Last picture of the Red Baron??

tcrean7828 · 2 September 2010, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bristol scout

Tom,

I refute any accusation of my descending to semantics--- I merely think the fact that he was about to be fighting for his life, and quite probably about to kill his enemy in an inferior aeroplane deserves some mention other than "killed in a flying accident"

The fight with the two DH2's had lasted for-

"about 5 minutes strenuous fighting that two HA collided" ---- Alex Revell 'British Fighter Units Western Front 1914-16'

"...colliding with another member of his Jasta on the 28th. during a fight with 24 squadron..."

Norman Franks-'Who Downed The Aces In WW1'

"...he led his men into combat against a patrol of DH2's of No. 24 squadron. during that close quarter engagement.............another DH2, hotly pursued by von Richthofen, suddenly flew across their path......."

A.E. Ferko 'Richthofen'

"Over Pozieres they sighted two DH2's....the six Albatros then began a well practised manoeuvre........Boelcke took one of the DH2's, .....the De-Havillands twisted and turned like snipe......"

A. McKee-'The Friendless Sky'

"as the fight began, six more German fighters flew up. Two dived simultaneously on to Knights tail and collided...."

G. Morris 'The Royal Flying Corps-A History'

I have not 'laboured' the quotes in deference to your knowledge----but I question ---in the correct spirit---your careful (I assume) choice of words which completely minimised any 'combat induced accident'----

You say quite rightly that you "just repeated what you had read"-------so did I. The books I have read NEVER said he was "killed in an aircraft accident" He was killed in an accident whilst in combat with the enemy.

The DH2's were not superfluous, I think.

Dave.

Mate,
Just out of thought, who tied your knickers in a knot lately!

Recently in your posts, it seemes that you have been pissed off at anyone that mildly disagrees with your exact wording. If that is the case, why don't you bugger off for a while till you feel better.

I am not your enemy!!!!!!!!

I understand that you refute my idea (IDEA) and point out that I am accusing you of descending into semantics--- I am not accusing you of anything: in fact, I understand that you merely think the fact that he (Boelcke) was about to be fighting for his life, and quite probably about to kill his enemy in an inferior aeroplane (deserves some mention) other than "killed in a flying accident".
Mate, there is not a bloody thing I can do about that.

If you do not like what history has written, then bloody well wave a magic wand and change what is set down in the countless books that are out in the world regarding this subject. OK!!!! I didn't write the bloody reports, - OK!

As I said, I am not refuted your findings, I agreed with them, but please save your anger for someone elses shoes!

My only suggestion on this matter is, and I hightly recommend that you think about it, is to take a chill pill or something. You'll give yourself a heart attack or something if you keep this up.

Again I will repeat myself for those in the cheap seats: I am not your enemy!!!!!!!! Nuff said.

In response to anothers question: yes I was referring to Bohme.

ttfn

tcrean7828

tom

P.S. Mate I am not perfect and neither are you.

bristol scout · 2 September 2010, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcrean7828

Mate,
Just out of thought, who tied your knickers in a knot lately!

Recently in your posts, it seemes that you have been pissed off at anyone that mildly disagrees with your exact wording. If that is the case, why don't you bugger off for a while till you feel better.

I am not your enemy!!!!!!!!

I understand that you refute my idea (IDEA) and point out that I am accusing you of descending into semantics--- I am not accusing you of anything: in fact, I understand that you merely think the fact that he (Boelcke) was about to be fighting for his life, and quite probably about to kill his enemy in an inferior aeroplane (deserves some mention) other than "killed in a flying accident".
Mate, there is not a bloody thing I can do about that.

If you do not like what history has written, then bloody well wave a magic wand and change what is set down in the countless books that are out in the world regarding this subject. OK!!!! I didn't write the bloody reports, - OK!

As I said, I am not refuted your findings, I agreed with them, but please save your anger for someone elses shoes!

My only suggestion on this matter is, and I hightly recommend that you think about it, is to take a chill pill or something. You'll give yourself a heart attack or something if you keep this up.

Again I will repeat myself for those in the cheap seats: I am not your enemy!!!!!!!! Nuff said.

