Birth of the Richthofen Circus?

Chock · 6 November 2009, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bristol scout

I can't remember in Bungays book 'The Most Dangerous Enemy'--which is about the Battle of Britain any references to Dresden
Dave.

Whilst Stephen Bungay's book is for the most part focused around the Battle of Britain, the book's title references the threat to long range European politics and not the Germans, who are not the titular 'most dangerous enemy'. Much of it examines the decision to engage the Germans rather than appease them, and the reasons for doing so; appeasement being something a good many short-sighted people in the UK were in favour of in 1939. Not choosing appeasement, thus kicking off the Battle of France and then the Battle of Britain, was a risky strategy at the time, because of inter war disarmament and Britain's unpreparedness, as demonstrated by the loss of the Battle of France, which for the most part was an attempted delaying action.

Nevertheless, because many, including Churchill, suspected that the Germans would probably lose a war against the Russians, which is where Germany's ultimate empire goals lay, in doing so, defeat would give the Russians free reign to make inroads deep into Europe, thus the strategy of challenging Hitler was chosen rather than the much easier choice of appeasing Hitler, because we know Hitler was not keen on the idea of fighting Britain and hoped to make peace with her when Britain pulled out of France, leaving him free to turn towards Russia.

Therefore, Bungay's book is not really about the Battle of Britain, but rather why it happened, and the morality and causes for the Second World War which led to it, since 'the most dangerous enemy' is a reference to the Russians and the ultimate threat they would pose in the 1950s if they had fought Germany alone and won in Europe. That was the brilliance of Churchill, which is still not recognised by many, even today.

In adopting the strategy to challenge the Nazis, Churchill knew that it would eventually bankrupt the country and probably be a catalyst for the end of the British Empire, but he regarded that as the price to pay for defeating National Socialism on more favourable terms for Europe and more importantly, to prevent a huge Communist Bloc European mainland, from which, the UK would almost certainly have also capitulated.

If you missed that point, and the further way in which it examines the morality of other issues including bombing of cities and such, which Churchill instigated during the Battle of Britain with a raid on Berlin, then you missed the point of the book, and indeed why it is so good.

Al

bristol scout · 6 November 2009, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chock

Whilst Stephen Bungay's book is for the most part focused around the Battle of Britain, the book's title references the threat to long range European politics and not the Germans, who are not the titular 'most dangerous enemy'. Much of it examines the decision to engage the Germans rather than appease them, and the reasons for doing so; appeasement being something a good many short-sighted people in the UK were in favour of in 1939. Not choosing appeasement, thus kicking off the Battle of France and then the Battle of Britain, was a risky strategy at the time, because of inter war disarmament and Britain's unpreparedness, as demonstrated by the loss of the Battle of France, which for the most part was an attempted delaying action.

Nevertheless, because many, including Churchill, suspected that the Germans would probably lose a war against the Russians, which is where Germany's ultimate empire goals lay, in doing so, defeat would give the Russians free reign to make inroads deep into Europe, thus the strategy of challenging Hitler was chosen rather than the much easier choice of appeasing Hitler, because we know Hitler was not keen on the idea of fighting Britain and hoped to make peace with her when Britain pulled out of France, leaving him free to turn towards Russia.

Therefore, Bungay's book is not really about the Battle of Britain, but rather why it happened, and the morality and causes for the Second World War which led to it, since 'the most dangerous enemy' is a reference to the Russians and the ultimate threat they would pose in the 1950s if they had fought Germany alone and won in Europe. That was the brilliance of Churchill, which is still not recognised by many, even today.

In adopting the strategy to challenge the Nazis, Churchill knew that it would eventually bankrupt the country and probably be a catalyst for the end of the British Empire, but he regarded that as the price to pay for defeating National Socialism on more favourable terms for Europe and more importantly, to prevent a huge Communist Bloc European mainland, from which, the UK would almost certainly have also capitulated.

If you missed that point, and the further way in which it examines the morality of other issues including bombing of cities and such, which Churchill instigated during the Battle of Britain with a raid on Berlin, then you missed the point of the book, and indeed why it is so good.

