July-Dec 1917

[Old Man]

Originally Posted by Romani

Josquin, you got it all backwards, you are blaming Greg for finally reacting to the abusive conduct of some other poster.

When somebody as respected, moderated, polite, civil, and wich does his utmost to keep out of the heated controversies in this forum such as Mister VanWyngarden, does intervene and does it in such strong wording it means some poster(s) have finally abused the forum patience beyond the limit, and such posting is only the tip of the iceberg as the silent majority has elected to remain silent.


PS: I really regret posting two messages that are unrelated to the original thread subject. I would really love to convey some of my thoughts regarding the air war in this thread and the other one, but thread hijacking and the attitude of certain posters has disheartened me and caused me to lose interest in this forum for the past months.

I hope, my friend, we can keep this discussion from getting side-tracked further. I feel some degree of responsibility, having introduced the topic of the schlachtstaffeln, which has blown up into this. It hardly seemed controversial to me to state that the specialist German ground attack formations carried out their work vigorously, and to some good effect from the German point of view. It still does not. I am certainly pleased to see Mr. Gregvan weigh in with some particulars, albeit from a different engagement. I also find Mr. Gannon to be very informative and precise in his presentation of the fine-grained 'who got who where and when' of aerial combat between the English and the Germans. I cannot speak to his full presentation of 'Germanophilia' in some quarters, but I will say that there is a romance to 'the lost cause' that can capture students of history. People who study something long and deeply tend to develop an affection for it, and even to identify with it to some degree. I think this might operate a little more powerfully where the German aspects of the Great War are concerned. I suspect that, from one side, some may look to the Great War as a sort of redemption from the Hitlerite period, as Germany's 'good war', so to speak, while from the other side, some may feel a temptation to read that latter period back into the earlier time, and allow the jaundice proper to the Hitlerite period to color attitudes towards the day of the Kaisers. One other thing I suspect may influence some of this is persistence of a feeling, quite prevelant at the start of the Great War, incidentally, that war is a sphere for displaying 'manly virtues', indeed that display of 'manly virtues' is its root purpose, and that victory goes, or ought to go, to the contestant who makes the best display of these. That has probably never been true, but it is certainly false in the machine age, and in war marked by mass, mechanized mobilization of whole societies.

"God made men; Col. Colt made 'em equal."

[josquin]

Romani and Gentlemen of the Forum

Despite Romani's claim that I was casting blame upon Greg, I was
doing no such thing. Nothing in my wording, I believe, suggested any
attribution of blame of any kind. I had reviewed Russ Gannon's posts
for this thread and I did not notice any statements that warranted
Greg's ad hominem excursion. It is most unfortunate that Forumites
persist in dragging-in unresolved "history" of past exchanges on this
Forum as well as others. My post stated, simply, that such behavior
is as unwarranted as it is unnecessary given that there was no
provocation I could detect in the present thread. I stand by my statement--
however reversed or backward it may be. I am still interested solely in
the acquisition and assessment of facts and the analysis of the
strategic and tactical significance of such data. I have no interest
in promoting or enduring nationalist and ideological agendas of any variety.
If calling attention to something is "blaming," then I stand so accused.

Regards

Josquin

[bristol scout]

Josquin,
The 'jury' of commonsense and reasonableness finds you not guilty---with a false accusation brought against you-------you are free to go

Cheers,
Dave.
EDIT------But don't go far!

[Romani]

Sentence first! Verdict later!

Off with their heads!

I had reviewed Russ Gannon's posts for this thread and I did not notice any statements that warranted Greg's ad hominem excursion. It is most unfortunate that Forumites persist in dragging-in unresolved "history" of past exchanges on this Forum as well as others. My post stated, simply, that such behavior is as unwarranted as it is unnecessary given that there was no provocation I could detect in the present thread.

Josquin, I agree with you word by word. But sometimes it only takes a spark as it happened in Sarajevo. But I felt neccessary to point out that Mister Gannon had it coming for a long time.

When Gannon, in almost, every post dismisses contemptuously the work of respected historians who have been researching their subject for decades as biased and worthless because they are "Hun loving Germanophiles"...wether it is true or not, well, eventually something has to give and people lose their tempers.

I imagine nothing can't hurt more for a professional historian to be accused of intellectual dishonesty. Sure, historians on both sides are human and fallible, and they have their bias, their likes and dislikes, they may interpret wrongly their data and arrive to mistaken conclusions... but I believe that the inmense majority of them, and in particular those that grace this forum with their presence, strive for the truth.

Can we just get along and agree to disagree? I will be the first, on my part no grudges held either towards Russ Gannon or Dave Bristol on account of past clashes.

Let's hope other posters return to these interesting debates.

[bristol scout]

Fair comments Romani---indeed fair.
One point worth, perhaps, your consideration---not all historians are deserving of respect---i can think of a great many who have done serious disservices to the understanding--the proper understanding of history--from ancient times through to modern times. I bet you can also! I bet just about everyone here can!

Many of these so called historians are 'biased' Think of the pronouncements of Liddel-Hart--Proffessor Paul Fussell---Alan Clarke--and that is just a few from W.W.1---off the top of my head.

