April, 21 1918, A Legend Was Made “MvR”

[Vin]

Originally posted by Lepetitrouge@May 1 2004, 01:03 AM
[b] Well then, if you are going that way, we also have to point out that people can't say demeaning things Richthofen. We don't afterall know what he was really like, as a person...but we do know that he was dedicated. He did go up in the air in a wooden box to fight many, many times. These things we do know. The rest is just perception of the events, opinions.

Dedicated yes, but no more than any other pilot who went up. I suspect we are in heated agreement, Lepetitrouge. Mythology, negative or positive, is objectionable when presented as fact. Some of the material posted in this thread is soppy, emotional nonsense.

Some of it perhaps...however, as I say, it does go both ways. Ever paged through some of Arch Whitehouse's work? I'm sure some of the stuff in there about Richthofen could be written off as soppy nonsense. It's a matter of opinion. I agree that when looking at figures of history, we must look at them realistically and in the context of the times...I'm sure there are many people that are on different sides concerning Richthofen. We know a lot of the events, but what we don't know, and can't say while still speaking in the realm of realism, is if he did it for this reason or for that reason, if he was this personality or that personality. He was a hero to his country in WW1...and I don't think a person's opinion of what he was like as a person, can change that fact. However, looking back, I suppose my comment that he was 'honorable' could be written off as soppy nonsense as well....but in the opinion of a good number of people, he was that way. Today, I don't think that anyone can prove or disprove whether he was honorable or a good person caught in the events of that time....we simply don't know for sure. Definitively is the word I'm looking for here. There simply aren't the facts to support either case...so we are just left with our perception of why he did what he did.

[Vin]

Comments about the personality or character of WW 1 pilots are overwhelmingly pure speculation. Occasionally, a contributor will quote a comment from someone who knew the pilot. You can’t complain about that. Cobby describes Mannock as a good commander with an aggressive attitude towards the enemy. I don’t know whether that is true or not, but Cobby shared an aerodrome with Mannock. I have read that Lufbery described Luke as the best fighter pilot on the Western Front or words to that effect. I query Lufbery’s capacity or qualification to make that evaluative judgment but I’m happy to say Cobby says that Mannock was etc. and that Lufbery say that Luke etc but you can’t accept these opinions as fact. Speculation is ok as long as it is acknowledged as speculation and not as fact. Some material published as fact is just embarrassing sentimentality.

I agree.

[NeilE]

Hey! its another me too post!

Even us hard nosed realists can indulge ourselves occasionally!

ATB

Neil

[Vin]

I think I should have written Hartney instead of Lufbery. Attention to detail.

Indeed I enjoyed debating with you. Always good to talk to intelligent people.

[Vin]

Likewise. However you debated more with Neil than me. Wise choice. He is the intelligent one.

I figured you and Neil had pretty much the same view on this.

[Stephan]

As regards what we do know of Richthofen or don't know of him, I would say that the best source is the people who knew him. & the people who flew with him. People like Schoenbeck & Lowenhardt etc. I admit even these people may have a biased view of him, but certainly their point of view is more credible that Townsend Bickers or Arch Whitehouse.

I'm not throwing stones at Bickers, he flew in coastal command in ww 2 which had an 11% survival rate,( somethin like that), So he's earned to a degree the right to say whatever he bloody hell wants. I have his autographed book about Ginger Lacey. Its good. His Richthofen book is awful though.