In response to anothers question: yes I was referring to Bohme.

ttfn

tcrean7828

tom

P.S. Mate I am not perfect and neither are you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow!--thats a pretty damned silly reponse to----this-

"went aloft only to be killed in an aircraft accident"

Well, yes, an accident Tom, but more a collision in the middle of a dogfight with D.H.2's.---death in combat with the enemy---surely

cheers,
Dave. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't wear "knickers"

"exact wording"---- I've seen people corrected for having the gall to call an F.1 triplane a Dr.1, and vice versa,--but no mention of "semantics" then!

I rather think "I do like" ---'what history has written'---hence my mild correction of your post------COMPLETE with smiley to prove none of your current invective is needed. 'History' confirms what I have offered--it does not deny it! Hence I do not understand your "wave a Magic wand"---nor the requirement for quite so many "bloody's"

My original post to you was of the very lightest----a subsequent post should have confirmed that.

I rather feel you 'protest too much', it is you who "does not like what History has written" I fear.

As for MY ANGER"--at no time did I post anything that should even of raised your eyebrow--let alone led to a lecture from you as though I was a recalcitrant schoolchild, and you the all wise teacher!-----Or, more condescending yet, you a doctor and me a patient!!

I will not descend to trade personal insults with you------your surfeit of "bloody's" and general tone throughout your last post leave me in little doubt that you are someone who just does not like being 'corrected'. Thats a pity for none of us are so clever that we can't be wrong----and corrections are what keep us all right, are they not? Perhaps you do not like being 'corrected' by me------is that it, is it a personal problem with me?

Certainly sounds like it is-----"bloody" this and "bloody" that!

You say you are "not my enemy" repeatedly---take a look again at my posts to you Tom-------what on earth is in them that should make you think I thought you were? What on earth is in them to occasion all this 'anger'?

Take a long hard look at your last to me------all that anger mate----perhaps you need that pill a damned site more than I do.....

Dave.

tcrean7828 · 2 September 2010, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bristol scout

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow!--thats a pretty damned silly reponse to----this-

"went aloft only to be killed in an aircraft accident"

Well, yes, an accident Tom, but more a collision in the middle of a dogfight with D.H.2's.---death in combat with the enemy---surely

cheers,
Dave. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't wear "knickers"

"exact wording"---- I've seen people corrected for having the gall to call an F.1 triplane a Dr.1, and vice versa,--but no mention of "semantics" then!

I rather think "I do like" ---'what history has written'---hence my mild correction of your post------COMPLETE with smiley to prove none of your current invective is needed. 'History' confirms what I have offered--it does not deny it! Hence I do not understand your "wave a Magic wand"---nor the requirement for quite so many "bloody's"

My original post to you was of the very lightest----a subsequent post should have confirmed that.

I rather feel you 'protest too much', it is you who "does not like what History has written" I fear.

As for MY ANGER"--at no time did I post anything that should even of raised your eyebrow--let alone led to a lecture from you as though I was a recalcitrant schoolchild, and you the all wise teacher!-----Or, more condescending yet, you a doctor and me a patient!!

I will not descend to trade personal insults with you------your surfeit of "bloody's" and general tone throughout your last post leave me in little doubt that you are someone who just does not like being 'corrected'. Thats a pity for none of us are so clever that we can't be wrong----and corrections are what keep us all right, are they not? Perhaps you do not like being 'corrected' by me------is that it, is it a personal problem with me?

Certainly sounds like it is-----"bloody" this and "bloody" that!

You say you are "not my enemy" repeatedly---take a look again at my posts to you Tom-------what on earth is in them that should make you think I thought you were? What on earth is in them to occasion all this 'anger'?

Take a long hard look at your last to me------all that anger mate----perhaps you need that pill a damned site more than I do.....

Dave.

Mate,
Nuff said.
I enjoy the exchange of views in history, and as I indicated, I am not perfect and neither is anyone else - unless someone is proclaiming to be the All Mighty.

I say aircraft accident - you say an aircraft accident while in a combat situation - the key word is Accident in both of our statements - right.

It just seems to me that you would like history to read more into it than history is allowing and I tend to read it as it is described. If I wanted to find out more about the subject than I would dig a little deeper.

