Castans' MvR book

[Kilian]

Hi all.
In order not to talk in all other threads about this book and go off topic i opened this thread now. Everything concerning Mr.Castan's book: opinions, criticism, review or whatever should be posted here.

Originally Posted by Germanophile-1

Thanks Kilian (and Tom, too) for keeping me posted.

Now, of course, comes the great trial by fire and water -- your opinion of it shared with the Forum.

Meanwhile, I finally received a copy of Castan's MvR "psycho-biography" (for lack of a better term) and will start reading it. I'm in to the local hosptal, on Monday, for knee repair surgery, so delving into this book will take up some of the time I would ordinarily have spent on the couch, talking to the cat, in the coming week or so.

I'll keep the Forum posted, of course. Indeed, I wonder whether we should open a new thread on this subject?

Peter

I have the book in my shelve and started reading it but had to stop for various reasons, i will try finish reading over christmas holidays and report.

[Kilian]

Hi Peter and others,

Just to give you few points out of my personal opinion as a native speaker, which enraged me about Dr.Castan's book until page 120 and which makes it hard for me to read it further on a neutral basis.

1.) Castans indexing is improper. I find a name register but some appear even before the mentioned page in the register or manyfold in the book.

2.)This is the case with Skawran. A quote of Skawrans book appears already on page 88 in context with Richthofen's handling of the casualties of his aereal victories and is only referenced in the chapter notes. In my opinion, highly improper to put this quote in such a context. He relativates it then in the next sentence but states only that it's the opinion of a "psychologist" which might not be true. I think on page 160 then he describes Skawrans theories (im not yet there in the book) but this should have done before and explain what kind of an individuum Skawran was.

3.)His footnotes give only Author's name, year and page. Reader has to know which book is meant if he wants to understand something. Some of them have written more than one book. Confuses unexperienced readers in the wwi aviation field.

4.)Concept of the book is unclear to me like it was stated here on the forum, similar to a psycho biography trying to confute the common image of a "knight in the skys" in MvR. I dont think such an attempt can be made with MvR because factors of the "Zeitgeist" of the Kaiserreich should not be underestimated and cannot be used valuable in a psycho-analysis. Especially not literature after ca 1937 can be used for this such an analysis as referencing.

regards
Kilian

[Kosh]

Have not read the book inquestion, however, I wish to comment upon criticism 3: that is not an uncommon referencing practice. Though does he have a separate bibliorpahy section detailing his refs? I mean that if e.g. Hidolf Atler wrote 3 books-in 1976, 1987 and 1999-it would be acceptable to ref to them like "Atler (1987) pp. 231".

[Kilian]

Originally Posted by Kosh

Have not read the book inquestion, however, I wish to comment upon criticism 3: that is not an uncommon referencing practice. Though does he have a separate bibliorpahy section detailing his refs? I mean that if e.g. Hidolf Atler wrote 3 books-in 1976, 1987 and 1999-it would be acceptable to ref to them like "Atler (1987) pp. 231".

Yes i know, he has a sperate bibliography but i think this method is very inconvenient for this book. Nevermind this is not the main reason for my criticism.

I pretty much agree with this book review published in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on December 2nd 2007.

Sachbuch - Feuilleton - FAZ.NET - : Fliegen ist kälter als der Tod

I give only a free translation summary of the first paragraph:

This book makes sad. Not beause it is so glaring botched but because it so close scrapes past a success. Everything is there the whole material, the eye-witness reports, the research literature, the quotations of the flying hero, the ideological cramp of the past generations, the medical diagnosises, the reconstruction of the last flight, the contemporary history, the psychology. But still nothing develops out of it. It severely lacked an adamant editor to free the book of sour hokum, his assertiveness, and tear out his linguistic ramifications, and it needed an organizing head to sort all his material. Then it would have been an important and readable book. But this head wasn there.

Merry Christmas,
Kilian

[Germanophile-1]

Originally Posted by Kilian

Hi Peter and others,

<snip, snip>

2.)This is the case with Skawran. A quote of Skawran's book appears already on page 88 in context with Richthofen's handling of the casualties of his aerial victories and is only referenced in the chapter notes. In my opinion, highly improper to put this quote in such a context. He relativates it then in the next sentence but states only that it's the opinion of a "psychologist" which might not be true. I think on page 160 then he describes Skawran's theories (im not yet there in the book) but this should have done before and explain what kind of an individual Skawran was.

As I noted on another thread (and Kilian is quite right, Castan's book deserves its own thread), I was appalled to find that Castan even used Skawran's book, which reinforces 3rd Reich racial theories, etc. But Kilian has hit the nail on the head: at first glance, the reader does not know what kind of "psychologist" Skawran was.

