Fighter pilots' guts

[Hawk-Eye]

Fighter pilots of all countries



In a thread (see below) which now is locked I reported how 1940 French fighter pilots were, and still are, the victims of wholesale insults and libelling : « they were not brave, some of their officers flew away from the combat zone or stole Polish pilots’ victories » etc.



You have to be very mean or very simple-minded indeed not only to SAY but to PUBLISH such ludicrous nonsense. But why is it nonsense? In theory these things are possible aren’t they. I guess that spontaneously everybody will say : « No, I don’t believe such accusations, fighter pilots simply ARE brave and eager to fight », although when the libelling is signed by a Peter Townsend you could hesitate… (May I repeat that he never took part in the French Campaign and had no personal knowledge of it!)



So let us have a closer look at this matter, which could prove interesting for the « rest » of the war until 1945, especially about the Luftwaffe, and even afterwards (Europe (cold war), Korea). I guess – but I have no proof – that before WW II started fighter pilots (FPs) of all countries including for example Japan and the USSR were volunteers, young, fascinated by flying, most of them eager to fight, too. This is part of their character. 1940 there were only very few FPs older than 30, mostly majors / squadron-leaders. Most pilots were aged about 20-25, captains up to 28. There is no doubt that 1939-40 FPs of all European countries, including France of course, were exclusively volunteers and they had to prevail against numerous competitors (not all candidates could be accepted).



Back to the particular case of the French FPs. They all grew up in an atmosphere of legend (and of truth too) about the great French FPs of WW I : Guynemer, Fonck, Navarre and many, many others. There was an almost religious worship for these heroes. Many books were published on them as well as many articles in magazines, not to mention the cinema. « France had won the war » (but not quite alone, far from it, and it was a very costly victory) so French morale was at its peak. French FPs enjoyed superb training in flying and also in aerobatics, which 1940 German FPs often reported, sometimes with surprise or amusement. Some of them added that their French counterparts displayed remarkable abilities in aerobatics but were not so dangerous in combat, which can’t be true. As most of you know the aerobatics practiced by FPs during their training (even when they are confirmed pilots) has the aim of giving them total confidence in their own flying abilities and complete mastery of their aircraft, the type of which may change, in order to have better abilities to master a critical flight situation. Sophisticated aerobatics are not necessary in actual air combat – in most cases.



1940 active French fighter pilots obviously had volunteered several years before, almost all of them AFTER Hitler had come to power in Germany in January 1933. It became plain very soon that a new war was possible, then probable, then inevitable – the latter as early as 1938 or earlier. So whoever had not the stomach to be a fighter pilot, fly in war operations, fight and risk his life had several years at his disposal to quit, or abstain from volunteering, and try to get a less dangerous job, especially flying one of the numerous desks in some office in Paris or even somewhere in the depth of the French territory (1 000 km across, or 620 miles, from the North Sea to the Mediterrenean and from the Rhine to the Atlantic). Nobody ever thought that the German army would invade the whole country, not even a large part of it, so people who didn’t fanatically want to fight could feel safe in the rear.



Conversely those French FPs who stayed with the Armée de l’Air (A.A. ; unfortunately this can result in confusions with anti-aircraft weapons or forces in English, AA) not only accepted to fight but often they – just like their German colleagues - very impatiently waited for the opportunity to do so, to prove themselves, to win victories, decorations and fame, etc., and to teach those bl… Germans, for there certainly was a strong anti-German atmosphere in France, not quite without any reason. Remember for example that the Germans started to massively use poisonous gases against Allied troops during WW I, just as if they, in particular the French, had been vermin like lice and rats. When they invaded neutral, weak Belgium 1914 in order to avoid French defences they behaved with the greatest brutality towards civilians who hadn’t done anything, killing 600 in a particular village, just to « show who’s boss ». Today we call this war crimes and there were many German war crimes during WW I, in France too, and terrible destructions (none in Germany…). So in any case there were strong anti-German feelings in France and those young men who all had VOLUNTEERED to be fighter pilots were eager to teach’em. Chicken? Certainly the exact opposite of this.



What’s more, most combat-ready French fighter units were stationed in the potential combat area, in Eastern France, when WW II started on 3 September 1939. Very soon some fierce fighting started between French and German AC, in particular fighters. According to Paul Martin 74 French AC were lost in combat during the Phoney War, including 18 Morane 406s and 11 Curtiss H-75s totalling 29 fighters. The 45 others were close or long-range recce AC (and some bombers used for recce missions). Conversely French fighters alone won 70 victories including 39 Me 109s (mostly 109 Ds but Es too) and 3 Me 110s. There was no French victory unless you could show the corresponding wreck or have equally convincing evidence (like reports from the Army). There were some errors but in both directions, plus or minus. As usual the Luftwaffe claimed an enormous number of victories, mainly on the French (see figures in Prien’s volume n° 2).



French FPs had 13 of their number killed in combat plus 15 wounded and 24 killed and 11 wounded in accidents (mainly due to very poor and hard winter weather) : 37 FPs killed, 26 wounded. 12 were killed in the first month alone – September
(27 days) - so even if there was no wholesale slaughter it was plain that this was a very dangerous business in spite of the mostly low aerial activity, that it would be much worse when the fighting would start in earnest, and that the Germans meant business – which nobody had doubted – even though in the first months the French fighters enjoyed a clear superiority ; this changed when the Luftwaffe engaged the Me 109 E – they became about even.



So those who were chicken, if any, and did not have the guts to fight it out, received ample warning of the danger and they had no less than 8 months and four days to quit and take cover behind a desk or something of this kind. I am absolutely convinced that this did not occur, or perhaps in very few instances like everywhere else, if at all.



Then came the German offensive on 10 May 1940 and the shooting war started in earnest. The total of French fighter victories won during the phoney war, 70, was reached on the 3rd day of the campaign already : 60 in 2 days, 94 in 3 days. Remember that 912 French fighters were deployed in first-line units in France itself (some facing menacing Italy) and the Luftwaffe sent thousands of AC so there was rarely a lack of targets in the first days.



Soon the German army was winning a lot of ground in France, which provided French airmen with one more reason to fight even more fiercely, if possible, on top of all the rest (really disagreeable nazism, German aggressions in Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium – no less than six neutral countries : everybody hated Germany and the Germans!) : from the sky they could see all the destructions caused by the hated « Boches », the misery of millions of refugees (many from Belgium-NL), the burning villages and towns of their country, which they loved so much (at the time this was a normal feeling…). Of course they were enraged and full of the desire to take revenge and kill the bastards who were killing women and children on the roads and in their houses, even machine-gunning roads full of civilian refugees. British FPs in France felt exactly the same, by the way.



By the way, we can read many combat reports written by German FPs or crew members of bombers etc. and they confirm HOW BRAVE French FPs were. German FPs often reported how one single French fighter pilot all alone attacked a whole German formation (even fighters) and sometimes got away with this, sometimes was quickly killed. In the history of the bombing unit KG 27 you can read that a particular German air-gunner had shot down « 3 Moranes » out of an attacking French formation (or so he claims!) but the 4th Morane attacked too, this time before he had managed to replace his empty ammunition magazine, and hit the German bomber heavily with cannon and machine-gun-fire. Some coward ! But it has to be said that many air-gunners had a tendency to be overoptimistic and to overclaim heavily, last but not least the American boys (many really were just boys) who 1943-45, if we believe them, destroyed the whole German fighter arm single-handed. According to Adolf Galland he once lost 2 fighters to American air-gunners, who claimed 104 (or 102, I don’t remember) and a grinning Galland explains for us that yes, if 52 American air-gunners had fired, aiming at one of the 2 lost fighters, the total really is 104. « Aviators‘ mathematics are not so simple », he added.



All these factors make in particular Peter Townsend’s comments extremely ludicrous and shameful. Besides, on 3 June 1940, the day of the fairy-tale on French fighter pilots he told us, no fighter unit was stationed at Villacoublay, the place where he claimed several people saw them eating lunch instead of fighting the German bombers. There were fighters all around Paris but not at « Villa ». So Mister T's story is not true, that's all. On this very day, June 3rd, hundreds of French fighter pilots took off amongst exploding German bombs or under attack by 109s. 17 French fighters were shot down, most of them under these terrible circumstances (one of them, a Potez 631, had a crew of 3). 13 were killed, 5 badly wounded, only 1 pilot escaped unhurt. This is French "cowardice" à la Townsend. These losses are appalling, almost all fighter pilots shot down being killed too.



Finally I am in a position to confirm that the French Air Force, in particular the FPs, in no way felt that they had been beaten when the German-French cease-fire came into effect, quite on the contrary. This is what Danel and Cuny wrote in their superlative book « L’aviation de chasse française 1918-1940 » (Docavia, Larivière). Those who had escaped to French North Africa eagerly expected orders to fight on and they were devastated when they learned that they had to cease fighting. They were deeply discouraged and disgusted but certainly nobody believed this to be final. They all were trapped either in
France – surrounded by the German army – or in North Africa, from where only a few, the most resolute and the most lucky ones, succeeded in escaping to Gibraltar, at a high risk to themselves and to their comrades who were left on the airfields. The others stayed where they were because they were professional soldiers and THEY OBEYED ORDERS. The strongest reason for staying seems to have been the will not to let down the comrades together with whom they just had been fighting for 5 weeks, not to let down their unit and their leaders, whom they highly respected and admired (at least in most cases).



I can tell you this : in spite of all MANY French FPs and other airmen, even whole units, were on the verge of escaping to Gibraltar when the British Navy – without any valid reason – attacked the French ships (not the whole fleet, which was more than 12 times bigger) at Mers el-Kébir on 3 July, only 9 days after the German-French armistice. After this incredible crime, which is unique in world history, it was impossible to step over the bodies of 1,300 murdered French seamen and join the British to fight side by side with them! Besides, the British force had come from… Gibraltar. Can you imagine the situation? Almost all French escapees who joined the RAF had escaped BEFORE the MeK attack. If they had been forced to wait until after this attack I am convinced that they, too, would have given up this plan. After the attack almost no Frenchmen came to England. They needed months to start again but most of them gave up the idea once and for all. This loss of several hundred remarkable, highly combat-hardened French fighter pilots very nearly brought England defeat in the Battle of Britain (remember « The Narrow Margin » - it was narrow indeed). Besides, those who joined the RAF 1940 were almost exclusively pilots who had not fought in the French Campaign.



Later in the war FPs of certain countries probably avoided combat. I don’t believe they were cowards etc. as Townsend suggested of the French. There were other reasons : I suspect in the USSR they didn’t care much about pilots being volunteers only, and I suspect they just told you where and as a what you had to fight (perhaps Christer can inform us better on this). In his book Rudel reported how he heared the radio traffic of Soviet fighters who were shadowing his Ju 87 without attacking : « This is probably the bastard who destroys the tanks », etc. Finally Rudel escaped unscathed. He was very good but if several fighters had attacked him « with every ounce of vigour » he would not have come back this time.



During the last phases of the air war over Germany it did happen that German FPs did not want to fight but this is fully normal : these young guys, hardly older than 20, maybe 22, hadn’t received the necessary training (for lack of petrol and instructors), they were scared even of their own aircraft, these powerful monsters (imagine flying a FW 190 without being sufficiently good to do so !) and they knew they hardly stood any chance. They were not all volunteers, part of them simply were ordered to become fighter pilots. I know a man in Germany who was supposed to become a FP (1944 I think) but he knew this would mean his certain death and he managed to vanish. When I asked him how (1976) he didn’t reply. I think he still feared the revenge of fanatic nazis. I think it is a fact that in many instances German FPs baled out even before their AC was hit, or as soon as it was. We can’t blame them, they had no chance against a « Mustang » anyway, their AC were lost in any case so what point would there have been in dying stupidly in an AC, like the old-fashioned captain of a ship! Göring was aware of this phenomenon but, strangely, he didn’t force them to fly without any parachute. He probably understood all too well what was going on and he couldn’t blame them either.



Last but not least : Fighters turning away from the bombers they were attacking. In some instances yes, they thought there was no point in suffering heavy losses instead of living to fight another day. These were exceptions, particularly during the 1940 French Campaign, for the defensive armament of German bombers was very weak even though many French FPs reported that it was very impressive to see almost a « carpet » of tracer around them, so intense was the return fire from the bombers. But almost invariably they did attack the bombers and often they suffered some losses when the engine or the pilot was hit.



Nevertheless many air-gunners of all countries, just like AAA soldiers, think and claim that the enemy AC turned back when they saw their heavy defensive fire. As we know the reason was quite different in most cases. When fighters flew away it simply meant – in most cases – that they were short of petrol or ammunition, or both, or that they were under attack by enemy fighters. Bombers were almost never scared away by AAA fire but they HAD to fly back at some point, after having dropped their bombs. In such instances it was mainly the propaganda which claimed that the defensive fire had forced the enemy bombers to fly back to base, or simply scared them.



My conclusion : let us avoid any insulting and any libelling of any fighting men, whether they are/were German, British or «even» French! 60 years and more after 1940 it is really incredible to see some people still ignoring French fighter pilots’ great deeds and their graves, which hardly can be disputed. England ought to be grateful : they destroyed a large part of the Luftwaffe, including hundreds of highly-skilled aircrew, before the Battle of Britain started. Without their bravery – they could have fought but with less determination – the BoB would most probably have ended the other way for over 600 more German bombers (including the damaged ones) and hundreds of Me 109s more in the LW would have made the difference.