Al

I think you protest too much----indeed I have, have read, and fully understood the book you mentioned as 'one of the books you cited as "your main source of info. on Dresden" Now it is all about appeasement and "not really about the Battle of britain"--which I find very odd as it is subtitled 'A History of the Battle of Britain'....! You insult my intelligence to assume I would not understand it's import!

But it is clearly all about Dresden---which you seem so hung up on that you read about it in a book that has nothing whatsoever to do with it---and does'nt mention it once---shows how much of it YOU understood I should say!

Dave.

R Gannon · 6 November 2009, 04:12 PM

Manfred

I do not want to get involved in an acrimonius blame game debate about WW1 or WW2 - although I am not oblivious to the arguments raised by yourself & Bristol - I only get 50 minutes a day on this site and prefer to stick to the operational aspects of the WW1 air war.

No I must admit I have not seen the full Wenzel account (except for 21 Apr 18). I would guess your incomplete quote started with a reference to the demise of

Hans Weiss in combat with Sopwith's around midday on 2 May 18! Followed by the fatal crash of Scholz late in the afternoon. Just of couse was wounded next day and makes sense that WOLFRAM v Richthofen & J Wolff would be off to Berlin for MvR memorial. Carius & von Conta were both posted out on 29 Apr, whilst

LvR & Mohnicke were still in hospital recovering from combat wounds & injuries and as stated by Wenzl -Steinhauser was still unfit to fly also recovering from a wound. There is of course the Gabriel question - posted in on 17 Apr 18 - where was he? So when one adds other recent losses Gussman 7 Apr , the guy I forget the name on 12 Apr and MvR on 21 Apr then it sounds to sense that the Jasta with the 'great reputation' would have been thin on the ground in the first week of May.

But then it looks to me that you have not seen the diaries of Strahle & Raesch; as these give the strengths (by names) of patrols flown by Js 18/56 & Js 43. (C&C US & C&C GB) So too the partial Js 27 KTB produced in OTF. And these well an truly back my assertion as to combat strengths.

Just for the record Weiss was killed in combat with a 5 strong patrol of 209 Sqn which attacked a formation of 8 Triplanes (Combat report states - various colours). Taylor crashing the 'white' one of Weiss. As at best Js 11 could have sent up 6 Triplanes, one must wonder if it was a combined JGI patrol. As for Just wia, the most likely candidate is 24 Sqn - an 11 strong combined B&C Flights patrol happened on a fight between French SPAD's and German 2-seaters and observed a formation of 4 Triplanes attempting to attack the SPAD's - these were engaged by 24 Sqn with one being crashed.

Manfred you must understand that I am not oblivious to the German side of things. As I am a firm believer that you can only truly understand the face of battle (air, land & sea) when you take the time to look at the accounting of both sides of the hill. One sided accounting always leaves one vunerable to the accusation of bigotry.

Cheers Russ

Chock · 6 November 2009, 04:40 PM

Every time you come up with a reply, it invariably has a little tweak to what I wrote, in a crude attempt to adjust the meaning of what I've written, and as much as you would like it to, putting such tweaks in your own quotation marks does not make what you write, equate to what I wrote.

So, I'll repeat it, I wrote that Bungay's book was one of my sources relating to Dresden, not on Dresden. Frankly, making such silly tweaks to my text in an attempt to have your arguments suit something I didn't even write, is laughable.

Next, it is indeed subtitled 'a history on the Battle of Britain', but you'll note that it is not subtitled 'a history of the Battle of Britain', a subtle difference, but an important one with regard to its focus. Furthermore, at no point did I write that the book was about Dresden, as you are attempting to imply I did. I wrote it was about the reasons for WW2 and the decisions behind it and the morality of such decisions, which led to the Battle of Britain. The relevance being that the battle was the first one in WW2 where cities were bombed as a deliberate policy by Churchill (which you'll remember was something you yourself also pointed out in relation to me mentioning Harris), in reprisal for a Luftwaffe bomber which apparently accidentally dumped its bombs over London. That is where the connection is, since it was a policy that escalated, effectively being the thin end of the wedge which culminated in raids such as the one on Dresden.

