Peter Kilduff's new book

[Germanophile-1]

Rammjaeger (in #36 in this thread) wrote:

"Herr Revell glaubt, daß alle deutschen Jagdflieger – auch und gerade MvR! - vor dem Eintreffen modernerer britischer Flugzeuge einen mangelhaften oder unzureichenden Angriffsgeist gezeigt hätten (siehe Bloody April , z.B. Post 7, 11, 16), andernfalls hätten sie den Luftkrieg möglicherweise gewonnen!

"R. ist sehr stolz auf seinen Mut, diesen „Fakt“ unbeschadet aller möglichen Kritik auszusprechen. Er „beweist“ seinen Glauben mit dem Verweis auf die fehlenden Angriffe auf die britischen Flugplätze vor oder im April 1917 und mit dem Vergleich der aggressiven Briten McCudden und Mannock mit Richthofen, der nur über den eigenen Linien gehangen und auf Gegner gewartet hätte (siehe Post 16)! Genau das ist nach R.s Meinung mangelhafter Angriffsgeist – McCudden und Mannock hätten dies in der gleichen Situation wie Richthofen nämlich nicht getan!"

<snip>
<snip>
===============

Hannes,

Thanks for answering my question about which RFC/RNAS/RAF researcher accused German airmen -- and, in particular MvR (which, of course, gets my immediate attention!) -- of allegedly displaying "Mangelnder Angriffsgeist" [insufficient offensive spirit]. And thanks also to tcrean7828 for providing translation assistance for the benefit of the Forum.

First off, I am surprised (maybe even shocked) that Alex Revell would make such a statement. Can you (or another Forumite) point me to the original text of that statement?

From reading Alex's masterful history of No. 56 Squadron, RFC/RAF [ High in the Empty Blue (1995)], which I found to be a balanced account of that famous unit and its adversaries, I consider him to be an impartial historian. And, obviouisly, I could write another book just on the subject of MvR's "Angriffsfgeist."

There is no doubt that British airmen demonstrated great courage in carrying the air war to German territory. Likewise, in almost all instances, German airmen gave their adversaries a very good fight. And when they didn't, MvR, for example, made quite clear his views of fighter pilots who had "engine trouble" or "gun problems" and felt "forced" to leave a fight early. Those people were posted out of Jasta 11 and/or JG I pretty quickly. Likewise, when German forces went on the offensive, they performed ver well, as did the Allied pilots who opposed them.

The early post-WW I literature by or about airmen of the various Great War belligerents has many examples of chauvinistic boasting about defeating a "cowardly" adversary. A look at corresponding combat reports tells a different story. So, a bit of perspective is needed.

I believe we (i.e., all of us reading or contributing to this Forum) can agree on one point: it took tremendous courage to climb into a WW I aircraft at any airfield, irrespective of nationality, and sit in it long enough to perform even the "easiest" of assignments (if there was such a thing) for an hour or longer. One look at the various crash photos published in Over the Front, Cross & Cockade International, et.al. -- or offered for sale on eBay -- drives home the point in a chilling manner.

Well, Hannes, I think I'm starting to sermonize, so I'll quit. I applaud your efforts to set the record straight as far as the bravery of German airmen goes, but let's hope that all WW I aviation researchers will honor all fliers who performed extraordinarily and let go of the "courage" issue. There are enough other issues to debate: aircraft quality and quantity, the effect of weather (and even MvR commented on the foolhardiness of tempting fate by flying through storms), good and bad commanders in the field and in soft billets behind the lines, equipment failures, etc.

Please keep us posted on your next book.