Personally, I feel that Skawran's work is so out of touch with reality that it should not have been used at all -- but Kilian has refined the point so that, if used at all, Skawran's work need some sort of context. Castan made little effort to provide it.

Now the question in my mind is: how valid is the work of other "psychologists" cited by Castan?

My overall opinion of Castan's book is that it is neither valid psychology nor history (e.g., Castan's reference to "the Sopwith Camel triplane"). He is proud of the fact that the book has quickly gone into its third printing -- and that's where the money is. But not where the valid historical research is.

It seems to me that Castan took a position and then built a case to support it. A sad way to make money.

Peter Kilduff

[acer]

The first one who debunked this book at the AERODROME was ZAK.

New Richthofen biography

acer

[FOKKERJ]

Originally Posted by acer

The first one who debunked this book at the AERODROME was ZAK.

New Richthofen biography

acer

Thanks acer.

I miss ZAK!

Here's to a Better, Healthy, and Happy New Year....FOKKERJ

[Germanophile-1]

Returning to the original purpose of this thread, here (below) is a new review of Der Rote Baron: Die ganze Geschichte des Manfred von Richthofen, as it appeared yesterday (7/17/08) on the German History List. It is intended for college and university specialists in German history, and, in view of the previous comments posted on this thread, may be of interest to Forumites. FWIW, my response to the review appears in the next Forum posting.

Peter
________________________________

From: H-NET List on German History
Sent: Thu 7/17/2008 4:49 AM
To: H-GERMAN@H-NET.MSU.EDU
Subject: REV: Byers on Castan, _Der Rote Baron_


H-NET BOOK REVIEW
Published by H-German@h-net.msu.edu (July 2008)

Joachim Castan. _Der Rote Baron: Die ganze Geschichte des Manfred von
Richthofen_. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2007. 360 pp. Maps, tables,
photographs, endnotes, bibliography, index. EUR 24.50 (cloth), ISBN
978-3-608-94461-7.

Reviewed for H-German by Richard Byers, Department of History, North Georgia College and State University

Demythologizing the Red Baron

Few figures of aviation history rank higher in popular consciousness than Manfred von Richthofen, the greatest air ace of the First World War, forever immortalized in western culture as the "Red Baron." Historian and documentary producer Joachim Castan, with assistance from Richthofen's surviving descendants, has written a new biography of the air ace due to the need, in the author's view, to confront the mythological memory of the Red Baron, replete with "gross exaggerations, vulgar clichés, wishful thinking, pure fantasy, beloved legends and bright shining lies" (p. 15), with the "complete" history of his short but illustrious life. The work that results from this approach is a richly-detailed, more nuanced assessment of Richthofen than earlier works, which Castan rightly asserts based their arguments on popular mythological assumptions rather than documentary evidence. Castan's access to Richthofen's personal papers and family archival holdings, cited extensively throughout his account, reinforce his theses and provide a wealth of information for interested scholars and non-scholars, particularly into the family relationships of the Richthofen clan from the beginning of the twentieth century into the First World War and beyond.

Many aspects of this work warrant praise. Castan's documentary background makes him keenly aware of the importance of the role played by the German government and media in transforming Manfred von Richtofen from an unknown airman into a national celebrity. With the death of the previous air "idol," Oswald Boelcke, in late 1916, German military officials embraced and cultivated Richtofen as Boelcke's heir and successor. As a result, Richtofen's meetings with higher officials and the kaiser were carefully choreographed to maximize their potential as propaganda, both for internal and external consumption. Castan is at his best here, as he narrates the growth of the Red Baron's fame and transformation, by 1917, into wartime Germany's most recognized hero. Additionally, Castan's concluding chapter on the use of Richtofen by the Nazis, and the development of the "Cult of the Red Baron" during their reign, is a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the air ace's posthumous legacy, and will be of interest to scholars of the propaganda and mythology of the Third Reich. When he moves into contemporary discussions of Richtofen's utility as an example for the Bundeswehr and NATO, however, he is on less solid ground.

More problematic, though, are Castan's attempts to analyze the Red Baron psychologically, a theme that recurs throughout the work. Correctly confronting the partisan nature of previous literature, which uncritically accepted wartime representations of Richtofen as a paragon of Prussian and German chivalry and honor, Castan draws from Richtofen's 1917 autobiography and unpublished family documents to paint a different picture of the air ace as a cold, amoral aerial predator who sought to hunt and kill his opponents in a manner reminiscent of a game hunter. In Castan's view, Richtofen never viewed his enemies as human; instead, he viewed them as "targets" to be shot, and their aircraft debris as trophies to be displayed at the squadron mess hall, like the preserved heads of vanquished game. Castan repeatedly attempts to explain these realities by resorting to psychological analysis of Richtofen's childhood, adolescence, and family relationships. This process does yield some interesting insights, such as the recognition that Richtofen never developed a normal maternal bond with his mother, but in my opinion Castan's approach never materializes into a convincing case that helps explain Richtofen's actions and motivations. As many readers will recognize, psycho-historical approaches are useful as a tool to help explain the actions of historical actors, but they rarely achieve this aim in isolation from other methodologies. Castan's approach is no exception. At times these sections become repetitive, lessening the impact of the overall narrative, and they tend to minimize the importance of the brutal wartime environment on Richtofen and his contemporaries. Castan correctly points out that Richtofen's perspective on aerial combat was hardly unique; nearly all of the most successful "air aces" of the war possessed the same detached, perhaps pathological attitude toward their actions.