But to be honest, I don't even care if you understand that. You are clearly not in the slightest bit interested in what I've written, as evidenced by those childish tweaks to what I've written in an attempt to twist the meaning. And as far as insulting your intelligence goes, I think it would be hard to insult it more than you have done yourself with such childishly transparent actions.

Al

Dan_San_Abbott · 6 November 2009, 05:13 PM

Bristol Scout:
I concurr with your statements, Germany violated the Geneva Conventions of 1899 and subsequent, invasion of Belgium in 1914, the Zeppelin bombing of England 1915 and subsequent and the Gotha bombing in 1917 was indiscriment contrary to whatever they thought they were doing. It was civilians that were killed. The sinking of passenger ships, the Lusitania that finally brought the USA into the war. It was these acts that led to the retaliation by Great Britain into the bombing of Germany in 1918.
Once the rules of warfare are ignored and war is declared on the civilian population, you have estabished total warfare, and this is what Germany had done with the U-Boats and Zeppelins attacking civilians. The attacked must respond in kind. This is what took place with the estabishment of the Independant Force for the bombing of Germany.
Who first used poisionist gas, and the flame thrower. It was not the French British or Russians, it was Germany,The Great War ended at 11.00 am, on !! November 1918. World War 2 started on 12 November 1918 in retaliation, first planned by General Arnim von Seeck and completed by Adolf Hitler.
Blue skies Dave,
Dan-San
P.S. dave I agree, this is a Forum on the History of Military Aviation in the Great War, not the WW2.
It is not a Forum of WW2.

Chock · 6 November 2009, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_San_Abbott

Bristol Scout:
I concurr with your statements, Germany violated the Geneva Conventions of 1899 and subsequent, invasion of Belgium in 1914, the Zeppelin bombing of England 1915 and subsequent and the Gotha bombing in 1917 was indiscriment contrary to whatever they thought they were doing. It was civilians that were killed. The sinking of passenger ships, the Lusitania that finally brought the USA into the war. It was these acts that led to the retaliation by Great Britain into the bombing of Germany in 1918.

Just a few corrections worth pointing out. There was no Geneva Convention of 1899. The first Geneva Convention took place in 1864, with the second taking place in 1906. It was the Hague Convention which took place in 1899, and the sections in that convention, made binding in 1900, on 'The launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons', which is about as close as it gets to dealing with bombing from the air, were only deemed to be binding until September 1905. Therefore, aerial bombing in WW1 was not actually covered at all by either those Geneva or Hague Conventions, since the Geneva Convention was mostly to do with the treatment of prisoners and combat casualties. That doesn't make bombing cities from the air any less reprehensible of course, but those are the facts.

The lack of the treaty mentioning that stuff is sort of understandable given that at the time there was barely any capability to drop bombs from aeroplanes and Zeppelins at all, so to expect those articles to be in there would be a bit like expecting them to mention rules regarding laser-guided bombs. The 1907 Hague Convention was mostly about naval stuff, much of it on restricting submarine warfare to the need to stop and search a feighter or passenger ship before firing on it, and allowing the people on board to abandon ship first, but it is interesting to note that the Lusitania and the British were directly flouting many of the articles of that treaty in relation to its conversion and use, the Lusitania actually being registered as an Armed Merchant Cruiser and featuring in the 1914 edition of Jane's All the World's Fighting Ships. However, not to be outdone, the Germans were really going to town in flouting such treaty articles with their submarine fleet and the way they often used it in later stages of WW1.

At the time just preceding WW1, the Kaiser was in fact very keen to build a huge surface Navy, for he wanted Germany to have an Empire like the British had, and to do that, he needed a Navy like the British, but better, naturally. As a result, when the British had built its new capital ships, the famous Dreadnoughts, they had been limited in beam because of Britain's dockyard berth and dry-dock sizes, so none of them were wider than 90 feet. It is quite telling, and perhaps a little Freudian, that the Kaiser's new battleships were all ten feet wider than that!