Mit freundlichen Gruessen

Peter

[alex_revell]

Peter,
I think you should be made aware of how Rammjaeger has distorted my remarks in past threads. I have never accused - a very strong word - German airmen of lacking in offensive spirit because of their lack of bravery. I have merely stated that IMHO they could have shown a little more offensive spirit, but have accepted that they- as did the German Army - fought, in the main, a defensive war. I have often in my writings defended Von R against the accusation that he only shot down helpless two seaters, pointing out that 1. it was his job and 2. that it was not his fault that the British were equipped with inferior aeroplanes, which made his job easier. There is no need whatsoever for Rammjaeger to 'set the record straight' as to the bravery of German airmen. We all know that. Even McCudden himself acknowedged it and gave his reasons. I would consider it a favour if your opinion of me was based - as at the moment it appears to be - on my published work, not on the misrepresentations of my words and ideas by Rammjaeger. His opinion of me does not concern me one bit, his twisting my words and presenting them to other people does.
Regards
Alex

Originally Posted by Germanophile-1

I believe we (i.e., all of us reading or contributing to this Forum) can agree on one point: it took tremendous courage to climb into a WW I aircraft at any airfield, irrespective of nationality, and sit in it long enough to perform even the "easiest" of assignments (if there was such a thing) for an hour or longer.
Peter

From a tape recorded interview of Heinz Jung, pilot with Fl.Abt. 252 until the end of the war:

"I was a pallbearer before I went to the Fliegertruppe, it was horrible and it stanks. It was horrible to be in the trenches and under shell fire. With the Fliegertruppe there was a much better life and it was less dangerous. At least for a Jasta pilot. He could see the enemy - or not. It was his choice. Not so with us, we must bring the photographs at any cost... The most dangerous period was at the flying school. Here we have had most of our losses."

ZAK

[tcrean7828]

Originally Posted by Germanophile-1

Rammjaeger (in #36 in this thread) wrote:

"Herr Revell glaubt, daß alle deutschen Jagdflieger – auch und gerade MvR! - vor dem Eintreffen modernerer britischer Flugzeuge einen mangelhaften oder unzureichenden Angriffsgeist gezeigt hätten (siehe Bloody April , z.B. Post 7, 11, 16), andernfalls hätten sie den Luftkrieg möglicherweise gewonnen!

"R. ist sehr stolz auf seinen Mut, diesen „Fakt“ unbeschadet aller möglichen Kritik auszusprechen. Er „beweist“ seinen Glauben mit dem Verweis auf die fehlenden Angriffe auf die britischen Flugplätze vor oder im April 1917 und mit dem Vergleich der aggressiven Briten McCudden und Mannock mit Richthofen, der nur über den eigenen Linien gehangen und auf Gegner gewartet hätte (siehe Post 16)! Genau das ist nach R.s Meinung mangelhafter Angriffsgeist – McCudden und Mannock hätten dies in der gleichen Situation wie Richthofen nämlich nicht getan!"

<snip>
<snip>
===============

Hannes,

Thanks for answering my question about which RFC/RNAS/RAF researcher accused German airmen -- and, in particular MvR (which, of course, gets my immediate attention!) -- of allegedly displaying "Mangelnder Angriffsgeist" [insufficient offensive spirit]. And thanks also to tcrean7828 for providing translation assistance for the benefit of the Forum.

First off, I am surprised (maybe even shocked) that Alex Revell would make such a statement. Can you (or another Forumite) point me to the original text of that statement?

From reading Alex's masterful history of No. 56 Squadron, RFC/RAF [ High in the Empty Blue (1995)], which I found to be a balanced account of that famous unit and its adversaries, I consider him to be an impartial historian. And, obviouisly, I could write another book just on the subject of MvR's "Angriffsfgeist."

There is no doubt that British airmen demonstrated great courage in carrying the air war to German territory. Likewise, in almost all instances, German airmen gave their adversaries a very good fight. And when they didn't, MvR, for example, made quite clear his views of fighter pilots who had "engine trouble" or "gun problems" and felt "forced" to leave a fight early. Those people were posted out of Jasta 11 and/or JG I pretty quickly. Likewise, when German forces went on the offensive, they performed ver well, as did the Allied pilots who opposed them.

The early post-WW I literature by or about airmen of the various Great War belligerents has many examples of chauvinistic boasting about defeating a "cowardly" adversary. A look at corresponding combat reports tells a different story. So, a bit of perspective is needed.

I believe we (i.e., all of us reading or contributing to this Forum) can agree on one point: it took tremendous courage to climb into a WW I aircraft at any airfield, irrespective of nationality, and sit in it long enough to perform even the "easiest" of assignments (if there was such a thing) for an hour or longer. One look at the various crash photos published in Over the Front, Cross & Cockade International, et.al. -- or offered for sale on eBay -- drives home the point in a chilling manner.

Well, Hannes, I think I'm starting to sermonize, so I'll quit. I applaud your efforts to set the record straight as far as the bravery of German airmen goes, but let's hope that all WW I aviation researchers will honor all fliers who performed extraordinarily and let go of the "courage" issue. There are enough other issues to debate: aircraft quality and quantity, the effect of weather (and even MvR commented on the foolhardiness of tempting fate by flying through storms), good and bad commanders in the field and in soft billets behind the lines, equipment failures, etc.

Please keep us posted on your next book.

Mit freundlichen Gruessen

Peter

Mates,
Here is the word for word translation (I think) for the rest of us.

"Mr. Revell believes that all German flighter pilots - also and straight MvR! - before the arrival of more modern British airplanes an unsatisfactory or insufficient attack spirit would have shown (see Bloody April, e.g. to post office 7, 11, 16), otherwise one they the air war would possibly have won! "R. is very proud on its courage to express this" fact "without prejudice to all possible criticism. It "proves" its faith with the reference to the missing attacks on the British airfields before or in April 1917 and with the comparison of the aggressive British McCudden and Mannock with Richthofen, which would have hung only over the own lines and would have waited for opponents (see post office 16)! Exactly that is after R.s opinion unsatisfactory attack spirit - McCudden and Mannock would not have done this in the same situation as Richthofen!"

cul

tcrean7828

tom

P.S. Thanks peter for the pat, I appreciate it, espically one coming from you.

[alex_revell]

Zak,
Yes, they were the boys.

[rammjaeger]

I have seen Mr Revell´s last explanation and I am willing to discontinue the argument after this „Declaration of Honour“ for the German Air Force fighting personnel despite I am still puzzling about the real meaning and intentions of Mr Revell´s words for example in these sentences:

>>I'm afraid that to me (and I know this will upset a lot of people) the impression gained by the lack of offensive spirit shown by the fighter pilots of the GAAF in the days before the British had fighters of equal firepower and performance, is that they were perfectly content to knock down hapless BEs, adding to their score to get their P le M and the little silver cups they set such store by, rather than fight a war which would aid the terrific effort being undertaken by their ground troops. [What does that imply? Looks like MvR and others were more interested in their silver cups than in aiding their ground troops, if you take that sentence serious. Was Mr Revell really unaware of this potential meaning or did he intend to say exactly that!?]<<

I have quite a number of other dubios statements by Mr Revell but see no sense to re-hash all that here. Mr Revell should at least think about the question if his hastily and misleading formulation of sometimes provocating sentences is not necessarly resulting in arguments. As well I will give him another reminder: He put often words in my mouth which I did never say nor intended to say, look at the words which he did put in my mouth concerning Taffy Jones. So he should not complain too loudly about others in this matter but rather touch his own nose.

Yes, Peter! We have still to cope with a giant amount of research work to better understand what was really going on in WWI. I see and try to research the German “Luftstreitkräfte” as a total with all different branches (including their logistics): Fliegertruppe, Feld-Luft-Schiffer, Luftschiffer, Flak, Heimatschutz, Wetterdienst etc. I think there is an urgent need to do this because too many works are focused only on fighters, aces and similar content and can easy result in a wrong picture of WWI Air War. I liked Mr Morrow´s approach to the problem in his work “The Great War in the Air”.

Regards
Hannes
(just switched in the Christmas mood mode now
and nobody should try to disturb that mood)

[crankcase]

Originally Posted by rammjaeger

Regards
Hannes
(just switched in the Christmas mood mode now
and nobody should try to disturb that mood)

Quite right, let's all get into the Xmas mood and think about those British and German infantrymen who played football together on the first Xmas...
Did anyone see that movie? Can someone remind me of its name? I think it would make for good viewing this season.
Peace and love,
CC

[Germanophile-1]

Rammjaeger wrote:

"I have seen Mr Revell´s last explanation and I am willing to discontinue the argument after this „Declaration of Honour“ for the German Air Force fighting personnel despite I am still puzzling about the real meaning and intentions of Mr Revell´s words for example in these sentences:

">>I'm afraid that to me (and I know this will upset a lot of people) the impression gained by the lack of offensive spirit shown by the fighter pilots of the GAAF in the days before the British had fighters of equal firepower and performance, is that they were perfectly content to knock down hapless BEs, adding to their score to get their P le M and the little silver cups they set such store by, rather than fight a war which would aid the terrific effort being undertaken by their ground troops. [What does that imply? Looks like MvR and others were more interested in their silver cups than in aiding their ground troops, if you take that sentence serious. Was Mr Revell really unaware of this potential meaning or did he intend to say exactly that!?]<<

"I have quite a number of other dubios statements by Mr Revell but see no sense to re-hash all that here. Mr Revell should at least think about the question if his hastily and misleading formulation of sometimes provocating sentences is not necessarly resulting in arguments. As well I will give him another reminder: He put often words in my mouth which I did never say nor intended to say, look at the words which he did put in my mouth concerning Taffy Jones. So he should not complain too loudly about others in this matter but rather touch his own nose.

"Yes, Peter! We have still to cope with a giant amount of research work to better understand what was really going on in WWI. I see and try to research the German “Luftstreitkräfte” as a total with all different branches (including their logistics): Fliegertruppe, Feld-Luft-Schiffer, Luftschiffer, Flak, Heimatschutz, Wetterdienst etc. I think there is an urgent need to do this because too many works are focused only on fighters, aces and similar content and can easy result in a wrong picture of WWI Air War. I liked Mr Morrow´s approach to the problem in his work “The Great War in the Air”.

"Regards
Hannes
(just switched in the Christmas mood mode now
and nobody should try to disturb that mood)"====================================

Hi Hannes,

Yes, you are right: In the spirit of Christmas (or whatever holiday one celebrates at this time of year), let us put down our verbal weapons and play football/soccer between the trenches -- and let the generals be P.O.ed, while we celebrate life!

As noted earlier, I believe most WW I researchers place high value on Alex Revell's work. And, from your very fine (definitive, for that matter!) article on German Flak organization and deployment in Over the Front, it is clear that you are also a respected researcher. Hence, I can't wait to see your new book.

The facts speak for themselves. There are many examples of bravery, which, in special cases, was followed by high honors/medals -- on all sides. If anything, I believe we need to dispense with certain "romantic" notions about war. For example, was it a "dirty trick" when British forces sent aloft an explosive-laden balloon to kill the "Eagle of the Aegean," Rudolf von Eschwege, or the most effective way to get rid of an enemy combatant who was too successful for the British area commander to allow him to continue to inflict casualties on his troops? And, I quickly note, that's a rhetorical question.

War is a dirty business and leaves no room for "romanticism." In that vein, it makes no sense to say that MvR selected "easy" targets when he went after two-seaters because: 1) interrupting or shooting down the source of photographic and visual intelligence gathered by two-seater reconnaissance crews was far more valuable than a so-called "knightly encounter" between fighter pilots, and 2) MvR himself noted that two-seaters (with fore and aft machine-guns) were more difficult and dangerous to shoot down than single-seaters with gun(s) pointing in one direction.

Finally, AFIK, MvR was the only "collector" of small silver victory cups -- and airmen on both sides collected fabric pieces and other "souvenirs" from their downed opponents. It is safe to say that there are many more pertinent issues we can discuss.

So, Hannes, lets all lift our mugs of hot chocolate (this early in the morning) and salute each other in peace!

Zum Wohl!