Despite these criticisms, however, this important work furthers our understanding of the First World War's most recognizable figure. It also encourages scholars of German military history to consider a re-evaluation of the conflict and its protagonists, in line with recent research on the conduct and motives of combatants in the Second World War, and to take the ideological atmosphere of the First World War seriously. More similarities may be found between the two conflicts in these terms than previous scholarship has suggested. Additionally, his astute analysis of the problematic nature of German military heroism, and its legacy for present and future generations of German military personnel, is worth serious consideration.

Copyright (c) 2008 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits
the redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit,
educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the
author, web location, date of publication, originating list, and
H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For other uses
contact the Reviews editorial staff: hbooks@mail.h-net.msu.edu.

[Germanophile-1]

F.Y.I.:
====

Subj: Response to: Byers on Castan, _Der Rote Baron_
Date: 7/17/2008 3:06:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: pjk327@aol.com
To: h-german@h-net.msu.edu

As a specialist in World War I aviation history, I read with interest Richard Byers' review of Joachim Castan's book Der Rote Baron: Die ganze Geschichte des Manfred von Richthofen. However, I differ with Professor Byers on various points and, in general, have little regard for what he hails as Castan's "new biography" of Manfred Freiherr von Richthofen.

First, a correction about the review itself: Manfred von Richthofen, best known as "the red baron," died childless and so documentary evidence came not from the famed combat pilot's "surviving descendants," of which there were none; rather, from a variety of sources that have been in use since Floyd Gibbons' popular 1927 biography The Red Knight of Germany. Copies of these may materials may indeed be in the hands of current members of the extended Richthofen family, but, in my reading of Castan's book, I did not find any "new" information from family or other sources.

Castan's book contains an impressive bibliography that includes much of what has been written about Richthofen. And I suppose I should feel flattered that he includes a number of my books. But, Der Rote Baron: Die ganze Geschichte des Manfred von Richthofen appears to be mostly a derivative text - drawing extensively on the work of other writers, with no new information cited either in notes or the bibliography.

From a review of Castan's book in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, I sensed that the book's purpose is to delve into Richthofen's inner feelings and motivations. That's hard to when the subject has been dead for nearly 90 years, especially when based solely on his and others' writings. Castan claims no credentials in the behavioral sciences, yet he attempts to invoke those disciplines to understand the man.

In my reading of Castan's book, I was troubled by a serious reference to one alleged behavioral science text in his bibliography: Psychologie des Jagdfliegers - Beruehmte Flieger des Weltkrieges by Dr. Paul Robert Skawran, Professor of Psychology of the University of Pretoria, South Africa (Junker und Duennhaupt Verlag, Berlin, 1940). I am familiar with Skawran's book, much of which is clearly an exercise in "junk science," attempting to identify a "Richthofen Type" or a " Billy Bishop (the top-scoring Allied fighter pilot of World War I) Type," drawing on long since discredited Third Reich-era theories about various European "racial" characteristics as predictors of subsequent actions and behavior.

Likewise, Castan's contention that "Richt[h]ofen never developed a normal maternal bond with his mother" is not supported by the existing documentation or any other known anecdotal evidence. On the contrary, a book attributed to Richthofen's mother -- Mein Kriegstagebuch by Kunigunde Freifrau von Richthofen (Ullstein, Berlin, 1937) - contains letters and other sources to show the Richthofen family to be cohesive and not dysfunctional. Again, where is Castan's proof?

Finally, Professor Byers states that "this important work furthers our understanding of the First World War's most recognizable figure." I cannot agree with that contention, as my reading of the book did not uncover "new" material or any reasonable use of behavioral sciences in Castan's conclusion about Manfred von Richthofen.

On the other hand, Castan's book contains factual errors (e.g., misidentification of aircraft) that may be important only to more technically-minded readers. But, as he could not get these facts straight, it does not surprise me that other parts of the book are wrong, as well.

Peter Kilduff

[crankcase]

If he was counting on riding the coattails of the movie, then I suppose he didn't get very far?
marc