[Andy Mac]

On the sea bed not far from where I live, lie the remains of a mark 9 Spitfire and possibly what is left of the remains of the pilot left in the cockpit. The pilot was a young Free-French lad, and he was betrayed by engine failure on take-off.

That young man fled a country over-run by his enemy, leaving behind his family and everything he knew. He chose to fight again on foreign soil, and there were many like him.

My sons are 9 and 4, and they know all about this pilot. I tell them about him all the time because we are here because of this pilot and his comrades.

Sacrifice.

That is all we need to know about the glorious Free-French.

Andy.

[Hawk-Eye]

Thanks Andy, I really appreciate.

Nevertheless Free-French airmen and those having taken part in the 1940 French Campaign are two entirely different subjects. Townsend wrote that the 1940 boys were not brave etc. contrary to the Free-French, which doesn't make any sense. As I mentioned, almost none (or none at all?) of the latter escaped to England, in any case 1940. Only 13-14 French fighter pilots took part in the Battle of Britain. Without the Mers el-Kébir aggression they would have been at least 200, possibly 500, some of them within their own, old French units which would have flown to Gibraltar as complete units led by their normal COs. Most of those who became Free-French had been too young to take part in the 1940 fighting. They, too, accepted very high risks and many lost their life. Of course I very much admire and respect all Free-French - and also the Norwegians, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Poles and all others at that.

François de Labouchère, a Free-French fighter pilot who was killed 1942 after having destroyed two Me 109s and two Do 217s alone, had left France and sailed to England in June 1940 without having been able to fight yet (he had been only a future pilot) and he wrote the following to his sister I think :

"The most difficult thing is not to do your duty but to distinguish it." So he was not so sure either. But of course he did the right thing : fighting a ruthless enemy never is wrong.

[Six Nifty .50s]

Regarding the courage of French pilots, I don't know why you are fixated on the opinion of Peter Townsend. No. 91 'Nigeria' Squadron had several French pilots, including Jean Maridor. Some comments from Peter Hall's unit history:

February 14th 1942 "...Plt Off J P Maridor, Free French, joined No 91 Sqn from 615 Sqn. A native of LeHavre, he had gained his civilian pilot's licence at the age of 16, and when France fell he escaped to England in a fishing boat and joined the RAF. After months of trying, Maridor was overjoyed with his assignment to No 91 Sqn, for he considered that a posting to this unit offered him the best chance of attacking the Germans! The French contingent was further enlarged on the 20th when Plt Offs J Lambert and H J M de Molenes followed Maridor from 615 Sqn...

August 3rd 1944 "...poor weather continued until 2 August, but improved again the next day as Flt Lt Jean Maridor and Section Officer Jean Lambourn were finalising their wedding plans. The Frenchman was still flying operationally, though, and at 1245 hrs he intercepted a 'Diver' over Rolvenden, in Kent. He fired a burst at it, but the V1 did not explode. Instead it glided down towards Benenden School, which at that time housed a large military hospital. Maridor dived down after it, and, at very close range, he opened fire again. The 'Diver' exploded, preventing what would have been an enormous loss of life, but the blast blew off the Spitfire's wing. The aircraft (RM656) fell beside a lake in the grounds of the school, and 'Mari' as he was known in the squadron, was killed -- eight days before he was due to be married. The action was witnessed by many people on the ground, and it was their opinion that Maridor had deliberately fired again, knowing that he stood little or no chance of surviving..."

It was noted that Jean Maridor was much admired by all who knew him. He was credited with four German planes and eleven V1 bombs destroyed.

[Hawk-Eye]

Regarding the courage of French pilots, I don't know why you are fixated on the opinion of Peter Townsend.

- Simply because he libelled the 1940 - stress 1940, nineteen forty - French pilots, or rather those who fought in May-June 1940 but did not escape to England. To him the Free-French pilots were all right, as if there COULD be any difference. In most cases only chance or luck, or bad luck, decided upon who became a "Free-French" or not, except of course the vast majority who clearly had decided never to join the Britishers after the Mers el-Kébir attack, the British "Pearl Harbor". You know how US people feel about the Japanese after PH. Why on earth should precisely the French have a different reaction!
But Townsend is not the only one, there are others. I won't enhance their glory so I won't give their names here.
After the November 1942 Allied landings in French North Africa - where the Mers el-Kébir attack had taken place - almost all French airmen came under AMERICAN not British command. There was a good reason for this. I am convinced that they bluntly would have refused to fly and fight within the RAF, they'd preferred to become infantrymen with the French Army (which later, by the way, cracked the Cassino nut). They flew almost exclusively US aircraft types. There were some exceptions like commandant (sqn leader or major) Jean Accart, who eventually 1944 led a French Spitfire squadron based in England after he had created it. Accart no doubt was one of the best, most clever and finest fighter pilots and leaders in the world, perhaps THE best one in the world. 1940 he had won 12 confirmed victories in 3 weeks (!), his escadrille of 12 fighters was the by very far top-scoring one of the whole Armée de l'Air , which comprised about 53 escadrilles (thanks to his unique leadership and the exceptional training he had given his pilots). After these 3 weeks of fighting he received a German machine-gun bullet exactly between his eyes when once more attacking a He 111 under unfavourable conditions. He baled out and suffered many other very heavy wounds, survived by sheer luck and... crossed the Pyrénées into Spain as soon as he was able to, together with several of his student pilots, in order to fight again! With all his wounds nobody would have expected him to fight again - the bullet was still there between his eyes for they never dared try to extract it. He, too, was one of those 1940 French fighter pilots insulted by Townsend.
If only they had allowed him to meet the Luftwaffe he would have wreaked havoc in it. This is precisely what RAF's to brass did NOT want and the whole unit hardly got any opportunity to fight German aircraft. This was general Allied tactics : French fighters were NOT allowed to meet the Luftwaffe, Allied HQ did not want them to win any victories, or only a few by pure luck (except the French Normandie-Niémen wing in Russia, for the Russians didn't care about British psychological problems with the French and never prevented them from winning some 283 victories (or so) at a very high cost). Of course this behaviour was not only unfair, it was also idiotic and criminal towards US bomber crews, for many of them were killed BECAUSE the French, in particular Accart's crack squadron, were not allowed to fight the Luftwaffe. This probably cost the lives of a few hundred US bomber crew members even though US fighter pilots were not bad at all and did an excellent job. Accart and his pilots no doubt would have been even better.

Instead Accart's squadron, which was like a fine sword, was used for bombing and ground attack, at a high cost too. This was like using this fine sword for chopping stone slabs : not really clever. Many other RAF squadrons were doing the same job but they were not the Accart squadron, which comprised at least one more 1940 top-ace : Vuillemain, 9 confirmed victories 1940, one "Wellington" in August 1942 (after 3 July 1940 any British aircraft or vessel near French Africa was attacked by the "cowards", reluctantly by most of them for they didn't forget that the main enemy was Germany, England was only 2nd) and one Ju 88 in September 1943. So he was one of the very few French fighter pilots who - purely by chance - had the opportunity to shoot down a German aircraft after 1940... Of course this remark doesn't apply to the Free-French pilots flying with the RAF. They were given the possibility to get involved in air combat.

Thanks for your posting anyway. Yes Maridor's story is interesting and moving. You know, I simply think he had no choice in this situation actually. Of course what he did was a heroic deed but what else could he do? Can you imagine ANY fighter pilot giving up and flying away?

[Hawk-Eye]

In another thread (« Fighter pilots chicken? ») Alex Smart remarked that « the ONLY French Air Unit to evacuate to the UK from Europe (so once more we see the UK is not in Europe !) was one of the Polish manned units within the French AF ». How naive can you be ?

Sure, I don’t really know (yet), I only know that all Czechs and Poles who so wished – they all did I think – were offered the possibility of sailing, sometimes flying, to England, but this unit A.S. mentioned went to England without its aircraft : they didn’t have the range to fly. As I already mentioned, the French not only did not prevent them from going to England, they helped them as best they could, which was a good thing. They could have closed all borders and harbours…

Fleeing to England was not made easier by the fact that the German invasion of the French territory started in the extreme North (Dunkerque, Arras, Calais, etc.), where the British army had been, and continued south- and westwards, so that all French forces which were not captured or destroyed retreated in the same directions, mainly southwestwards, towards central France and the Atlantic coast near Spain and the Pyrénées (including in the East on the Mediterrenean coast : Perpignan). It was out of the question to fly fighters to England before the end of June for the fighting was going on, French fighters (and AA) flying under orders in organised units were still demolishing a lot of German aircraft and airmen so there was no reason to leave, and it would have been desertion – to an allied country (or was it an allied country?) but nevertheless desertion. Nobody is allowed to leave his unit during the fighting. In any case no French pilot would have dreamed of doing that BEFORE June 17, when Pétain made his disastrous and terrible speech on the radio (« I am telling you that we must cease fighting » - the Germans took more prisoners after that (in 8 days) than before (in 38 days). He was irresponsible for he didn’t mean « cease immediately », he was meaning « after an agreement with Germany » but almost everybody understood the contrary, and marshal Pétain was the by very far most prestigious, most glorious living Frenchman at the time. Stress « at the time »! I strongly resent what he did afterwards, including NOT really retaliating for the Mers el-Kébir aggression : only a few dozen French bombers dropped bombs on Gibraltar, many of them missing purposely. Pétain could at least have had a few British naval ships sunk by the French fleet, which possessed some very fast battleships, including the brand-new Richelieu, and cruisers, not to mention 60 excellent submarines (much more than Germany possessed 1940).

Those French fighter pilots who wanted to escape to England after 17 June couldn’t simply fly their fighters northwards, they didn’t have the range. Many (several hundred) were in North Africa already. Besides, their own units and COs still existed and they had no real, urgent reason to go to England. It is not really simple to leave your country, your family, your units and your brothers in arms, not even knowing if it is the right thing to do. The situation of Poland at the end of September 1939 was entirely different, there is no comparison.

[Christer Bergström]

One implied recognition of the French airmen of 1940 can be found in a diary note by Hannes Trautloft (JG 54's commander). When the Soviet fighter pilots in March 1942 started to get better and adopted better tactics, Trautloft's conclusion was:

"We have the impression that French pilots are flying with the Russians now. In the last days we have noticed a completely new tactic adopted by the enemy fighters. . . . And [they] have also grown more aggressive". (Quoted in "Black Cross/Red Star", Vol. 2, p. 94.)

(This was one year before the first French fighter pilots appeared on the Eastern Front.)

Taking the very strong opposition they were up against, the accomplishment of the French Normandie-Niemen fighter regiment really is impressive. All their victories were achieved in an environment where the cream of the Luftwaffe veterans operated. I can imagine the rate of destruction the Normandie-Niemen veterans could have caused if they would have been set loose against the rookies in the Luftwaffe's "Western" fighter units.

[Ruy Horta]

Peter Townsend
Duel of Eagles
Presidio Press, 1991

p.237
Operation Paula was a concerted blow at the airfields and aircraft factories in the Paris region. It was also meant to impress the French public. II KG 2 (Werner Borner was with them in Gustav Marie) bombed Orly. 'The very few French fighters we met,' he said, 'fought bravely.'

It happened that Air Vice Marshal Sholto Douglas and Admiral Sir Geoffrey Blake landed at Villacoublay on a visit to Admiral Darlan and General Vuillemin, Chief of Air Staff. 'We rather expected that there would at least be someone there to welcome us...' said Sholto Douglas. As they got out of the aircraft '...a little man wearing a tin hat with a gas mask bouncing on his backside....shouted at us to take cover.'
Sholto, who had not forgotten the night he dived under the piano at Bertangles, needed no encouragement. He and Admiral Blake bolted for the nearest shelter, 'a not very reassuring mound of sandbags and corrugated iron ...' A second later Luftwaffe bombs were plastering Villacoublay's airfield and hangars.
Sholto had seen three French fighters take off. Of the fifty others parked around the airfield many were blown to smithereens. Sholto wondered why the French fighters did not hurl themselves at the enemy. The British Air Staff had warned the French the day before of Operation Paula.
He entered the mess with Admiral Blake. There they found the French pilots 'sitting down quietly having their lunch ... They were not at all interested in what had just happened.' His thoughts went back to the French aces of his day, Fonck and Guynemer and their generation. It was not until later, 'when I had free French pilots under my command that I found ... Frenchmen who could be as keen and gallant...'

Here are some further quotes from Townsend.

P.208
On 10 May the Franco-British air Forces in France were pitifully inadequate against this mighty host...(n)ot even the supreme and selfless gallantry displayed by the allied airmen could make up for such mediocre equipment and meagre numbers.

p.215
With disaster now staring them in the face the French High Command called their own and the British bomber forces to make a supreme effort on 14 May against the German bridgehead at Sedan ... (s)oon after noon the few remaining French bombers went in. Their losses were so terrible that further attacks were cancelled.

p.222
Gamelin lamented the French inferiority in the air and pleaded for more RAF squadrons, above all fighter squadrons. Among other things, these were needed, he said to stop enemy tanks. (The Généralissime must have been out of his senses. How could fighters with rifle-calibre machine-guns stop tanks?) Churchill reminded him that the fighter's business was to 'cleanse the skies' above the battle.*

p.233
Meanwhile forty thousand Frenchmen were fighting doggedly alongside the British, holding the Germans at bay on Dunkirk's perimeter. Loyal allies, the British and French fought valiantly while their comrades were carried to safety in the Navy's ships...

