Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Despite a glowing review of Gillet's latest 'RAF victories 10-23 May' in the current issue the people at Avions magazine are also pretty certain he got this one wrong. The incident is covered - with Lorant's 'evidence' - in their forthcoming 'French Aces' special (hors Serie 25). More at

http://www.avions-bateaux.com

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Lionel
Well, we talk about majority of Polish accounts from the French Campaign. Of course there were some exceptions, but we have to generalise, sometimes. Another reason, could be French society was highly communised, and it was know that communists supported Hitler in this period.
The problem is that it was not unique. Just off my head, GC I/55 suffered of low moral-fibre as well. Some nasty comments about GC II/10 too.
No Poles, so no Polish accounts. Perhaps David can expand a little on this unit.
Many disciplined pilots did. It was a stress or hot shot. Nonetheless those were individual actions, and not that common. I would say that problems of French pilots were of different nature, at least concluding from various stories.
I cannot say for Czechs, but Poles seriously disliked the style of the Campaign. Further, they were most angry finding Frenchmen very eager to disarm them, and this led to further hate. Really, it is not the case of single accounts.
The quotation of Zumbach's entry is as follows:
'Finally, we have got the Jerries, cpl Karubin hit one, but unfortunately it was credited to wt off Balmer, who fired a little from the distance of 1 km. It made us very bitter, but what else could have we do.'
I think it is self explanatory quote. I am surprised to read that Karubin was credited with the victory, especially as Polish pilots did not know about it. Hence my question about Gillet's sources.

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

I'm really pleased of your answer, Brian.
As i said, i was sad when i read the form of your message : "What do you think about.... But Henschel 126s ..." What is the real meaning of these last three words ? That French pilots were not able to make the difference between a Fairey Battle and a Henshel 126 ? I don't know the word in English, and i would translate it by "degrading". That's what i understood. And it makes me sad. As i already said, your attack against Grozibou became an attack against the french pilots. It is just a question of respect. They fought bravely with sometimes (many times...) bad aircrafts, and a lot died.

Arnaud Gillet didn't falsified anything, he just did not found the losses in the Luftwaffe. And he was right. He just made a mistake with his conclusion. The problem is that now, anyone copies this mistake without mentionning the source.

If you want to know more about this date, why don't you ask all your questions to Jean-Yves Lorant ? Or perharps you will wait to buy the new publication FalkeEins spoke about.
But be sure you can erase this event in your study. This is not an opinion.
I know that in other cases, French pilots committed friendly fires (Stiquel, d'Harcourt...), so please, stay polite. I'm not a child, neither someone who just read two or three books.
And i'm not GROZIBOU !!!!

Now, i had the answer i wanted to have. I'm not anti-Brian, and i understand that you were bored by ...
So, end of the "polemic".

Best regards,

Lionel

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Another thing like that will close the discussion between us.

GC II/10, GCD I/55, GC III/2 .... Why don't you speak about GC II/1, III/1, I/2, II/6, III/6, II/7 ...
Poles had bad aircrafts, as most french pilots, because we had no more modern aircrafts for our own pilots, and disliked the style of the campaign... As i already said, how could it be different after the defeat ?
We were not ready for the "Blitzkrieg", as Poland in 1939.
and you have a bad view of the campaign because most Polish pilots were not in the usual french groups.
Some did not work very well, but it was not a generality.

Gillet's sources :
In France : SHD (Vincennes), MAE (le Bourget), Archives Nationales, Archives Départementales de la moitié Nord de la France
In Germany : Deutsche Dienststelle (Berlin), Militärarchiv Bundesarchiv (Fribourg, Aix-la-Chapelle), Volksbind (Kassel)
In GB : PRO (Kew), RAF Museum (Hendon), IWM (London)