I feel you (perhaps not alone) consider me not only a Germanophobe but a Francophobe also. I am not either NOW. (with one probable exception---but i live in hope with that)! The fact that i would have been a Francophobe during the Napoleonic Wars should be quite easy to understand.
Here was a megalomaniac with intent to rule the World, and 'my' people would have fared no better (and almost certainly worse) than the rest of those already under his tyranny. I trust this goes without saying.
Equally, you know where i'm going with this, i WOULD have been a Germanophobe had i lived at a time when the Kaiser and his militaristic clique---bent on European (to begin with----who knows how much of a 'place in the sun' may have been coveted if history had worked out differently) domination.
And so on and so on----you follow my drift.

I AM NOT a Germanophobe now----no problem with NOW! My problem---although i never feel it is a problem---is the correct reading of history and the correct lessons we should draw from history. ALL of the subject matter we discuss here is, surely, history----things that happened in the PAST (please forgive my capitals) We are passionate, all of us, about it of course, and that can lead to moments of extreme 'heat'----but it most definately should not lead us to feel that these moments are personal attacks.

My stance as a 'Westerner' conflicts (as a perfect example i think) with 'Old Man's stance as an 'Easterner'---regarding, you might say, the entire subject of W.W.1----we differ fundamentally---no less---i know he will agree.
And yet we can do so with complete equanimity---with amity, easily!

Do i think i can learn nothing from him on a huge range of areas regarding this war---or, hopefully him from me----of course not. We learn from each other.
We immediately and without any rancour 'agreed (to use your own words) to disagree'

I might as well come clean Romani, to not do so would be disingenuous, i admit to having a deal of Francophobia ---latent, if not actual.

I, like yourself, have strong views on some matters---history is one such---nothing at all unique there, i know. We all have. Difficult though it may be for you to believe----i would love dearly our debates, even when heated and not finding common ground to be 'civil'-----perhaps we can all go with that

Sincerley,
Dave.

[R Gannon]

"Early in the day the I and II 100 were ordered to assemble near Athies and suffered losses of 8 Officers and 125 men in a few seconds from air bombs"

KTB Gren Regt 100 for 25 Mar 18 - they had been bombed by low flying DH4's from 5 Naval Squadron.

Now I'm sure the late Rick Duiven has provided a worthy salute to the Schlachstafflen and it is on my must get list, but as with the Jagdstafflen, my grass roots research leaves me wondering whether they gave all when it really mattered.

Now the German instruction 'The Attack in Position Warfare' dated 1 Jan 18 and signed by Ludendorf had this to say: "Battle Flights should not direct their attacks only on the enemy's front line, they should also seek suitable targets further to the rear e.g. hostile battaries still in action, reserves in readiness or advancing, traffic on the roads chiefly used by the enemy for bringing up reinforcements and supplies."

Clear enough to me as an ex-soldier but in the reality of the Michael Offensive and with 23 Schlata's in direct support, this never eventuated. Particularly on the critical days of 23 to 25 March when the British rear areas were a congested mess. As HA Jones points out in 'The War in the Air' Vol IV in regards the offensive: 'The enemy airmen did some desultory bombing by night in the front area, and made many low flying attacks by day, but there was no attempt comporable with the organised concentrations of the Royal Flying Corps.' he goes on to say: "Had the German air service undertaken a vigorous offensive against the congested and vunerable British lines of communication, it would have exerted a greater influence on the battle...'

For the record, the British flung in pretty well every available Fighter, fighter Recon, Bomber and even Corps aircraft into low bomb and MG attacks on the Germans in their rear areas in an attempt to stem the German advance. I've posted these figures before but they are pretty telling:

21 Mar 18 - 18,000 rounds & 15.5 tons of bombs, 22 Mar - 41,000rds & 21t, 23 Mar - 44,000 & 33t, 24 Mar - 82,000 & 36.5t, 25 Mar - 92,000 & 33t, 26 Mar - 228,000 & 29t, 27 Mar - 313,000 & 50t and 28 Mar - 242,000 & 40t.

Moreover German regimental histories resound to the effectiveness of these attacks - whilst evidence of Schlasta activities in British histories is at best moderate.

Just calling a spade a spade.

Cheers Russ

[R Gannon]

Old Man

Thanks for the data in post # 35 - I'll will enter that into my log. Also along with Josquin, thanks for the even handed words. I always stive to be civil those who are civil.

Cheers Russ

[steven brown]

Russ,
Great post ( #56 ). The data on munitions expended is valuable to me. Becoming aware of statistics is an important tool of learning.

[R Gannon]

Steven

Good to hear. I take it then that you were not disgusted by it, or thought my praising of the British, instead of the Germans, was not bigotry.

Actually will run up something on 26 Mar 18 which I think you will find interesting.

Keep an open mind mate!

Cheers Russ

[R Gannon]

Romani

"When Gannon, in almost, every post dismisses contemptuously the work of respected historians who have been researching their subject for decades as biased and worthless because they are "Hun loving Germanophiles"...wether it is true or not, well, eventually something has to give and people lose their tempers."

1. I have NEVER contemptuously dismissed the work of respected historians.

2. I have NEVER used the the phrase 'Hun loving Germanophiles'.

Nothing bloody well annoys me more than people putting false words into my mouth. Get a grip of reality man.

Don't waste my time in future.

Gannon.