(*Included to demonstrate the lack of support for tactical air support demonstrated by the RAF in the first half of the war, looking at air power in terms of (pre-war) orthodox doctrine. Terraine touches the subject again, with his coverage of the brief Greek campaign. Of course fighter interdiction can be a very effective weapon against tanks, perhaps not directly, but against the support train - fuel trucks etc. The roads were packed with German transports, Hurricanes would certainly have been more effective in ground support and strafing than Battles. But this really is a different subject.)

[Ruy Horta]

Ah, I forgot to add an interesting quote from Paul Richey, who wrote the following on page 87 of this classic book Fighter Pilot:

The French CO was a tall, hard-looking man, bursting with efficiency and quite undisturbed by the numerous delayed action bombs scattered around the airfield. 'Oh, those!' he said contemptuously, they've been going off all night. One gets used to anything in time...'

Seen against this light, perhaps old Sholto Douglas was misinterpreting French cool nonchalance for inaction?

Main thing I'm trying to explain is that if there is any critique, it should be of Sholto Douglas, however to say that he had no right to judge or have an opinion on what he'd witnessed, as a senior officer, is not fair nor realistic.

[Hawk-Eye]

Thanks Ruy for both postings.

Quote :
<< Main thing I'm trying to explain is that if there is any critique, it should be of Sholto Douglas, however to say that he had no right to judge or have an opinion on what he'd witnessed, as a senior officer, is not fair nor realistic.>>

Yes but Townsend did all the harm when he PUBLISHED his book, which was quite successful in the whole world and published in French too. Both the English and the French edition were published in... France. Incredible isn't it. I insist that his whole story must be forged - until I'm PROVEN wrong. No fighter unit what stationed at Villacoublay on 3 June 1940, this is a fact. Some fighter units were based there for short periods of time but NOT on this day. Villa is too close to the central target area : Paris. About 250 fighters were concentrated around Paris, a few dozen miles away (20-30 km or more) : at Chantilly, Lognes etc. This airfield (Villa) was used mainly for flight-testing new series aircraft produced by nearby factories, Breguet 693s and LeO 451s I think (no warranty). Besides, the French were informed of the German attack well in advance, much earlier than one day before, but French HQ were such fools that they spoilt everything and they had probably no advantage at all, rather disadvantages, from this knowledge. It cost the lives of about 8 good fighter pilots too many. In any case, this top conference either was not on 3 June or not at Villacoublay, or it never existed. It could - could! - rather have taken place at Dunkerque, but earlier, or even in Paris, for clearly it involved both the Air Forces and the Navies of both countries so the obvious guess is the Dunkerque evacuation. If this is correct it must have been much earlier than that.

Perhaps I can explain the error about "pilots". As you know RAF pilots (proudly) wear their "wings" on their battle-dress. They are made of some textile material. In the French AF EVERY MAN wears similar wings on his battle-dress, even the lowest ranks (ordinary soldiers). I ought to know : I was such an ordinary soldier (deuxième classe) before I became an officer. I forgot what you call them in the RAF. The colour of these wings is gold for officers and NCOs, orange below the rank of sergent. All this has nothing special to do with pilots but it is not surprising that a foreign general mistook the French wings for pilots' insignia.

The French pilot badge, exactly like the German one, is made of metal and is comprised of two horizontal wings inside a circle of laurel leaves, with a golden star which every member of the flying personnel wears.

Anyway nobody has the right to draw such drastic conclusions, on a foreign airfield, about a situation which he has no chance to understand if nobody explains it for him.

[Ruy Horta]

Yes but Townsend did all the harm when he PUBLISHED his book, which was quite successful in the whole world and published in French too. Both the English and the French edition were published in... France. Incredible isn't it. I insist that his whole story must be forged - until I'm PROVEN wrong. No fighter unit what stationed at Villacoublay on 3 June 1940, this is a fact. Some fighter units were based there for short periods of time but NOT on this day.

You know the general subject interests me, so please keep in mind I am not trying to discredit the french fighter pilots of '39-40. But the above statement does show some double standards, especially if set against what you've written in the Graf/Closterman and the all yellow Fw 190 thread. So your opinion of French pilots is more important than an eyewitness account of a British AVM? Of course you could write page upon page of french accomplishments, but that does not automatically discount this account. The same thread covers the theme of slander, but in this case both Townsend and Sholto Douglas are being described as liars and forgers. Unfortunately you are using a double standard.


I know I believed certain things on MY OWN LIFE which were wrong, as I discovered later. I didn't lie, I just was wrong. For example I would have sworn that I was on a certain airfield and did a certain thing but in fact it was another airfield (as my logbook proves). My memory betrayed me. Such things will happen.

So it may have been another field, but who's to say that on that field there were not a number of (fighter) pilots who acted as witnessed by Sholto Douglas? Maybe Sholto Douglas was wrong in some of his account, does that make him or Townsend forgers and liars?


Perhaps I can explain the error about "pilots". As you know RAF pilots (proudly) wear their "wings" on their battle-dress. They are made of some textile material. In the French AF EVERY MAN wears similar wings on his battle-dress, even the lowest ranks (ordinary soldiers).

Anyway nobody has the right to draw such drastic conclusions, on a foreign airfield, about a situation which he has no chance to understand if nobody explains it for him.


Again, this is not personal attack, which is the last thing on my mind Yves, just looking at the case, which you yourself have been presenting on numerous occasions, on its own merit. But here you set an annecodotal episode of a book against what amounts to nothing but an assumption, one that also assumes that AVM Sholto Douglas doesn't know the difference between an ordinary airman and a pilot, albeit a frenchman. Perhaps you assume that this AVM also saluted to the local janitor because like all french generals he had such a beautiful moustage?

The main point you fail to put into proper perspective is that Sholto Douglas (or Townsend by quoting) is decribing an event as he witnessed, and as AVM RAF he deserves the same credence or perhaps more than all those other personalities - like Closterman - we are so fond of. His authority is his senior rank and background as a WW1 fighter pilot of some repute.

Bottom line remains that Sholto Douglas is a reputable witness, if his observations do not agree with your sense of what's right and what's wrong, it is time to double check the facts, not attack the person. Since I am very particular (and peculiar) about this sort of thing I couldn't help but order a copy of Years of Command: A personal story of the second war in the Air (Collins, 1966), to check this episode myself.

There may be mistakes, but if we don't like what we read it doesn't mean we are also looking at lies and forgeries. One question, did you ever double check Sholto Douglas' biography?

Again, is it really impossible that AVM Douglas saw a number of nonchalant french pilots that did not jump to "their" airplanes, during an air attack, keeping in mind the aggressive nature of this senior officer? Also with his background in mind is it really surprising if he looked favorably upon the free-french under his command, compared to what he saw in those darker days of 1940?

Instead of considering lies and forgeries, I'd be more inclined to believe that there were indeed moments when élan was not as high as usual amongst the french, especially through the eyes of a visiting senior officer. Those were days of defeat, not victory...

Back to Townsend, his book covers the campaign in France to a limited extend, but doesn't do so any worse than other titles from an RAF perspective, I wonder how much harm his publication really did. Did French fighter pilots really suffer that much from his publication? As I've tried to point out by quoting Townsend, there are also positive signals that even things out - in my humble opinion.

In the eyes of the British, the French failed by discontinuing the fight, those are pretty harsh terms but set against the summer of 1940 and without the benefit of hindsight, not really surprising. The questionable role of Vichy France doesn't make it easier.

It is obvious that there was resentment between the British and French after the collapse in the west. The men of that generation took (at least some part of) that resentment with them, judging by your writing some of that resentment has been passed to the next generation and still lingers on.

What remains obvious is that something went terribly wrong in the summer of 1940 and for some the explanation needs a scapegoat.

:blink: Writing as an enthusiast, not as a moderator.

[Ruy Horta]

those that some seem bent on trying to denounce

1. Who's really denouncing who, on this forum or even in literature?
2. There is actually a lot of irrelevant material in this thread.

First the idea that French fighter pilots are being slighted wholesale by the world, by the British, by the french, by everyone, except a few honorable men...

nonsense

Second a thread basically dealing with a single book by a single writer, who's occused of anything but canibalism and child molesting, but those are probably lesser crimes ;)

However this book seems to be a reoccuring theme, call it the catalyst, to fuel this ongoing pashionate blaze.

What I don't see is any reasoned argument, I see a lot of irrelevant writing about pre-war france and even the fact that little Holland was attacked by Germans in dutch uniforms, but not a solid thing about why Sholto Douglas is unequivocaly wrong, or proof that Townsend misinterpreted his annecdote.

The accusation is one of forgery and lies, should these statements not be backed up some relevant facts?

This post is not a personal attack against anyone.

I do not remember reading about french traitors, cowards and murderers, about french forgers and liars etc etc etc. But every now and then this AA vs RAF theme pops up and these words fly...towards the British that is.

So I'll ask all of you a question.

Why should I allow this thread to continue?
Should I allow this discussion ever to raise its head again?

If not with reason and objectively, not at all.

[Hawk-Eye]

Stand by please! I am working on my reply to your preceding posting, which is quite long. It takes time because I am reading YOUR text carefully and writing my replies carefully too. You'll see you're too heated and too quick in your conclusions.

Remember : censorship can't prevent the facts from existing, on the contrary, they make them more interesting and attractive.

I don't know why you sound so angry now. I don't think anybody attacked YOU or your statements. I suspect you read other postings too fast, too hastily, and then you draw some wrong conclusions. Or is it forbidden even to criticise anything British? I know relationships between UK and NL are very tight. I feel up till now this was a gentlemanly discussion even if I used the word "liar", which I can prove is justified. I was called quite other names at TOCH some years ago, including some of the worst English words, which you neither forbade nor deleted for a long time (and Christer recently was called names too, including "liar", which you didn't delete IIRC).

Let us calm down and keep a cool head. Are you as quick-tempered as your Brazilian fellow-countryman Coronel Pierre Clostermann? In any case I am not your enemy either, I just want to discuss this matter thoroughly and completely. No reason to explode. After all the insultees are THE FRENCH as usual. Remember what the UK-US press wrote when Bush's 2nd Irak-war started and the French (like the Russians, the Germans and many other countries on top of the UNO) disagreed. They were traitors, cowards etc. as usual, the French President was a "worm". Well, what do you say now (the Irak problem is not solved yet)? Who was right? Was it soooo terrible to have said "no"?

Same thing here : please have a little patience, wait a little, it won't kill you. I happen to have a few other concerns and business to attend.

[Ruy Horta]

STOP...

There is no censorship on this forum, period.

The original case, mainly against Townsend, should be made without the use of irrelevant information.

Take all the time you need, there is no rush.

As I have pointed out, at least as far as I am concerned, it is not about attacking anyone or anything (I think that my main line of argument will support my claim).

[Ruy Horta]

Yves your last post has been considerably altered after my message was posted, the two actions could have coincided (see my posting time, and your original time and edit time).

Never-the-less I reacted to a much simpler message as posted at 08:10, not the one after editing at 08:23.

Some of that edited material seems actually to be an answer to my reply, so that will confuse people even more.

BTW, my personal views on the UK, France or even the 2nd Iraq war are irrelevant when it comes to this discussion. Actually I am simply waiting for that copy of Years of Command to arrive so I can double check Sholto Douglas.

IF Sholto Douglas is the originator, that will release Townsend, since quoting an AVM RAF who'd actually been on the spot won't be regarded as a faux pas, not even if the message is one we don't like.

[Hawk-Eye]

Yes when my last posting was finished I was surprised to find your reply already! It was there. I assumed you were able to read my text whereas I was still writing. I can't remember I edited it afterwards but, if so, only typing errors and the like. I avoid to add important parts afterwards now because I feel part of the readers would miss them, which I obviously don't wish.
I don't feel Townsend can be considered innocent in any case for he visibly enjoyed quoting (or inventing) S. Douglas' thoughts. Repeating wrong accusations doesn't make you innocent in the eyes of a court even today.
But stand by, you'll see. EVEN IF some French pilots really kept eating lunch under falling bombs it is very risky to draw such hateful conclusions. There can be hosts of explanations. Want an example? They had just landed and were quickly having lunch at last (often this was not simple) whereas their aircraft were being refuelled. See? Taking off without any petrol in the tanks nor ammunition would have been rather pointless. There are other possible explanations... But to me this whole story, which I consider highly suspicious and disgusting, was forged.
"Aviators' mathematics are not so simple" (Adolf Galland).

[Hawk-Eye]

Thanks Ruy
for this posting .
(Much later) Ruy, this reply became very long indeed. I can’t help it. You wrote quite a provocative reply, repeating yourself again and again, so forcing me to answer again and again.
Please BEAR IN MIND that I am NOT a great, a glowing French patriot. But if the whole world, so it seems, is spitting at the graves of heroes who died fighting for their country and for liberty (they were very well aware of what nazi Germany was and they fought this too) I have to do something. I already stated that I don’t really like 1940-45 German soldiers including pilots. Nevertheless when fanatic and silly French people spred some stupid anti-German legends on German fighter pilots’ victories I fought this nonsense too – 15 years ago already! This nonsense was that a twin-engined AC gave 2 victories, a 4-engined AC gave 4, that a German formation leader got all victories of his pilots for himself , etc. In this case, too, I couldn’t do otherwise than telling the truth.
Clearly the so-called 1940 “French” defeat, which was an overall ALLIED defeat, and English propaganda gave everybody the impression that the French alone were terrible. In fact the British were no better. This French responsibility was certainly true of… unfortunately the French top-command. According to me this incompetent top-command is typically French even if you can see similarities with many other countries including UK and USA.
Given just a little time, the French army would have recovered and things would have greatly improved; the French government had decided to sack Gamelin (supreme commander) on… 10 May! Of course the German attack made the change impossible. Gamelin was replaced a little later by Weygand… who made some very serious errors too. Just like in other countries including the USA after PH top-command would have been renewed and refreshed but the Dunkerque evacuation covered by 40,000 French crack troops only (no British troops were left behind) purposely sacrificed by the French government prevented this, afterwards there was no time to recover and reorganise, and troops were in short supply.

Some funny guy claimed that the UK “was NOT beaten 1940”. Really? What do you call the fact of retreating after a few days, planning your evacuation over the French Channel after 2 weeks or less and leaving the battlefield and all heavy weapons (an immense loss of precious equipment), with your tail between your legs, after 3 weeks? The English sigh of relief after the evacuation could be heard as far as the planet Mars. “Great! Now we are between us at last!”, they all said in England (not at all pretentious). It’s good and reassuring to have reliable allies when you go to war with a great power.
To most people, especially in France, the “French” defeat implies that it took place mainly in the sky for airpower and aircraft were the most visible and most spectacular element. Curiously even artillery, of which France possessed a lot and which often could do much more harm than aircraft, disappears entirely from such discussions : it is by far not as spectacular as AC.
So the Air Force was the ideal scapegoat, especially in France! Besides, you certainly know that BRITISH fighter pilots shot down over Dunkerque often were shot at under their parachutes by British troops and insulted after landing, for “the RAF was doing nothing” (they obviously were the right people to hear that!). A famous such fighter pilot, an officer (I forgot his name), even was forbidden by an Army major to embark on a ship bound for England – out of pure revenge, because the RAF was not preventing German air attacks (what about heavy artillery shelling and infantry attacks?). So the British ground troops behaved exactly in the same way as the French towards their own fighter pilots.
French HQ really sent French fighters to attack German tank columns several times, for these fighters, especially Morane 406s, had a cannon so they could destroy tanks! To be honest I have to add that normally they got special, armour-piercing ammunition, which sometimes was not issued in time. Coming in at tree-top level they did destroy some “tanks”, or more probably some light armoured vehicles but in several instances they were butchered not only by the Flak but by all German army weapons including rifles and of course thousands of infantry machine-guns. Losses were heavy, the useful effect nil. This is how French HQ sacrificed so precious fighter aircraft and their excellent pilots, who were so useful fighting German bombers. (Curiously they hardly sent any Bloch 152s, which had got two cannon not one and were much sturdier, and never “the precious D.520s” for even a moustached Army general realised this would be nonsense). These ridiculous anti-tank missions show how much the French army understood of airpower.
Anyway, immediately almost the whole French Army lamented that “they never saw one single French aircraft”, which is extremely ridiculous but not surprising : they had decided that ANY aircraft was “German” and they shot at ANY aircraft (of course mostly without any deflection but sometimes with…) and often at any parachuted aircrew.
In spite of all this I own several French books, written by Army veterans who report how they saw some French fighters shooting down some German planes – even near Sedan in one instance. The French troops were absolutely enthusiastic. But they never understood that their own fighters were NO theatrical company having to make daily performances for them, but had some other tasks and orders to obey, very often too high in the sky to be seen or looked at in the middle of the ground battle.
So everything was the fault of the French airmen “who wouldn’t fight” or even didn’t exist at all. This legend spread to UK troops and, it seems, also to RAF officers and generals like Sholto Douglas. Just look at all the photographs of French AC wrecks at ebay and you’ll be better informed than them already. Strangely German troops SAW at least the wrecks but Allied troops did not see them. French aircraft probably had a remarkable anti-friendly-troop camouflage making them invisible to friends only (the reverse would have been a better idea) and changing them into Stukas in the sky. No, seriously, there WAS an army which saw all the French aircraft perfectly well : the German army! Whenever they appeared and were within range, French aircraft were immediately under fire (often from the French or British army too). THE GERMANS did see them, which proves that they could be seen after all. Their Flak alone shot down 188 Armée de l’Air AC according to Paul Martin’s figures (I had to calculate this figure). We must not forget the Aéronavale (French naval aviation) AC lost to Flak too, a few dozen. So the Flak alone shot down well over 200 French planes which nobody ever had seen.
There was a strongly established anti-Air Force legend very early in the campaign. Experience shows that when a legend exists almost everybody repeats it on and on and on even 50, 60 or 70 years later. Even today many French clots keep repeating that “we (the French) had got no aircraft” and that on 15 September 1940 (latter called “Battle of Britain Day”) the RAF shot down 185 and even 228 German aircraft. The true figure is approx. 50 and it’s perfectly all right, a fair score. Some of these experts are well-known French “historians” who are producing “historical” TV programs, DVDs etc. all the time, and earning incredible sums of money with “their wonderful programs”. Really pitiful. In a highly-praised TV-program one of them told us for example that “almost 500 Morane 406s were produced”. The true figure is 1 083 (in France only; Switzerland produced it in significant numbers too) and it ought to be known to a “historian”! The rest of his program(s) is of the same wonderful quality. Of course this phenomenon applies to the 1940 French Campaign too : “There were no French AC, we never saw one, etc.”. And of course the main culprits are the fighter pilots for THEY ought to have fought the Stukas and the German bombers which destroyed the country and killed people.
This is the general context of what Sholto Douglas alledgedly said (I don’t know whether he really said it) and what Townsend wrote in his book (he did write and publish it).
Now to your posting Ruy. “Double standards”? I’m not sure I know what you mean. “Espec…. what you’ve written in the… yellow 190 thread”. Hmmm? Please be specific and say clearly what you mean. I’m no good at guessing. I had a close look at my posting with a big magnifying glass : you seem to mean I wrote “I wouldn’t accept such odds, I need a chance” (instead of having 6 out of 8 aircraft shot down in one single attack at 700-800 km/h and their 6 pilots killed). These are no double standards. Clearly no force in the world can accept a loss rate of 75 % at every mission. I think even the 8th USAAF, which was fairly “generous”, accepted only a permanent, average loss rate of 7 % IIRC. The first Schweinfurt attack in August 1943, with its appalling losses, was a terrible shock for US top brass. They came back only in October.Even the top leaders of the 8th USAAF refused too high a loss rate.
Of course many men of all countries sacrificed their own lives under special circumstances, in order to prevent even heavier losses, disaster etc. but obviously this is another story.
<< You know the general subject interests me, so please keep in mind I am not trying to discredit the french fighter pilots of '39-40. >>
- All right, all right! But in fact what you wrote on them doesn’t really make them look better.
<< But the above statement does show some double standards, especially if set against what you've written in the Graf/Closterman and the all yellow Fw 190 thread. >>
- Please explain. I don’t get it, other readers even less. You can’t expect everybody to remember every word written by sweet little me. Besides, I would appreciate if you would kindly give up calling what I wrote “double standards” all the time. Clearly when I dare dislike what a BRITISHER wrote or said you find this is “double standards”. You never used this phrase after I criticised the French, which I often do (my thinking is NOT ONE-SIDED but objective, or so I hope, in any case much more objective than many people’s).
<< So your opinion of French pilots is more important than an eyewitness account of a British AVM? >>
- Wow, this is a very tendentious way of putting it. What makes you say it's (only) my opinion? You are not neutral (contrary to your country 1940) and you’ve got it all wrong. Firstly I am not spreading my OPINION here but facts. I was naive enough to believe I had given sufficient evidence ot this : figures etc. Here is a sample of opinion : in my opinion – “IMHO” - most French landscapes are more beautiful than most German ones. On the other hand I find German BIG cities far better, and in many cases more beautiful, than French ones. There is no proof of this, it is only my opinion and nobody has a duty, or is forced, to concur. The truth is not “more important”, as you put it, nor less important, it is simply the truth : so and so many FPs killed, so and so many Hun aircraft shot down etc. PLEASE TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS AT LAST : I am perfectly objective and honest. This does not make me unfallible, obviously I may be wrong sometimes, but hardly on overall, very general topics like this. We had 65 years time since 1940 to study this matter and EVIDENCE, PROOFS! This is a little more time than S. Douglas had. WHAT THE HELL MAKES YOU THINK THAT IF I DISAGREE WITH AN ENGLISHMAN I AM CERTAINLY WRONG AND HE IS AUTOMATICALLY RIGHT? We do not write History in this way my friend. << Eyewitness account >>, you say. Are you so sure? Was he actually an eyewitness of this HAIR-RAISING STORY? I don’t believe it. On the contrary I believe that the RAF including him were not stupid enough to send an Air-Vice-Marshal to a place where a German air attack was to take place, and the Allies had been knowing it for far longer than one day. This is a phoney story and I’m not even convinced that Douglas himself told it. This sounds more like hearsay, tittle-tattle, hostile gossip : libelling. The fact that Douglas was an AVM doesn’t impress me in the least. He could be the World President or the Bouddha, or Margaret Thatcher, my opinion wouldn’t change. Besides, 65 years later I know this matter much, much better than he ever did. I had time, hindsight and documents at my disposal. Look here : 1939 the French Prime Minister said : “Nous vaincrons parce que nous sommes les plus forts”, we shall win for we are stronger. So shall I respect the Prime Minister and be convinced that he was right? This kind of respect for the autority(ies) is typically German and it made the rise of nazism much easier. Think of this. Those who respect any “superiors” blindly end up within the SS. No thanks.
<< Of course you could write page upon page of french accomplishments, but that does not automatically discount this account. >>
- Yes it does. Ruy, really I’m tired of being forced to write some long replies just because you didn’t read carefully before you wrote your reaction. You have every right to your own opinion but please do not read one of my words in ten, distort what I wrote and conclude that I must be wrong. “It does” BECAUSE the Douglas quotation, in any case as Townsend put it, applies to ALL 1940 French pilots. Quotation from your own quotation : “It was not until later [stress LATER!], when I had Free-French pilots (…), that I found… Frenchmen who could be as keen and gallant.” Together with the preceding sentences this clearly means that 1940 French pilots, contrary to the WW I-ones and to the F-F, were not keen and not gallant, ALL of them. In other words, according to Towsend and possibly to Douglas, NOT ONE SINGLE 1940 French pilot was keen nor gallant. Such a statement is so idiotic and ridiculous that I’m really tired of commenting on it, which ought to be fully unnecessary! These are clearly insults and he who reports them – be it S. Douglas or P. Townsend - is, as I already wrote, a liar because it is not true. Wait a little, you’ll see. Personally I know nothing on S. Douglas except this here but it seems he had enough experience to recognise French pilots (no simple “airmen”, as the RAF calls them). But who knows! Flying overalls, mechanics’ overalls… Badges and stripes (rank insignia) usually were not worn on French overalls, as far as I know. Pilot badges certainly not. The men knew each other but S. Douglas didn’t know who was who.
<< The same thread covers the theme of slander, but in this case both Townsend and Sholto Douglas are being described as liars and forgers. Unfortunately you are using a double standard. >>
- Again! On and on and on! WHAT double standard?
I’d be interested in having Douglas’ own text.
Originally Posted by Hawk-Eye
…in fact it was another airfield (as my logbook proves). My memory betrayed me...
<< So it may have been another field, but who's to say that on that field there were not a number of (fighter) pilots who acted as witnessed by Sholto Douglas? >>
- You’re right : the particular place where it occurred, if it did occur at all, doesn’t matter. Nevertheless you’ll admit that serious errors on the place and on the date - 3 June is IMPOSSIBLE, the French AF had other concerns than small talk with His Highness Douglas on this day of battle - make the whole story really in-credible, not credible. It reeks of invention and libelling. Possibly some French clot (even a fighter pilot) “stole” Townsend’s girl-friend, or proved more clever than him, or beat him in mock-fights, or spoke plain language to him about the Mers el-Kébir aggression or the French corsairs in the past or whatever, I don’t know, but this story stinks of personal revenge. Too bad I discovered it too late to ask Townsend to explain it for me and to clobber him (he was an old man already so I wouldn’t have touched him, I am not English, I wouldn’t dream of shelling my friends paralyzed on ships in harbour either). I can tell you that general Jean Accart, an exceptional hero - which nobody disputes - who had very high responsibilities within the French Air Force, NATO and SHAPE in the 1950s and 1960s, and always defended England, strongly resented what T. had written. Besides, in May 1940 he took off at least once amongst exploding German bombs at Suippes, just like Townsend did during the BoB (or so Townsend told us). The French did this often. I already mentioned that Accart had a German machine-gun bullet exactly between his eyes until he died 1992, but he went back to the fighting as soon as he was able to do so. He was included in Townsend’s wholesale libelling of ALL 1940 French pilots.
<< Maybe Sholto Douglas was wrong in some of his account, does that make him or Townsend forgers and liars?>>
- YES because it is a very serious thing to call ALL pilots of a country “not keen and not gallant”. Absolutely disgusting. Here it’s hard for me NOT to use any bad words but I’m able to control myself : I am not an English AVM or Group-Captain. I hope you noticed, long ago already, that I never retaliated in kind, calling all RAF pilots cowards etc. (this is what English people would do if the situation were reversed). On the contrary, in my book on the French Campaign that you have got, I stressed the RAF pilots’ gallantry and the German’s too. So you see I am definitely not an Englishman because I am fair and objective.
If you don’t think that stating that “NO 1940 Frenchman was brave”, is a lie, we have no chance to understand each other. Of course it’s a lie, this is fully obvious. This filthy lie means also those French pilots (not only fighter p.s) who were killed in combat BEFORE the ominous day and those who were killed on that same day (12 plus 2 non-pilot aircrew were killed on 3 June plus one pilot in an accident and 10 were badly wounded,) and after that day. But WHAT day was it? I consider 3 June out of the question. Top commanders (including Darlan, French Navy’s C-in-C, and Vuillemin, French Air Force’s) don’t use to meet on the day and at the place of a bombing attack. Besides, all the rest of this story is ludicrous : seemingly numerous “pilots” quietly eating lunch under falling bombs etc. Frenchmen are brave and crazy but not THAT crazy.
Originally Posted by Hawk-Eye
Perhaps I can explain the error about "pilots". As you know RAF pilots (proudly) wear their "wings" on their battle-dress. They are made of some textile material. In the French AF EVERY MAN wears similar wings on his battle-dress, even the lowest ranks (ordinary soldiers).
Anyway nobody has the right to draw such drastic conclusions, on a foreign airfield, about a situation which he has no chance to understand if nobody explains it for him.
… But here you set an anecodotal (YM : !!!) episode of a book against what amounts to nothing but an assumption, one that also assumes that AVM Sholto Douglas doesn't know the difference between an ordinary airman and a pilot, albeit a frenchman. Perhaps you assume that this AVM also saluted to the local janitor because like all french generals he had such a beautiful moustage?
- You didn’t even realise I was trying to be nice to Sholto Douglas. The confusion between RAF “wings” (pilot) and French wings (airman) would be all too natural. Certainly it occurred thousands of times. I used the word “error” not “slander”. An error can be easily excused.
The main point you fail to put into proper perspective is that Sholto Douglas (or Townsend by quoting) is decribing an event as he witnessed,
- This is what YOU say. I doubt either of them witnessed anything of this kind. Prove it! In order to have witnessed something writing so is not enough! Of course French fighter pilots, JUST LIKE THEIR BRITISH AND GERMAN COLLEAGUES, were not airborne all the time, 24 hours a day! 2, 3 fighter missions and a pilot was exhausted, especially if he had had to fight, which often was the case.
and as AVM RAF he deserves the same credence or perhaps more than all those other personalities - like Closterman - we are so fond of
- Not at all. I have no obligation whatsoever to believe everything an English general says – in particular an English general! I believe what I think is believable. His story – if any - is not. You are bowing in front of “authority” again like most Germans did in the 1930s, which led directly to Nazi-Germany and WW II. I warn you for this tendency. A second “3rd Reich” will NOT be accepted and not be permitted. I willingly will bow for people who deserve it , for example Churchill (in spite of the Mers el-Kébir aggression, which can’t be forgiven, never, and covered his hands with the blood of 1,300 innocent French seamen), Sir Benjamin Britten, admiral Nelson, Beethoven, Pasteur (you know: pasteurisation, pasteurised!), Botticelli – ah, Botticelli! - Marcel Bloch / Dassault or the Dalai Lama. In particular the latter (OT???). And yes, I very much admire the Pope who is dying right now (he died in the meantime, as you know). I won’t go into his churches and I don’t care about his “moral” guidelines but I admire his courage and his intelligence (against the late USSR…) and I certainly respect such a man. If you want me to respect an RAF AVM give me a good reason.
His authority is his senior rank and background as a WW1 fighter pilot of some repute.
- This does not impress me at all. 1918 was not 1940. A few little things had changed. I don’t know why a 1918 hero should be unfallible on a 1940 air attack. The Armée de l’Air was created in the meantime (very late, 1936 I think). So S. Douglas knew NOTHING on it based on his own experience, possibly not even the various insignia. You’re right : any Pigalle-janitor looks like the Army commander-in-chief of Guatemala or Honduras... or of the French Air Force, if you don’t know the difference. You really have to KNOW the difference between a pilot and an airman to tell it. Besides, when I was just an airman myself many people, looking at my uniform, asked me if I was a pilot (this is always the first question). So you see!
Bottom line remains that Sholto Douglas is a reputable witness,
- Is he this? You repeat yourself. Is he a witness? Really? So he saw something that never took place (which I proved sufficiently)?
I couldn’t help but order a copy of Years of Command: A personal story of the second war in the Air (Collins, 1966), to check this episode myself.
- Good! Please post an ACCURATE quotation asap. Remark : even an accurate quotation can be entirely wrong.
Here is a quotation :
Daniel Costelle in the TV-program “Histoire de l’Aviation” : “Most pilots (flying Morane 406s) will be killed”. In fact they were approx. 270 at the start and 55 of these were killed (10 of them by Flak) according to Paul Martin’s figures (which I used for my calculation).
According to your “system” I have the duty to believe and repect everything this Costelle fellow says because he’s a famous TV-program-maker. Don’t count on me for this! Every program he makes is full of serious errors.
There may be mistakes, but if we don't like what we read
- I don’t like LIES and LIBELLING nor INSULTS. There is a certain difference. Do you know the difference between a normal statement (example : the Allies were unable to resist the German onslaught on the ground) and an insult (example : all Englishmen are yellow because they fled from Dunkerque, letting down their French allies).
it doesn't mean we are also looking at lies and forgeries.
- See my whole posting.
One question, did you ever double check Sholto Douglas' biography?
- What for? I’m not interested in this fellow. I have no interest for this old boot. Have I a duty, as a Frenchman, to know everything on each of Our Most Honorable English Masters?
But let me reply : precisely an RAF AVM has the duty to write and publish only reliable things, with the greatest accuracy, not such old-grandmother-nonsense. In publishing such disgusting refuse he put RAF’s prestige at risk.

A comparison : during the Falklands War the Brits really were angry at the Argies. Nonetheless they highly respect the Argentine pilots and their gallantry. The French really are the ONLY victims of systematic insults and libelling. There certainly is a reason, Englishmen ought to know it.(…)
Back to Townsend (…) I wonder how much harm his publication really did.
- A LOT because he was a squadron-leader 1940, and a Wing-Commander, or Group-Captain already, 1945. He was one of the so-called “few” (not THAT few actually) and he was made really world-famous by his romance with Princess Margaret. This wouldn’t be different today : remember all the incredible fuss about Princess Diana (I mean before her accident) or her son Prince Harry. So Townsend was world-famous, enjoyed the sympathy of the whole world including France, in particular romantic females, he was a star in France and elsewhere. What he published DID matter.
As I've tried to point out by quoting Townsend, there are also positive signals that even things out - in my humble opinion.
- NO because he mentioned a few isolated, positive things which could be considered special cases, whereas his libelling was aimed at ALL 1940 “Frenchmen”, this is the word he used (fighter pilots or not). Do you understand the difference between one pilot and all Frenchmen (there were 40 million)?
In the eyes of the British, the French failed by discontinuing the fight,
- OK, this is understandable, the more so for the French and the Brit. governments had undertaken NOT to quit separately. But then came Pétain… HE is the culprit, the bad guy! In fact very numerous generals, soldiers and virtually all surviving airmen wanted to keep fighting. Pétain’s person was decisive – unfortunately. I can confirm that French airmen including bomber and recce crews in no way felt they were beaten, I’d say on the contrary, for THEY saw and knew what happened in the sky, they knew their losses and victories. On top of this their morale, very high at the start, was still enhanced by the fast, massive arrival of more and more brand-new, much-improved aircraft, for example LeO 451s and the excellent Douglas DB-7 (the future “Boston”) replacing the antique-looking Amiot 143 and Bloch 200s or 131s etc., the superlative Bloch 174 replacing vulnerable recce AC. Aircraft losses were more than replaced. Of course they were SAD because their country was partly destroyed again and occupied, once more, by the hated Boches, but certainly not discouraged or demoralised, quite on the contrary : now at last, with all the new aircraft, they could teach’em! Pétain’s decision to sue for an armistice annihilated them totally by surprise.
those are pretty harsh terms but set against the summer of 1940 and without the benefit of hindsight, not really surprising.
- All right but this is no reason to insult 40 million French people. Even Englishmen recognise and respect the great feats of the Free-French, then simply French, wing “Normandie-Niémen” in Russia. May I remind them and you that 2 of the 3 commanding officers were French fighter pilots having taken part in the 1940 fighting (Pouyade and Delfino)! Several of the other pilots too. The 1st C.O., Tulasne, had been stationed in the Lebanon and so he never had a chance to take part, much to his chagrin. He joined the Free-French at the first opportunity – but he had to wait for 6 months! There is no real difference between the Free-French and the others, this is old female’s chat. Some of the Free-French fighter pilots in England had fought in May-June 1940 already. The others had been too young (like Clostermann, aged only 19, and famous Jacques Andrieux, “Jaco”, a great ace) or too far away and prevented from fighting, which made them very angry, like René Mouchotte, of RAF and Biggin-Hill fame, who was an instructor in North Africa – much to his chagrin too. He died heroically 1943 leading the Biggin-Hill wing over France.

It is obvious that there was resentment between the British and French after the collapse in the west. (…) judging by your writing some of that resentment has been passed to the next generation and still lingers on.
- It will do so forever, it will NEVER be forgotten, never ever. Not because we were beaten. I discovered this progressively, to my own surprise, listening to French radio programs. Clearly some 1940 events are engraved in the collective national memory of the whole French population. I repeat I was surprised, I had expected “these old stories” to be forgotten. Quite on the contrary. Even young French people borne 1975 or 1985 strongly resent that “England let “us” (sic) down at Dunkerque” (instead of fighting it out, a nice British phrase) and attacked “us” (sic) at Mers el-Kébir. I would never have expected this. But we, too, have some traditions, not only England. We still admire Jeanne d’Arc, whom Englishmen called a “hore” : they’ll never change will they. All right John Bull : if Jeanne d’Arc was a hore I love that hore and I kiss her feet. I admire her too but my favourite is Bertrand du Guesclin (1320-1380), who cut the Englishmen to ribbons with his good French sword. Cold steel. He threw England out of the French provinces of Normandie, Poitou, Guyenne – the SW part of France including Bordeaux and Cognac… - and Saintonge. He was borne one of the poorest French children and his prospects in life were bleak but he was a wonderful fighting man and very clever. Eventually he became the supreme commander of his king’s armies. (A typical French coward as usual, like Jean Bart and Surcouf, two more great heroes but on the sea, not really popular in England).
What remains obvious is that something went terribly wrong in the summer of 1940 and for some the explanation needs a scapegoat.
- They always need scapegoats after a defeat. Remember that.
Writing as an enthusiast, not as a moderator.
- Good!
Ruy, your remarks on this whole affair and your one-sidedness force me to reluctantly tell you what really happened in and over France on 3 June 1940. Reluctantly because these facts have been well-known for about 50 years or more and it’s a shame to be forced to repeat this story again and again. But the stake – History- makes it worthwhile. I know certain people read the postings here. Systematically defending – as you are doing - whoever I am attacking is neither objective nor clever nor historically relevant. After all I could be damn right. I am.
3 June 1940 : German operation “Paula”


The goal was to “deal the French Air Force the death-blow” thanks to attacks on airfields, the aircraft industry and also communications, mainly the railway system, and the morale of the population, which it was hoped would be scared (afterwards the population knew only one word : “Retaliation” – a few civilian buildings had been hit by bombs). Raymond Danel (not “Daniel”) gave many intersting explanations and details in the beautiful review “Icare” N° 54 (1972) dealing with “La Chasse”, the fighters. This was 33 years ago all right but it was 31 years after 1940 so I think that Danel, the very best historian of this period, was sufficiently informed. The French were warned of the attack well in advance (since 23 May), they had their own German spies. So they planned the defence of the vital Paris area, a target they could not afford to leave unprotected. Several “Groupes de chasse” were stationed in the region all the time anyway and AAA was strong. More fighter units were sent there, in particular to Chantilly, Lognes (in the East) etc., including GC I/3 and their about 30 Dewoitines, but no fighter unit was stationed at Villacoublay on 3 June, probably because it was too close to the city of Paris (?). About 7 Groupes de chasse totalling approx. 200 fighters were ready to welcome our German cousins plus units stationed in the East, which had the task to intercept the German formations on the return leg : 4 GCs with about 100 AC including 3 of the top-scoring units (GC I/5, II/5, II/7). About 50 twin-engined Potez 631 fighters were to watch the approach of the enemy. The Polish GC I/145 sent 3 CR 714 into the fight from Dreux (West of Paris) and destroyed 3 Me 109s.
French AF HQ had decided to send the take-off order by radio so a powerful radio transmitter was specially installed on the Eiffel Tower to get maximum range, but these nitwits used this same transmitter profusely in the days preceding the German attack (several thousand messages) so that the Germans were alerted and it was heavily jammed on the day of the attack, so that the fighter units did not hear or understand the order and “most French fighters stayed on the ground. Luckily not all of them” (Danel). Eventually most fighters took off amongst exploding bombs or under attack by German fighters. Of course in such a situation everybody must obey orders and must NOT take off independently, just as he likes and if it suits him. You must follow the plan. These men had to be highly disciplined and they were. To a fighter pilot this is the hardest thing to do : wait for orders, sitting in his aircraft under the sun but not take off. Of course they did it when under attack but it was too late : they won a few victories but they were slaughtered for in the take-off and climb phase a fighter was virtually a sitting duck. This is why 18 French fighters were shot down during this nightmare – very high losses by French fighter standards - one of them being a Potez 631 with a crew of 3 (all 3 were killed). The losses according to Paul Martin were 2 MS 406, 10 Bloch 152, 2 Curtiss H-75, 3 D.520 and 1 Potez 631. Of course this means that at least 10 times as many had started and yes, in fact French fighters flew 243 sorties on this day (not more because of the German radio-jamming). According to Townsend they all flew their sorties, and were killed in the air, while quietly having lunch at… Villacoublay. 12 pilots were killed in combat plus one in an accident, 2 other aircrew were KIA, 10 more pilots were wounded. 4 took to their parachutes. I feel everybody ought to respect the memory of these men and of the survivors as well instead of suggesting that they wouldn’t fight!
So it did happen indeed that whole French fighter units were waiting for the take-off order but never received it and they did not take off. It was not different within the RAF during the BoB : of course they waited for the order to take off. Did Sholto Douglas witness what he said? Certainly not. You don’t send an Air Vice-Marshal to the place of an air attack, just to enjoy watching the bombs falling on his head. Darlan, C-i-C of the Marine Nationale, and Vuillemin, C-i-C of the Armée de l’Air, were even less on one of these airfileds. Nonsense again and again! Possibly some indignant Polish pilot, a member of a French unit, later reported in England that the French would not fight and did not even take off on this day.
There is exactly the same stupid anti-French legend about a French airfield near Tours, covered with “over 50 fighters” which did nothing to prevent the bombing of this city. Possibly it’s in Townsend’s book too.
As Galland remarked this was the first attempt of a big strategic air attack during WW II, the Luftwaffe engaged considerable forces even though the published figures range from 500 to 1,200 (J. Prien) so it HAD to be a success and the OKW (not Goebbels, Prien replied to me) released a triumphant statement according to which 79 French AC had been shot down (in fact 18) and 300-400 destroyed on the ground (in fact 16 according to R. Danel; it could be 19). 32 soldiers were killed and 21 vehicles destroyed. All other destructions (railways etc.) were insignificant and the railway system was restored by the morning of the next day. French fighters claimed 17 victories, the LW acknowledged (possibly post-war) the loss of “about 25 aircraft”. AAA was to be reckoned with in this area. A Ju 88 was s/d by a Bloch 152 and a D.520, which led to Oberst (colonel) Josef Kammhuber, commanding KG 51, being taken prisoner. One more result which hardly can be disputed.
Now Ruy you so stubbornely repeated that maybe this and perhaps that, so “it” could be true after all, that I with equal stubbornness want to repeat that what Townsend wrote is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE because :
Because what he wrote means that 1940 not one single Frenchman was keen nor gallant (!). “Schweinerei! Sauerei! Viecherei, verdammt nochmal! Der Typ war eine Sau.” As you know, on the contrary, the whole world, most of all England, admires and celebrates the incredible gallantry of RAF pilots in the BoB. Let’s have a look at this. A comparison makes a lot of sense for the following reasons :
- Armée de l’Air and RAF had exactly the same enemy in the French Campaign and in the BoB;
- This enemy flew almost exactly the same aircraft although the German ones were progressively improved. These improvements prove that the Armée de l’Air already had given them quite a beating. After all, these aircraft types had been tried in combat over Spain and Poland except the Ju 88.
- RAF fighter types were exactly the same as over France although no Spitfire fighter was based in France before 1944 (one or two photo recce Spits were already 1940).
The Luftwaffe had been SIGNIFICANTLY weakened over France, my evaluation being that about 80 % of its losses of COMBAT aircraft were of French origin (excluding over 200 Ju 52s destroyed by the heroic and very good Dutch ground and air forces).
I WILL NOT elaborate here and now but Williamson Murray’s figures show that the Luftwaffe loss rate (= losses for the same duration) over France was twice as high as over England in spite of the decisive RAF advantages of radar and fighting only over the own territory : any German emergency landing meant a total loss (not so in France) and shot-down RAF pilots who were not killed were saved and could fight again (not so the German pilots). The RAF had another significant advantage : the French had greatly weakened the enemy already and German numbers were lower. Many a crack fighter pilot was dead or badly wounded. Same thing for the bombers, which suffered very heavy losses over France. See for ex. KG 27’s history (“Boelcke-Archiv”) by Walter Waiss. German bomber crews really did not always enjoy a good time in the French sky. This probably had but a few reasons including French fighters.
Roughly 1,000 fighter pilots took part in the May-June 1940 French Campaign with the Armée de l’Air. A total of approximately 160 were killed in 38 days (only s-lt Raphenne was killed – by Flak – after 17 June) including a few non-pilots (aircrew of Potez 631s). This means about 16 % in 38 days or about 13.2 % for an average month of 30.5 days. For the pilots only 12 % is certainly very close to the true figure.
In the Battle of Britain RAF pilots enjoyed one more advantage : no Flak and no low-level attacks on German tanks! Some would argue that British AA was as dangerous for the RAF as for the LW but this probably is not entirely accurate. According to the figures published by “Icare”, which were provided “on 11 November 1980 by Group Captain T.P. Gleave”, RAF losses in pilots killed in the BoB (not including Bomber and Coastal Command) from 15 July to 31 October were 435 or 18.5 % of the 2,357 pilots who took part (see Icare N° 99, La Bataille d’Angleterre Tome III, Hiver (Winter) 1981-82, page 111). This corresponds 5.7 % in 30.5 days. The French loss rate under the same conditions was about 2.1 times higher, more than double the RAF rate. You could say that 1940 French fighter pilots were twice as brave and keen as RAF pilots but I am not such a simple-minded English-hater.
I never thought that being killed proves you were a hero (contrary to virtually all official comments) but in this case, yes, these French pilots at least were prepared to fight and to die. Otherwise they wouldn’t have volunteered. There were some other jobs in the armed forces. These figures prove that whoever insults French fighter pilots (or those of any other country), or all Frenchmen, is a disgusting, repugnant fellow.
To me this is the end of this discussion, which was much too costly in precious time because of rather childish objections like “Perhaps…” and “Possibly…” but this matter had to be settled once and for all. Sometimes I felt like in a kindergarden, fighting silly, all-too-simple arguments. Think and read first, argue 2nd.
Ouf!

[Ruy Horta]

As I expected you miss the the point and choose to ignore the main issue.

A quick glance shows the usual land fill of interesting, but to my question irrelevant information, flooding the reader with information, but giving no real answer.

Why no answer, because I never attacked French Fighter pilots, simple.

You choose to ignore Sholto Douglas, and even explain why you do so, but you miss the point. You are Yves Michelet, post war frenchman, he was AVM Sholto Douglas RAF, contemporary witness, his writings deserve better attention, even if you disagree. Until you can proof the annecdote to be false, your writing is just opinion, that's all.

And I must consider you to be a serious historian - ignoring first hand information because it doesn't conform to your views (note, I am not even discussing if the data is right or wrong)?

Personally I do believe the french fought hard (on average) and deserve more credit for the 1940 campaign. The irony is that I have left my own opinion (favorable to the French) out of the debate.

IMHO you have failed to act as an historian, that is a personal opinion and not a personal attack. Personally I think that you are quite a nice fellow as long as the subject isn't the French AF in 1940-41.

[Smudger Smith]

Not wishing to fan the flames of an already heated discussion, I have a few simple questions, which hopefully Hawk-Eye will be able to answer.



Firstly, let me make clear I have the greatest respect for the French fighter and bomber pilots who fought so valiantly during the French campaign.



I have read with fascination some of Hawk-Eyes argument, there are some truths in what he has stated, however hindsight is a wonderful thing. My conclusion to the tread is perhaps simplistic however here it is.



The French Airforce was comprehensively defeated; it failed in its prime role, the defence of France. It was not the courage of the French pilot’s, it was not the standard of their aircraft, it was their LEADERSHIP.



With bad leadership comes a loss of moral, the desire to continue the struggle, a loss of fighting spirit.



It was not the British who failed France but the French Generals. Our own generals failed the British in France during 1940, “ Lions led by Donkeys”. Comes to mind.



The RAF moral was not broken, nor the Poles or Czechs, for our leaders made it known that we would continue the struggle to the bitter end, the French sadly lacking this decisiveness did not. This in my opinion would have had a negative effect on French moral.



What I find truly amazing is that the same French pilots who fought with so much panache, skill and typical French zeal basically when ordered gave in, without a whimper. Not only did they surrender themselves they surrendered their aircraft. Inexcusable.



The Poles and the Czechs did not give in; they continued the fight whenever possible, the vast majority of French pilots chose not to.



A question, if with the inevitable collapse of France why did the French Government not order the remnants of the French Airforce to fly and operate from Britain, their Allies ?



They would have made a significant difference to the Battle of Britain, for they the French had proven their fighting ability over France.



France had a simple decision to make, continue the fight or give in and surrender, they chose to surrender. A brave few decided not to, they are a credit to France, and I salute their memory.

[Artist]

Thank you, Smudger Smith, you have put my thoughts into the words I could not. I am not much for writing, that is why I paint. Well said!!

Bob

[Hawk-Eye]

CORRECTION
... the OKW (not Goebbels, Prien replied to me) released a triumphant statement according to which 79 French AC had been shot down (in fact 18) and 300-400 destroyed on the ground (in fact 16 according to R. Danel; it could be 19).
I have no idea who put this yellow icon instead of the figure 8. Certainly not me. Please read :
(in fact 18 ...)
Smudger Smith : I really cant' reply now, I have a profession etc. Just one thing : about the idea of French AC flying to England I already answered this either in this thread or in another one : "Fighter pilots chicken?" or Ruy's "Battle of France-Battle of Britain". In a few words : when French fighters were not too far from England and had the range to reach it the fighting was in full swing over France itself so there was no reason to leave, which would have been DESERTION. For this normally you are shot by a firing squad but this is not what deterred the French fighter pilots : they had a lot to do fighting the Fluftwaffe and the German army and they were destroying hundreds of German aircraft, much to England's benefit.
Later the German invasion pushed all French forces to southern France. When the decision to fly to England could have been taken it was too late, far, they didn't have the range to fly (possibly fighting German fighters en route to England). A few did fly to England, I don't know under what circumstances. Fighter pilots are no great navigators : possibly many were scared to end in the ocean West or South of England. The French Channel is very narrow at Dover-Boulogne but very wide around Land's End! Even from Cherbourg Me 109s later had just the range. If you miss... It would have been advisable to fly over the Atlantic in order to avoid German interception.
Remember that the RAF fighters' range was just sufficient to fly to Dunkerque and back, and fight a little, during the evacuation, but there the distance is very short. From Bordeaux, Toulouse or Perpignan it was simply virtually impossible to reach England with a fighter except twin-engined AC.
I explained already how all French airmen were trapped by Pétain's unexpected plea for an armistice : some in France, some in French North Africa. They all had been expecting a continuation of the fighting from Africa so until 17 June 1940 they had absolutely no reason to become deserters and fly to England. After that it was too late. Also, remember that Pétain was the LEGAL head of the French government (even if I hate him) and at the time was the by far most prestigious, most respected Frenchman (a WW I marshal, "Verdun's hero" etc.) so every soldier including pilots had a tendency to believe and obey him (which was wrong). 1940 Pétain had exactly the same place in French society and the same prestige as 1945 or 1958 Charles de Gaulle! Only a few pilots refused to listen to him.You can't expect such a feat from everybody, this would be asking too much. Besides, the US President, F.D. Roosevelt, preferred Pétain against de Gaulle (!) for several years and had full diplomatic relationships and excellent contacts with Vichy-France (which means Pétain) until November 1942!!! Almost 2 1/2 years after the end of the French Campaign! FDR knew about Pétain's collaboration etc., 1940 fighter pilots did not. So you see a simple French fighter pilot can be excused for having made the same error!
Those who stayed in France because their fighters didn't have the range to fly to N. Africa couldn't fly to England either. They were trapped in France.
I would have found it WONDERFUL if all French fighter pilots had taken part in the Battle of Britain but almost immediately they would have had to fly British aircraft for lack of French spares (the British industry was producing enough fighters for this). But I am not sure that the British government would have wished such a massive French participation and possibly dozens of French fighter pilots becoming great heroes in the eyes of the British population. This WOULD have happened for they all were very combat-hardened and dozens of them were "aces" already, at least 10 were great aces. No British government wished that...
No time now for the rest.

[Ruy Horta]

Perhaps part of the problem is how people perceive the western campaign of 1940. It appears that most believe that the western campaign was almost finished after the evacuation of Dunkirk, while this would only mark the beginning of the Battle of France. This is of course based upon the British point of view.

12 Days in May...

The BEF and offensive edge of the Anglo-French forces might have effectively been knocked out, but the Germans still had an undefeated French army opposing them. It isn't surprising that they were not keen to throw their panzers into the Dunkirk cauldron. Unfortunately geography didn't favor the French after the May disaster.

However the loyalty of french pilots would have been with France, with the hardest days yet to come, and rightly so, wouldn't you say? Those who stayed after Dunkirk choose to fight on, those who evacuated were (temporarely) OUT of the fight.

I may be arguing with Yves over some minor points, but that does not include the bravery of french forces (not only the fighter pilots btw). I don't even think that we should blame the officer corps. A lot went wrong, many new lessons were to be learned (or mistakes to be repeated).

[Hawk-Eye]

This sounds much better.
Yes to virtually all British, German and other authors the French Campaign ended on 3 June 1940 with the end of the Dunkerque evacuation. Most of their books don't even mention the Battle of France (5-24 June), they jump directly from Dk. to the BoB, clearly showing that the French are wholly unimportant and uninteresting, only the British part being interesting.
I don't think that ANY French pilot went to England before June 17. Certainly some aircraft landed there for various reasons but they were not joining the RAF (not yet). I have explained why not already. During the Dk. operation (Dynamo) one French unit was sent to England (GC II/8 equipped with about 20-25 Bloch 152s and having 25-30 pilots) and based at Lympne from 30 May to 5 June (for 5-6 days). This was ordered by French HQ and certainly government. I believe the reason was not so much the Dk. evacuation but the fact that they could better intervene over N. France from Lympne. (No warranty). GC II/8 shot down 1 Ju 88 on 1 June, nothing else (much ado...), and had no losses.

[Andy Mac]

Hello Artist - do you paint aircraft?

[Hawk-Eye]

France had a simple decision to make, continue the fight or give in and surrender, they chose to surrender. A brave few decided not to, they are a credit to France, and I salute their memory.
I agree entirely with them and with you Smudger but let us remember that taking part in a great war, or not, very rarely is a personal, individual decision (there are only a few individual volunteers). Government takes these decisions. After Pétain's very unfortunate words almost every person in France was FIRMLY CONVINCED of what he had just said : we must cease fighting ("Je vous dis - I am telling you - qu'il faut cesser le combat"). If admiral Nelson during his lifetime, or Churchill, had said the same thing, how many Britons would note have followed him and refused to cease fire?
I repeat : Pétain was "THE" French hero, the man of Verdun, "THE" enemy of Germany, almost a holy man! He was just what de Gaulle was from 1944 on. Or what Churchill was to Britons 1940-45.

Hindsight :
(To non-English native speakers, in particular French readers, I'd like to explain that "hindsight" means "afterwards", looking backwards etc. : it's very easy to be wise and clever with the benefit of hindsight, 20 to 3,000 years later. When you know everything about a problem (people didn't know at the time) you can solve this problem much better and look very clever!).
Yes hindsight is very useful and helps a lot.
I didn't claim I hadn't the benefit of hindsight. I have. Clearly many things I / we know today were not known 1940. This does not make my reasoning wrong, on the contrary.
In any case I repeat for the millionth time : wholesale insulting a whole nation (in a nutshell : "No Frenchman was keen nor gallant 1940") cannot be accepted, that's all I wanted to say at the start. What's more, it's an extremely stupid statement and very easy to prove the opposite including using British statements only (Churchill's etc.), for ex. about the French rearguard at Dunkerque.
The fact remains that - in half the time - French fighter pilots, including their brave and much-valued Czech and Polish comrades, destroyed as many German aircraft as the RAF did in the BoB. In half the time! So they did their share of the job, the RAF finished the job and did the 2nd, remaining half. It had become easier for all the well-known reasons (radar, own soil etc.) but also because the French (including AA in many cases) had destroyed a large part of the German aircraft (German production was very insufficient at the time) AND of the German aircrew, almost exclusively perfectly-trained, combat-hardened men including many a German fighter ace who didn't survive. These AC and these aircrew would have done a lot of harm in the English sky and possibly would have tipped the balance. Townsend ought to have been very grateful to the French instead of spitting at their graves!
Last but not least : the French should not have surrendered? What about the Dutch, who surrendered already on 15 May, a bit hastily I think (I am aware of the Rotterdam fire), what about Belgium, which surrendered on 28 May, leaving the French army "in the air", in a very awkward (and deadly) position, what about the British, who started their evacuation planning very early indeed, namely on 20 May (!) and possibly in September 1939, and let down their ally exactly in the middle of the fighting, what about the USA, which didn't even take part in this war although they knew perfectly well that eventually they would have to but waited until they were forced to do it by Japanese aggression at Pearl Harbor, the US forces being terribly ill-prepared even in December 1941 (France was at war, and experienced some fighting, more than two years earlier!).

[Artist]

Yes, I very much enjoy painting aircraft. This ones almost done,still fiddling with the plane.

[Ruy Horta]

Je vous dis qu'il faut cesser le combat
Maybe he was right in the summer of 1940, especially without the benefit of hindsight.

No Frenchman was keen nor gallant 1940
Fortunately those are your words, not Townsends and anyone on this forum.
You misquote and take out of context, odd for someone who's good in languages as yourself - perhaps Freudian :angry:

In half the time!
It isn't about time Yves, it is about sorties flown. How many sorties did the Luftwaffe fly during the Battle of France compared to the Battle of Britain? Again I'd be surprised if you really didn't know the difference.


"L'Invicibles Vainqueurs"
So they did their share of the job, the RAF finished the job and did the 2nd, remaining half. It had become easier for all the well-known reasons (radar, own soil etc.) but also because the French (including AA in many cases) had destroyed a large part of the German aircraft (German production was very insufficient at the time) AND of the German aircrew, almost exclusively perfectly-trained, combat-hardened men including many a German fighter ace who didn't survive. These AC and these aircrew would have done a lot of harm in the English sky and possibly would have tipped the balance. Townsend ought to have been very grateful to the French instead of spitting at their graves!

Your standard Britain should be very greatful, since it was France who practically won the Battle for Britain before it started. Yet there are no numbers. How many aces did the Jagdwaffe loose? What is the exact number of aircrew lost over France, air crew that didn't return like Mölders did. Did this really influence the balance? The Luftwaffe had to lick its wounds (rest its crews and replace lost a/c and men after two months of campaigning), but is there any proof that they were planning a size increase before the attack on Britain? Did the Luftwaffe enter the Battle of Britain with a significantly weaker force? Judging by the 1941 forces that engaged the Soviet Union, I'd be tempted to say (without checking my sources) that such an expansion was not really part of the plan. Would larger reserves have helped during the Battle of Britain campaign, sure, but they would not have tipped the balance. Lets not even start on almost exclusively perfectly-trained, combat-hardened men, that is a gross exaggeration.

Last but not least : the French should not have surrendered? What about the Dutch, who surrendered already on 15 May, a bit hastily I think (I am aware of the Rotterdam fire)
Fight fire with fire right? Indeed the dutch could have fought on, for what, two days longer and achieve what? The main towns in ruins and no strategic gains. You do not understand the dutch situation, Fortress Holland, although valuable in the days before the aeroplane, had become worthless in WW2. Fortress Holland also contains all the "big" cities concentrated in a rough triangle Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Utrecht. Sure the dutch could have lasted a couple of days extra - only the army, since the AF had fought itself to oblivion.

Fighting on for more ruins and dead civilians.

Je vous dis qu'il faut cesser le combat
The problem with modern states is that there is a difference between the time they've been beaten and the time they accept they have lost. The dutch being good tradesmen, know when a cause is lost, they than start looking at cutting their losses and the next hopefully more profitable deal.

In this case the next deal happended to be the continued fight from Britain.

Unlike France the dutch had a poor bargaining position.

what about Belgium, which surrendered on 28 May, leaving the French army "in the air", in a very awkward (and deadly) position.
Don't you mean Anglo-French armies?

what about the British, who started their evacuation planning very early indeed, namely on 20 May (!) and possibly in September 1939, and let down their ally exactly in the middle of the fighting.
It is not at all strange that they started planning the evacuation at the earliest date. It is called a contingency, to be ready in the case of ... defeat. If the British General Staff was worth its red stripe they'd would have had the outline of an evacuation plan not long after they had a plan to put forces on the continent - the two plans should go together. Deployment + Evacuation.

I believe there were still British units on the continent after Dunkirk (Highlanders?) but I am too lazy to check any sources. That the British army let their ally down in the middle of fighting was not really a matter of their choosing, now was it? Or have you suddenly forgotten the military reality in the North?

But this is (yes here it comes) a better example of your double standard, because if a Britton had used similar words to describe the french effort, you'd be incensed. Remember how Britain was let down by France when did not continue the fight. In the end, we must assume this to be little more than a tit for tat game.

Now more on topic, why didn't the British pour in their AF more aggressively when they had the opportunity (right from the beginning). The Battle of Britain is always used as the excuse to proof the decision right, but at the time it was too cautious an act. The RAF employed wholesale (with a less large reserve at home, including Bomber Command) could have had a significant impact on the course of the Western campaign.

The British Army did all it could, but the RAF was not fully committed, and most histories try to explain this fact "away" in terms of home defense and the coming Battle of Britain. Of course those RAF men that were deployed fought to their best ability, but RAF High Command did not. They were fighting a safe war with strong reserves at home and strong adherence to doctrine. Now the debate will undoubtingly enter the numbers game - what RAF FC considered to be the minimal number of squadrons needed to defend the Realm.

Just consider that during the actual Battle of Britain the RAF was still able at all time to maintain a number of Groups that were practically reserve groups and even No.12 group wasn't a real front line group until the bombing of London.

The RAF might have been too cautious and rigidly doctrinal in their 1939/40 campaign on the continent.

what about the USA, which didn't even take part in this war although they knew perfectly well that eventually they would have to but waited until they were forced to do it by Japanese aggression at Pearl Harbor, the US forces being terribly ill-prepared even in December 1941
That is democracy for you. The US population was isolationist in 1940, why should their sons be killed (again) in a european squabble? Can't really say that I blame them for that. In their view 17/18 hadn't solved the european issue, why bother a second time?

Of course the politicians were smarter. Sell weapons against dollars or gold, let those dumb Europeans buy themselves into financial dependency (Clive Ponting 1940 - Myth and Reality).

France bought, Britain bought and kept buying and finally loaning. If at one stage your now dependent countries are near to losing the war, you can always back them up militarily (to ensure final payment of debts after the war has been won - the cynic would add).

The Battle of Britain was more a Battle for Washington...but not a less important battle to win!!

The Arsenal of Democracy was a very profitable business before the Japanese forced the issue and started the global war

Off topic, but that's what this tread is all about, right?

Most of this is opinion

[Andy Mac]

Artist - very nice!:)

[Hawk-Eye]

Sorry Ruy, I simply can't reply now but I'll just mention that you're being unfair to the British about their aerial effort in May-June 1940. I think they really did all they could do over NL-B-F. The outcome of the BoB really could have been different and Britain would have been more comfortable without the losses suffered over the continent but then, Britain had been first to declare war on Germany so a war, which also means losses, must be expected.
More some other time (?).

[Ruy Horta]

So now I am being unfair to the British, now that's irony for you!!

I wonder if some Brits here on this forum wonder if they should believe their eyes.

Sorry, I am not attacking the effort of British pilots or other military men, I am not talking of treason and abandonment (or worse), I am only questioning the grand strategic picture of RAF High Command, especially Dowding. Whereas the British Army gave it their best shot, the RAF kept large reserves, both in terms of fighters and bombers in adherence to rigid doctrine (strategic bombing and a strong deterant against strategic bombing).

Later events don't necessarily proof the correctness of this doctrine, although supporters of Dowding like to stress this point. But the whole argument becomes hypothetical.

Still I like the irony in the sudden role reversal here, won't be long or its me that will be accused of being anti-British with you as their champion. :D

I'll throw in a nice quote from someone who wrote without the benefit of hindsight:

But we hadn't wanted this bloody awful war that the Huns seemed to think so glorious. We had been forced to fight. 'And now that were are fighting,' we thought, 'we'll teach you rotten Huns how to fight! We'll shoot your pissy little fighters out of the sky, we'll rip your dirty great bombers to shreds, we'll make you wish to Christ you'd never heard of the aeroplane! We'll teach you the facts of war!' And we knew we could - if we were reinforced.

We were sure we had the measure of the Germans. Already our victories far exceeded our losses, and the Squadron score for a week's fighting stood at around the hundred mark for the deficit of two pilots missing and one wounded. We knew the Huns couldn't keep going at that rate, but we also knew we couldn't keep it up much longer without help. We were confident that help would soon come. We reckoned without Dowding.

Paul Richey, Fighter Pilot

Apart from the optimistic claim this annecdote illustrates I am not completely bonkers for even suggesting that there might have been a bigger RAF effort (again, do not read this as more effort from the men already on the Front!)

[Hawk-Eye]

Yes I quite understand. I was meaning the RAF as a whole, especially Dowding. The outcome of the BoB was a close call, Fighter Command at some point in August was really exhausted, almost finished. So Dowding was right. Of course there's nothing wrong with RAF aircrew's keenness and gallantry. I am not English so I'll never dream of insulting their memories. They were more than all right, sometimes perhaps TOO brave when they executed orders and attacked in a hell and a hail of Flak in their ol' slow "Battles" and so vulnerable "Blenheims". One of them (Garland) won a VC but was it worth it? What matters is the result.
Allied HQ were really slow-witted. Why the hell didn't they react immediately, on 11 May already, and order anti-Flak strikes shortly ahead of the strikes proper (this was done later in the war). It was fully possible to send for ex. the sturdy Bloch 152s or the excellent assault AC Breguet 693 thirty seconds ahead of the main force. Both had an excellent armament for this task. Their pilots even would have enjoyed hitting back at the Flak! Adding a little armour wouldn't have been a big problem (the 693s were armoured already... but not the rear-gunner's seat). AC sent to attack columns etc. almost never were able to fire at the Flak.