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Petitpoucet and Franek,
I think I can see a general misunderstanding behind your arguments. You seem to have a sort of black-or-white alternative: "the French were cowards, didn't want to fight, did all they could against their Polish colleagues who wanted to fight" or "the French were as eager to fight as the Poles, to say that they didn't want to fight is a lie and insult". I think both of these statements are wrong.
In my opinion the first reason for so many "anti-French" comments in post-French campaign reports of the Poles is the difference in the way the Poles and the French saw this war. Both looked as this 'new' war with the image of the previous one in mind.
For the Poles it was WWI and the Polish-Russian war of 1920-1921. Both were wars in which Poland has regained and secured its independence after over 100 years of foreign occupation. Older Poles could still remember life in an occupied country where you were not even allowed to speak your native laguage. Younger ones had heard a lot about that from their parents and grandparents. So for them this new war had to be fought to the last drop of blood to liberate their dear ones. In the Polish minds the notion of fighting a war at all cost seemed noble and potentially successful, just like WWI in Poland's history and then the Polish-Russian war.
For the French, the previous war was also WWI. But for many of them its result was "we lost millions of fine young men, a part of our country was completely devastated, and what have we gained?" This is not to say that they didn't want to fight or win this war. But they had legitimate reasons to say that "winning the war at all cost" is not necessarily the best solution. When the situation at the front line became difficult, then desperate, many reasonable French people (not cowards!) had the right to say "perhaps signing an armistice is a better solution for the good of our nation than fighting on, with more death and destruction". I personally see nothing wrong in saying at a certain point "we have fought and lost, it's time to say 'we surrender'". And it's natural, in my view, that the point to say that in 1940 came sooner for the French than for the Poles.
The other reason for so many anti-French comments of the Poles is psychological. When telling others what happened, you tend to describe things you found unusual or wrong, not those that seemed natural and correct. Driving on a motorway, you will not call your friends to tell that other cars go in the same direction. But you will tell them that there was a car going the wrong way. For the Poles, the Frenchmen who fought eagerly were simply doing their duty, not worth noting. But if, at any point, they weren't as eager to fight as the Poles they were "cowards", and were mentioned as such in the reports. And when the moment of collapse came, it was obvious (for the Poles) that the fight should go on. They had not stopped fighting after their own country was overrun, why should they stop now? From that viewpoint any Frenchman who tried to prevent them from fighting on was a "coward" and even a "traitor". But the French simply assumed "we lost this campaign and our high command signed the armistice; we have given the Poles the aircraft and guns with which they fought, now we have to take the weapons back from them". I personally think it was this moment of departure that cast an emotional shadow. All the reports the Poles then filed in Britain were made with that "French treason" in mind, which probably contributed to the inclination of remembering the "coward" things in the French behaviour but forgetting the "hero" part.
Sorry that it took me so long to explain what I felt you missed. I tend to favour posts that are brief and to the point, and I don't usually read a post that occupies more than one screenful, so I will not be surprised if you haven't gotten this far into mine.

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Well said Voytech. In these discussions, where generalizations are abundant, the sight on what is opinion and what can be called fact easily becomes clouded. Furthermore, trying to objectify notions such as "bravery" and "cowardice" is going to be very diffcult. I would rather advise to refrain from that entirely, when you have not been there yourself.

Regards,

Rob

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Well written.
You explain things really better than me, and i absolutely agree with you.

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Let's talk about facts. Post-war France and Italy were under so strong communistic influence, there was a concern that communists will win free elections! Actions were undertaken by US secret services to prevent this, but it must be said, that Soviets fully supported communists, especially by financial means. Also, France had doubtful distinction of being the only western country to hold NKVD camps on own territory. In following years communists had a substantial number of votes, and even now it seems the subject of communistic crimes is a touchy subject in France.
In August 1939 French government ceased publication of such journals like L'Humanite in order to stop the spread of communistic propaganda. Both Britain and France suffered from various problems caused by communistic trade unions, the most famous case being no doubt the strike at the Castle Bromwich Aircraft Factory, which almost cost the British with the Battle of Britain. I can imagine that especially drafted personnel could have been very prone to communistic propaganda, and actually sabotage the war effort. I have to add that I have read an account about intentional low efficient work by communistic labours in France.
I do not know why, perhaps because those were at hand. There is not too much about those units, but for eg. there were some problems with poor servicing at GC II/6, and that Polish pilots were complaining that Frenchmen drank a lot. There was also some tension about dependency of the Polish section attached. II/7 - the same as GC III/2 - pilots sleeping too long, getting drunk three hours before dusk, carelessness in terms of camouflage and shelters, etc. No personal tensions nor cowardice, but some general inefficiency.
As I wrote before, there are accounts of Poles getting worst examples of types flown by French pilots. There was for example a story of Corniglione (GC III/2) getting better Hawk of Łaszkiewicz.
Poland was generally not ready for the war, that is true. Poland lost it within about 5 weeks, fighting on all fronts with two (well, three) enemies. Now please compare the number and quality of French and Polish equipment, and add that France had more than half a year to draw conclusions from the Polish and other campaigns. Do you see the point?
You note that we should not generalise, but such negative opinions are most common amongst any Polish veterans, who were in France in 1940. Sorry.
Those are general comments, not only of airmen. I recommend you a reading of diaries of Andrzej Bobkowski, who spend the entire war in France, and described in detail the general situation in occupied France. Sorry, no exact title, but it was published in French.
Well, I was not clear enough. What particular sources were used by Gillet in case of Karubin's victory?

Voytech
I am afraid you are missing the point. Everything started with a comment of Sholto Douglas (not Polish!) about behaviour of French airmen (see link below for a quote), and this was followed with comments about slandering remarks of Polish airmen. Now, Lionel's point is that I am selective with those remarks, choosing units with not very good reputation. Now, I hope that you can confirm to Lionel that, for whatever reason, such negative comments were and are repeated by any veteran who was there. More, may I remind you Jerzy Główczewski's description of an incident with FFI soldier in 1944 in Paris? You perfectly know, that such stories were published in Poland and in exile since dosens of years ago. For those long years there was no French reaction at all, but now those veterans are being called ugly liars.
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showth...t=13849&page=4

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Hi Franek,

Who is calling others "ugly liars"? Once more, we are talking about opinions here, hardly about facts. It is quite normal to see opinions, given by others at a certain time and under certain circumstances, in new lights as new and more information becomes available. There is a difference between reporting the opinions of the past, in their setting in time and circumstance, and in presenting these as the one and only true view of things. If you wish to go beyond reporting and enter the field of judgements, you need to be prepared to consider all evidence. