeated folklore (and include the endnotes to prove it). Even so, I now feel that I recycled at least one myth respecting parachutes (but at least, thanks to the endnotes, I know who to blame).

As an aside, a colleague and I once wrote a scholarly study of fishing (it was never published) which was actually a send-up of the sport. We loaded it with footnotes (some were longer than the text to which they referred) - and every source we cited (with one exception) was ficticious.

Returning to reliable sources (and with all due respect, Mr. Clark is not a reliable source - though he may have found one), I quote from a brief submitted to the Canadian Senate Committee on "The Valour and the Horror" (a controversial TV production some six years ago):

"Professor [Alan] English remarked, 'History is an argurment that continues.' WHY it continues is both fascinating and frustrating. History is always being rechecked, partly because new material - such as the 'Ultra' revelations and the gradual opening up of former Soviet archives - keeps turning up. It is reviewed because people have fresh insights or different interpretations. Unhappily, it is also constantly reviewed because errors that are corrected, myths that are debunked, and lies that are rebutted do not go away; they are repeatedly revived, quoted, and must be corrected, debunked or rebutted over and over again. A most extreme example is the PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION (undoubedly the most horrendous group libel in history); a relatively harmless instance is the recurring myth that Perth, Ontario, was the site of the last fatal duel in Canada (wrong, by five years and 300 kilometers)."

Clark's work a coffee table book ! Could that mean - no sources cited ? Well, even reputable historians have been known to put of "scissors and paste" books - they may represent poor scholarship, but they do put money in the bank.

[EARTHLING]

Perhaps it would be better to read the book before criticising it. Many so called factual history books (littered with inacuraciesare) arte so abysmally written that it would be better for us all, if they had not appeared.
Alan Clarke's first book, if my memory serves me was on The Douglas Hague diaries and received considerable acclaim.
The point has been made that the episode referred to was in a book by 'McScotch' called Fighter Pilot. It doesn't have footnotes or endnotes but then it wouldn't, because the author was there.
McScotch (published in 1936) states:
"The flight had been evidently practising Formation flying and, being low down so FAR from the front had never thought of the possibility of attack."
Why should he lie? Lloyd was still alive and so possibly were other members of the patrol.
Not in Combat reports? Read the book and it will tell you why.
I believe it happened and we do have a contemporary account.

Why do I get this picture of Disraeli feet on the table in the HOUSE saying to Gladstone:
The honourable Gentleman appears to be suffering from the exuberance of his own verbosity"

VBR
Peter S

Ho hum, here we go again, with assumptions that an account based on recollections of events that happened 18 years earlier is a "reliable source".

Now if the narrator had indicated that he was writing with his logbook or diary at hand, we would have some assurances that means were present to keep his memory honest. A man does not have to be lying (a conscious act) to give an account at variance with what actually happened, as anyone who has sat in a court of law will tell you, having seen several people relating, to the best of their ability, just how an accident occured or a crime was committed - and each coming up with a significantly different version.

This particular Mannock story seems to be treasured by those who cherish the "chivalry of the air" myth. Apart from the fact that the incident is undocumented, it makes no sense. There would simply not be a training school within flying distance of the front (it would be criminally irresponsible to do so, given the frequency with which pupils would become lost and stray) - hence, if these five Aviatiks (or whatever) were shot down without returning fire it would NOT be because they were being flown by unarmed pupils but more probably by crews who were trained enough that they should know better, had been brought close enough to the front that they were deemed trustworthy in such a locale, and were thus incredibly stupid or inattentive when taken by surprise.

By eliminating five potential recce aircraft and their crews, Mannock and company would be doing exactly the job for which they had been trained - and there would be no shame in their doing so, nor in the manner of their doing so (after all, fighter pilots sought every advantage of sun and stealth to achieve their ends). For them not to report that they had accomplished a part of their mission (even with the help of inattentive opponents) flies in the face of common sense.

Where are those German records that are so often cited ? Surely a massacre such as what is described would have some repercussions, especially if it was necessary to reprimand a negligent officer. But we are left with no combat reports, no squadron diary entry - just a recollection (one of many) filtered through 18 years, assorted retellings, exposure to other mens' stories, and heaven knows how many readings of pulp magazines.

[EARTHLING]

Thank you!

I rest my case!

Peter S

Now that Peter has rested his case, we can return to the question of finding a contemporary source of this particular Mannock legend, if one exists.

Sorry pals,but how the hell do you get those flags and photos at the left hand side of your messages? I'd really appreciate it if you could tell me how to do that.

Thank you in advance