However, the sinking of the Lusitania was not what brought the US into The Great War, in fact, the US President at the time the Lusitania was sunk - Woodrow Wilson - was expressly against joining the war following the attack, as evidenced by this quote from him in response to the incident:

'There is such a thing as being too proud to fight. There is such a thing as a nation being so right that it does not need to convince others, by force, that it is right.'

That statement was intended to quell any calls for a declaration of war, and it would be almost two years after the sinking of the Lusitania before the US finally would declare war, but Wilson's attitude at the time was roundly condemned in Britain's press, who were hoping for the US to join in the war immediately following the Lusitania's destruction, which is why they made much of it as propaganda and were somewhat economical with the facts about its orders and its cargo. Such attitudes expressed in the British press which promoted the image of an innocent civilian ship with no war materials on board having been cruelly massacred, mostly believed to be incontrovertibly true at the time, led to British soldiers at the front to begin nicknaming dud shells which either did not explode or misfired, 'Wilsons'. which might be considered a little unfair, since Woodrow Wilson of course knew what the ship was carrying.

There are lots of arguments about what exactly brought the US into The Great War, and it is fair to say that the sinking of the Lusitania was part of it, although probably more in relation to the way the British manufactured a lot of propaganda surrounding the event in those intervening two years or so, since Lusitania's sinking was in fact widely condemned in the German press and that of her allies, as well as by many of the German public, many of whom either doubted some of what they were being told with regard to it carrying arms, or were appalled that the Cunard line should risk passengers in such a way. There were other ships sunk by the Germans after the Lusitania which still did not prompt the declaration of war, including other Cunard liners on which American citizens were traveling too.

What probably is more pertinent to the US entering into The Great War with regard to German subs and their actions, is their operation just off the US coast, where they were regularly harassing neutral ships, many of which were of course American freighters, and that was a real challenge to the US and its trade.

It is not generally realised with regard to German subs in WW1 just how powerful some of them were; they were not the frail things we tend to see in most photos of the ones from the Flanders Fleet, which were small by virtue of the shallow English Channel and North Sea, in which they had to operate, the ones operated off the US coast were real monsters and were primarily intended to engage ships on the surface and slug it out if necessary, being genuine U-Boats, i.e. submersibles with very little sub-surface capability, rather than true submarines. For example, the U-Cruisers employed by the Germans off the US coast had a range of over 12,000 nautical miles and carried two 15 cm deck guns (nearly twice the calibre of the WW2 Type VII's deck gun), which is armament that would have put a good many military surface vessels to shame at the time. Such a U-Cruiser could have easily engaged a fairly large warship, since it had such a low profile itself, making it a tricky target. The Germans had eleven of that type of vessel alone. Another, the UEII class German U-Boat had a 10 cm deck gun, four bow torpedoes and could launch up to 72 mines too, which it often did, right in US coastal waters. The fact is, most German subs of WW1 were on par with the subs the US and Brits deployed at the start of WW2! So it was not surprising that the US wanted to put a stop to that kind of thing eventually, and who could blame them?

One could even argue that the US was always in The Great War to some extent, since it was providing a great deal of material to the British and French from almost the outset, and a good few US volunteers were joining military outfits in Europe long before the US as a nation was a combatant, and generally with the blessings of many people back home.

Sadly for the passengers on board the Lusitania in 1915, some of those munitions supplies bound for Britain from the US were on board her at the time she was attacked, in the shape of four million .303 rifle rounds and numerous artillery shell components, making her a legitimate target for the Germans, because the area in which she was engaged had been declared a War Zone by the British Admiralty the year before the sinking took place.

Al

crankcase · 7 November 2009, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManfredT

Russ,

I like to learn, but my interest will not change to the 'who shot who' minefield.

Germany fought in WWI against the whole English speaking world (USA, Great Britain, Australia. Canada, India), against the whole French speaking world (France, Belgium, Africa) and the Russian world.

This is not the place to ask why, but a place to think about the resources of Germany.