PS : YES the RAF could have done much more over the continent but afterwards it could have done only much less over England and this would have compromised the outcome of the BoB very seriously. Most RAF losses were non-combat losses, mainly AC which had to be left behind because the German ground troops were approaching (same thing for the Armée de l'Air but it was worse for the RAF, which was stationed closer to Belgium). This is not a satisfying way of losing precious aircraft. What I mean is that on the continent many RAF AC would have been lostjust like that, to no avail without having been really useful. They wouldn't have changed the outcome. For this you need an incredible air superiority, like 1944 over Normandy (remember that the Luftwaffe never could be prevented from bombing and strafing Allied troops).

[Smudger Smith]

YES the RAF could have done much more over the continent but afterwards it could have done only much less over England and this would have compromised the outcome of the BoB very seriously. Most RAF losses were non-combat losses, mainly AC which had to be left behind because the German ground troops were approaching (same thing for the Armée de l'Air but it was worse for the RAF, which was stationed closer to Belgium). This is not a satisfying way of losing precious aircraft. What I mean is that on the continent many RAF AC would have been lost just like that, to no avail without having been really useful. They wouldn't have changed the outcome. For this you need an incredible air superiority, like 1944 over Normandy (remember that the Luftwaffe never could be prevented from bombing and strafing Allied troops).[/QUOTE]



I am sorry but the above remarks are not only factually incorrect they defy belief.



What more could the RAF have done. Like any conflict, you use the recourses available to you with discretion; you never commit all your available force at once. Remember Napoleon !!. There’s an old English saying, I quote, ‘ Don’t put all your egg’s in one basket ’



A question, What if RAF Fighter Command had committed it’s entire strength over France, would it have had any real effect on the ground campaign. The British Army was ill equipped but committed, the French was in a similar position. The German Army in 1940 was an effective “MODERN” army. The presence of Spitfires and Hurricanes would not have stemmed the advance, it may have slowed it down. What would the cost have been to Fighter Command, 50% casualties ?. What would the outcome of the BoB have been with 50% fewer fighters. ! Yes I accept that the Luftwaffe would have received a mauling also, however would they have lost sufficient numbers to postpone the planned invasion. !



What about the losses suffered by the Fairey Battle & Bristol Blenheim squadrons, their heroic action against Maastricht, Sedan and various other targets.



The bravery of these fine young men is unsurpassed; their sacrifice in the face of over whelming odds is unparallel. They are a credit to the RAF and their generation.



The aircraft left behind were left because the were write-off’s due to enemy action or mechanical failure, not because of the approach of the German Army. The RAF was not in the habit of leaving flyable aircraft for the enemy.



I feel a large gin and a pint of best is required to steady myself.

[Hawk-Eye]

The aircraft left behind were left because the were write-off’s due to enemy action or mechanical failure, not because of the approach of the German Army. The RAF was not in the habit of leaving flyable aircraft for the enemy.
Did I ever say otherwise? Nevertheless there are circumstances in which you are forced to abandon even flyable aircraft : if there are not enough pilots at the moment to fly them all away. Such things did happen.
Non-flyable AC left behind were not all write-offs (these are wrecks actually and usually they were pushed into some remote corner). Many could perfectly well be repaired, perhaps in half an hour or within a day, or be refuelled, or get a new tyre. Sometimes there was no time for this. You don't seem to be aware of all the realities of war.

[Smudger Smith]

Hawk-Eye,



I don’t seem to all the realities of war, ? I think my friend you should read your past posts, digest, and learn from them.



You presume I have not experienced the realities of war. Unfortunately and in a similar fashion to your other posts you make a statement without the facts and presume wrongly.



Regarding the condition of flying or non-flying RAF aircraft left in France, the few left by the AASF was really insignificant and of little real value, the Germans had the whole French Airforce to pick-over and use at their leisure once your government handed them over. !





This is my last post on the matter. I wish you well in your efforts.

[Hawk-Eye]

Hawk-Eye,
......the Germans had the whole French Airforce to pick-over and use at their leisure once your government handed them over. ! I regret you force me to say this is a ludicrous statement (same quality as Townsend's). Firstly the French government ordered all aircraft which had the range to fly to French North Africa - not only the fighters. This they did. This government was led by Paul Reynaud. Then Pétain took over and everything became different (but these flights were not stopped).
According to Danel and Cuny approx. 550 modern fighters were flown to N. Africa, a considerable force. Add numerous bombers and recce AC. 1,155 modern fighters were left in the UNoccupied part of France (plus many bombers etc.). Most of these didn't have the range to fly to N. Africa. Those which had (for ex. 170 Dewoitine 520s) couldn't escape for lack of a pilot, petrol or some vital part, or they had still been in the factories, many just off the assembly lines. We'll probably never know how many AC were left in the occupied part of France, most probably a few hundred plus many wrecks of destroyed AC. The Germans were not interested in the intact AC in unoccupied France, they didn't seize them but left them where they were.
Of course all AC should have been systematically destroyed by the French before their surrender but here we bump into the realities you ignore. This was tried whenever possible. Many civilian and military pilots flew AC to safety, taking great risks for themselves. Why do you think that almost all Arsenal VG-33s were in the South (Bordeaux...)? They came from Villacoublay near Paris where the factory was situated, hundreds of miles away. The German invasion was much too fast to allow systematic destruction of all remaining AC. The British army and the RAF made similar experiences. The German soldiers were very glad to seize intact British stores with enormous quantities of whisky, cigarettes etc., not to mention aircraft, vehicles etc.
After the Allied landings in French N. Africa in November 1942 Germany invaded unoccupied Vichy-France and this time seized all aircraft. In the meantime, 2 1/2 years later, they had realised that this war was not finished yet and they took whatever they could get. Thousands of French AC were used mainly for training (D.520s, Bloch 152-155s etc., Potez 63.11 recce AC) and transport (LeO 451 bombers). There was not much the French could do about this was there. All these aircraft were nearing obsolescence by now.
The agreements between Germany and Pétain according to which French factories produced thousands of AC for Germany including some German types (Siebel 204 (?), Ju 52...) as well as many aero-engines and AC parts and repaired thousands of other German AC including fighters is another matter. The Germans could force the French to do this at will, just like in Czechoslovakia and even Poland, where an important German AC production took place too but quite naturally the greater part of this production took place in France, which possessed an intact and very powerful aircraft industry.

[Alex Smart]

May I suggest that anyone who is tired of all this repeated literary diarrhoea
reply to this thread by posting a

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/images/icons/icon13.gif

Good night all.

Alex

[JMSmith]

seconded, about time!

[Ruy Horta]

:rolleyes:

[Hawk-Eye]

May I suggest that anyone who is tired of all this repeated literary diarrhoea
reply to this thread by posting a

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/images/icons/icon13.gif

Good night all.

Alex
The remedy to your terrible misery has been known - here at TOCH - for years : do not read what you don't like! Leave the others alone. You are just continuing the usual libelling in another manner. Gotcha!
You wouldn't go into a bookshop and buy all the books you don't like would you? And then be angry and ask all publishers, printers and governments to stop publishing, displaying and selling these books?
Obviously many people here are interested in this discussion, probably because it is a subject they don't know well, or not at all, and suddenly discover and find of interest (but they could tell us why). If they like it they have every right to. After all the French air force engaged over 1,500 combat planes 1940 and the resupply rate was much higher than attrition (many French units were CREATED or reequipped entirely with brand new aircraft during the fighting) so this element - among others - is not quite as negligible as England has been trying to make the world believe for 65 years. After all approx. 4,000 (four thousand) aircraft of all countries were destroyed during the May-June 1940 French Campaign. Is this so negligible and uninteresting? I am trying to give the necessary explanations and to answer questions as best I can (too bad if I'm not good). You can't claim there is nothing new in my new postings, except if I lament that someone is forcing me to repeat myself.
Don't be rude just because you don't understand, or don't like, a subject. Remember what the British press and almost every Englishman wrote and said about the French and Jacques Chirac when they refused to accept the British-American aggression war in Iraq, which regrettably cost about 1,500 US and a few UK lives as well as approx. 250,000 Iraqi ones (at Nürnberg the Allied court sentenced quite a few people to death by hanging for this very reason). "Up yours France!, "Chirac the worm", etc. You will repeat the same errors and the same nonsense on and on and on won't you. Insults and libelling are your "arguments".
The lesser you provoke me the lesser I'll reply : a great improvement!

[Kutscha]

It is not the message but your method of delivery Hawk-Eye. There are other boards out there that thrive on the venomous hatred of the posters.

I am suprised Ruy has not shut down this thread as well.

[Allan125]

If we are going to endure any more of this diatribe - god knows why as it is not going to solve anything after nearly 65 years :) - can we have some consistency in references to people for the UK.

I, for one, am getting fed up with reading about England and Britain in the same article, sometimes even the same sentence "Remember what the British press and almost every Englishman wrote and said about the French" for example. Also, does that mean 50 million English people picked up a pen and wrote anti-French articles, perhaps that explains why the British Library in London is so large!!?? :)

If you must continue, just make references to Britain, or British people as appropriate. Not all British people then and now are English, although the English make up the bulk of the UK population.

I also worry about newcomers to this excellent Forum and wonder what they make of it all - whatever their nationality :)

None of us were around at the time being written about - well maybe a few as babies, but certainly none in a position to influence matters.

Hawk-eye, give us all a break - please !!??:)

[Hawk-Eye]

Please Kutscha
explain who is displaying venomous hatred : those who claim that not one single member of a nation's 40 million inhabitants was keen nor gallant during a war or he who is trying to make the truth known to all... This is precisely what certain people want to prevent with all means.
Hatred towards what or whom? Be specific, give us precise information. I for my part praised British airmen's gallantry several times HERE with the highest respect, which I herewith confirm.
Perhaps a piece of information points in the right direction : in several English books on the later stages of WW II, especially on RAF Bomber Command, I found some grateful remarks on the fact that all Bomber Command crews felt relieved already when they knew they had left German (or whatever) airspace and were over France - sigh! - for they knew that if they had to make a crash-landing or parachute there they would enjoy the immediate help of the local people, who would hide them, protect them from the Germans and very often spirit them back to England thanks to their permanent organisation. Only a small minority of the French was really active in this (which was part of the French Résistance) but almost the whole population hated the Germans and had great sympathy for the British. When taken by surprise when some airman/airmen landed near them they almost invariably helped as best they could. Many veterans were / are very grateful and come and visit their brave French (as well as Dutch and Belgian) friends from the war regularly.
Remember that if a member of the RAF was taken prisoner by the Germans this was certainly not a reason to rejoyce but at least they would certainly survive the war in some prisoner camp. On the other hand every French person "helping the enemy" could be shot on the spot or tortured for a long time and murdered, his / her entire family too, or, worse still, all these people could be sent to a concentration / extermination camp in Germany or Poland (Dachau, Ravensbrück etc.). In fact many French people paid their resistance with their life, sometimes with the lives of their wife/husband and their children. Think of it Mister Wonderful.

[Hawk-Eye]

If we are going to endure any more of this diatribe - god knows why as it is not going to solve anything after nearly 65 years :) - can we have some consistency in references to people for the UK.

I, for one, am getting fed up with reading about England and Britain in the same article, sometimes even the same sentence "Remember what the British press and almost every Englishman wrote and said about the French" for example. Also, does that mean 50 million English people picked up a pen and wrote anti-French articles, perhaps that explains why the British Library in London is so large!!?? :)

If you must continue, just make references to Britain, or British people as appropriate. Not all British people then and now are English, although the English make up the bulk of the UK population.

I also worry about newcomers to this excellent Forum and wonder what they make of it all - whatever their nationality :)

None of us were around at the time being written about - well maybe a few as babies, but certainly none in a position to influence matters.

Hawk-eye, give us all a break - please !!??:)
Here we go again! Always the same tricks : No counter-argument, no counteranalysis, only lamenting devoid of any basis : the usual old stuff from England (Britain if you prefer). You want me to unify my vocabulary? All right, I'm sorry : put "English" everywhere. Satisfied?Besides, Wales and Scotland are only poor English colonies having the bad luck of sharing the same island with the English imperialists so it is perfectly justified to use the most widely used phrase : England instead of the so-called "Great-Britain". Not to mention Ireland... When will your paratroopers once more shoot women and children peacefully walking in the streets of Derry (the English colonialists keep calling it "Londonderry" : no comment)? Tomorrow? In one month? In five years? Does it matter when? Can't you leave the Irish alone in Ireland? Even YOU can't do otherwise than calling the northern part of Ireland "Northern IRELAND". So it's Irish isn't it. When no stranger listens you call the Irish "cattle" and such things so you must understand I don't fancy call them "British", which actually means "English". Scots don't take kindly in being called "English" and they're damned right.
Don't ever try the same "peacekeeping" in "Londoncalais", Londonboulogne", "Londonparis" or "Londonmarseille".

[Alex Smart]

Hello Hawk-Eye,

Whatever makes you think that I am angry ????

I am not.:) far from it,

I am just fed up with your personal continual attack on one of Britains war hero's and your continual attack on myself for questioning your motives for this type of thread on this site.

As others have said there are more appropriate sites to aire your sometimes venomus ideology .

It is time for you to stop this foolishness .

Have a good day

Alex:)

[Ruy Horta]

Discussion effectively torpedoed.

But don't expect this to be a precedent, next time I may choose to delete a (number of) post(s) instead of closing a thread.