Let us agree to disagree with what history has written - Ok.

ttfn

tcrean7828

tom

P.S. I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but at least I am in the shed. tc

bristol scout · 2 September 2010, 03:56 AM

"It just seems to me that you would like history to read more into it than history is allowing and I tend to read it as it is described."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Though to be honest I would have thought that the quotes from repected books I offered confirmed that I don't ------and you don't

I have never come across a book that fails to mention the fact of combat--it really is that simple.

"Agreeing to disagree...." that's much nicer-

It is a better by far stance than your earlier one though--and there it shall remain.

Cheers,
Dave.

redintheskies · 2 September 2010, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frontflieger

At least they are not talking about: "Last picture of the Red Baron??" - by accident.

Thorsten

yea, geez, thanks.

make fun of the tired one. LOL

anyway, thanks for helping, everybody.

Gman · 2 September 2010, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bristol scout

Just wanted to remind those that may not have known Tom

Werner Molders, as a for-instance, was obviously 'killed in a flying accident'---no enemy involved.

McCudden was obviously 'killed in a flying accident'--no enemy involved.

I just thought the expression 'flying accident' undermined the fact that he was engaged in combat with his enemy.

No offence to you----just trying to keep things honest and in perspective

Dave

For historical accuracy, let’s get the names right.
It is Werner Moelders, who died travelling to the funeral of Udet.
He was flying as a passenger.

As far as Boelcke is concerned let’s hear from an eyewitness:

(Richthofen’s words, my translation)
“Boelcke, several other gentlemen of the Jasta and I were entangled in aerial combat with Englishmen.
Suddenly I see how Boelcke, attacking an Englishman, is rammed in the air by one of our gentlemen. Nothing happened to the poor other gentleman.
Boelcke went down perfectly normally initially.
I followed him immediately. Later one wing broke off and he rushed into the deep…”

I find it interesting that Richthofen talks about

Erwin Boehme in a very formal and respectful way.
It was Richthofen, not Boehme who carried the ‘Ordenskissen’ (Boelcke’s decorations) during the funeral.

An accident is an accident even if it occurs during combat. Can’t see how the British
can claim this one for them.

bristol scout · 2 September 2010, 09:35 AM

You understand so little--no one was ever trying to "claim this one for them"-----find a post of mine where I try--you will look hard, and find nothing.....

"aerial combat"----vR seems to agree with me ---and all the 'others' I quoted----just for your benefit I repeat one last time-

The DH2's were not superfluous. The "accident" was combat induced.

As for spelling of German names---well, I for one DO think that is semantic, and pedantic, go and check around how many Europeans here spell English names wrong ---and I will rest comfortably in the arms of such erudite historians as Derek Wood and Derek Dempster who refer to him as 'Molders' ---in 'THE NARROW MARGIN'----and Stephen Bungay in 'The Most Dangerous Enemy'.

In fairness I am aware of the other spelling---it is used in Hough and Richards-'The Battle Of Britain' and Peter Townsend's 'Duel Of Eagles'-----and I dare say if I trawled through more of my books on the Battle of Britain I would find an even mix of spellings.

Gman · 2 September 2010, 09:45 AM

It is either Mölders or Moelders,
Böhme or Boehme.
Both spellings are permissible .

No matter how many authors got it wrong,
It is still wrong.
This forum should strive for historical correctness.

bristol scout · 2 September 2010, 10:10 AM

"For historical accuracy, let’s get the names right.
It is Werner Moelders, who died travelling to the funeral of Udet.
He was flying as a passenger..."

Well, have'nt you quckly checked up and changed your tune---now it's TWO ways to spell it!

Don't know who you are correcting with 'Bohme' spelling---but whoever they are I imagine they are as unconcerned as I am over 'Molders'--but if you want to follow me around correcting my spelling you will get tired before I do--I can't ever be bothered with umlauts and such!

One thing you can do is correct me on historical facts --when I am in error only! I take it you have checked about "claiming it for one of them" type quotes of mine and come up with nothing----so you have just 'gone quiet' on that---yes, thats the way to do it!

But are'nt you very MASTERFUL! I'd hate to be a 'gay' bad speller around you...

frontflieger · 2 September 2010, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bristol scout

"For historical accuracy...

... the name is Mölders. - But you may write 'Moelders' (in a German crossword puzzle or) on the island.

Thorsten