Peter

When listening to the unemotional voice of Heinz Jung of Fl.Abt. 252, formerly a corpsman, see above, the mug of hot chocolade in the morning will clot to sour curd.

Heinz Jung knew about the priests of both sides, who could not end to bless the weapons in the name of the Christian God, which were pounding his generation into the mud. His comment was definitely: to hell with this system.

We are talking about his lost generation, not ours. No room to be sanctimonious.

ZAK

[rammjaeger]

ZAK, Peter Kilduff was speaking about reconciliation therefore your last post was bit off.
And now listen carefully to me:

(Im folgenden verwende ich das “Du” um die Eindringlichkeit meiner Botschaft zu erhöhen, obwohl wir uns kaum kennen.)

Lieber Manfred Thiemeyer,

Ich kann nicht mehr kommentarlos mit zusehen, welche menschliche Tragödie sich hier vor meinen Augen abspielt!!!
Das Schlimmste ist, daß der Mensch, den es betrifft, das in seinem selbst gewählten Autismus gar nicht zu merken scheint!
Ja, es geht um Dich!
Von Dir wird behauptet, Du wärest der größte lebende deutsche Luftfahrthistoriker des Weltkrieg I.
Doch Du bist gar kein Historiker, sondern seit Jahrzehnten nur der billige (?) Lieferant - Lenin hätte gesagt „der nützliche Idiot“ - für andere Historiker!
Kein Wunder, daß Du vor Frust, Neid, Enttäuschung und Besserwisserei fast explodieren mußt!

Weißt Du was Dein Problem ist?
Lieferanten liefern nur Fotos und Geschichtchen, Historiker aber publizieren selbst zum Nutzen aller (und auch zu Ihrem eigenen)! Das scheint Dir aber irgendwie völlig entgangen zu sein!
Du kriegst es offenbar nicht auf die Reihe auch nur eine einzige eigenständige Publikation abzuliefern! Du behauptest auf Anfrage, daß Du das gar nicht wollen würdest! Aber das glaube ich Dir nicht, ich habe es Dir nie geglaubt! Und Peters Bemerkungen zeigen ja auch, daß Du offenbar schon mal weiter warst in Deinem Entwicklungsprozeß als Historiker – wenigstens ein Inhaltsverzeichnis für ein Buch muss ja schon einmal dagewesen sein!
Du scheinst ja gar nicht zu wissen, daß berühmte Historiker schon bereit waren auf Dich Wetten abzuschließen! Motto: Was, der Thiemeyer? Nay, nay der kriegt nie eine eigene Publikation zustande, der nicht! Das bringt der gar nicht!
Und Du tust wirklich alles um dieses (total vernichtende!) Urteil zu bestätigen!
Deine einzige Chance aus dem Teufelskreis von Frust und Arroganz auszubrechen ist eine eigene wertvolle Publikation – und zwar bald!
Also fang endlich an!
1. Setz Dich auf Deinen Arsch!
2. Schreibe endlich mal etwas auf!
3. Publiziere es dann auch!
Und bitte nicht den Verleger erwürgen, wenn Du dann mal Kompromisse eingehen mußt – das müssen wir nämlich alle!
Meckern, nölen und kritisieren kann jeder – ein eigenes Werk schaffen kann nicht jeder!
Ich weiß überhaupt nicht, warum es Dir so schwer fällt ein lumpiges Buch zu schreiben?
Hast Du eine Schreibblockade?
Bist Du zu etwa nur zu faul zum Schreiben?
Oder hast Du ein Gesundheitsproblem? (Das zählt nicht, denk an Stephan Hawking!)
Hast Du Angst vor Kritik am fertigen Produkt?
Findest Du keinen roten Faden für das Werk?
Falls letzteres Dein Problem sein sollte, dann verfasse wenigstens eine Serie von Vorträgen zu verschiedenen Themen, die Dir besonders am Herzen liegen! Selbst wenn Du diese Vorträge niemals halten wirst, so kannst Du Sie doch als ein Buch publizieren!