Did you know that sometimes a Jasta consists of only 4-5 pilots, with patrol for only two hours? The pilots you are missing were not shot down, they have never been with a Jasta.

I like your input, but in my opinion it would be better, if you take more the economic facts into account.

ManfredT

The seminal message that triggered the "off course-off topic" discussion seems to be Manfred's post (above). The context of his remarks (Germany's enemies and economics) was the resource scarcity limiting the aerial campaign. I leave it to forumites to judge whether this his words constituted a political statement or value judgment (deserving of rebuke).

In any case, can we not all exercise a bit of restraint?
marc

bristol scout · 7 November 2009, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crankcase

The seminal message that triggered the "off course-off topic" discussion seems to be Manfred's post (above). The context of his remarks (Germany's enemies and economics) was the resource scarcity limiting the aerial campaign. I leave it to forumites to judge whether this his words constituted a political statement or value judgment (deserving of rebuke).

In any case, can we not all exercise a bit of restraint?
marc

Thanks marc----and Dan-San--in fact the 'seminal' post I feel was Manfreds post 153 wherein HE mentioned, W.W.2 and dealt with the Bombing campaign in a pejorative manner that I only tried to balance by reminding him, and others, to not forget who started it!

I feel he became quite Anglophobic in post 157!

In post 132 (probably the first time we ever spoke together he called me 'hateful'--then in post 133---'an idiot'!!

Another poster took offence at my simple claim that England and France in W.W.1 were parliamentary Democracies-----142 and 147----but, in spite of my requests to 'correct me' (because he obviously thinks I'm wrong!) has remained quiet!

Chock criticises roundly and mentions allied war crimes IN THE SAME BREATH as German war crimes in two World Wars! But he uses a book about the Battle of Britain as ---and I quote exactly (as it is only right that I should---having been accused of more Machiavellianesque -----well, doctoring)--" My main sources for info relating to Dresden"

He further accuses me of ---for some, preumably Germanophobe reason of my own, of harping on things better left alone in case it upsets Germans--sort of thing---YET I DID NOT GO THERE FIRST-----and indeed he kept up with me post for post!

I agree with Russ of course---and with marc, and will drop out of this thread----but be assured that I feel not talking about history is no way to ascertain the truth about it, and that stance ill becomes a history based forum...

Dave.

ManfredT · 7 November 2009, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bristol scout

Thanks marc----and Dan-San--

In post 132 (probably the first time we ever spoke together he called me 'hateful'--then in post 133---'an idiot'!!

Dave.

"Let me say you are an idiot as the ancient Greek understood this term."

Dave,

these were my words. But you like your way.

ManfredT

Chock · 7 November 2009, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bristol scout

Chock criticises roundly and mentions allied war crimes IN THE SAME BREATH as German war crimes in two World Wars! But he uses a book about the Battle of Britain as ---and I quote exactly (as it is only right that I should---having been accused of more Machiavellianesque -----well, doctoring)--" My main sources for info relating to Dresden"

Again a tedious attempt to alter the meaning of things with selective editing and quotation marks, in missing off the surrounding sentences which give it relevance. A crude attempt to make it appear it was the only book I listed and alter the context of why it was written. It really is embarrassing to watch such clumsy efforts, and trust me, having spent several years as a newspaper sub-editor in the past, I've seen far better attempts.

Which brings us to this: I did not accuse you of being Machiavellian, to be Machiavellian requires intelligence and cunning. Don't flatter yourself; there is nothing very cunning about blatantly misquoting, or selectively editing someone in an attempt to change the meaning of what they have written when the preceding full text can be seen by people, especially from someone claiming to be the champion historical accuracy, and there's nothing at all intelligent about dragging it out further and drawing attention to the fact that you have done so.

You can write Chock did this, and Chock did that all you like, and even put quotation marks around it if you like, but anyone who can read and is prepared to look back a few pages on this thread can see that's exactly what you have done. Although God alone knows why they should want to waste the time when we are supposed to be discussing the formation of the Richthofen Circus and matters pertaining to it, rather than leaping on passing comments from people in order to whizz off into your preferred argumentative tangents.

Al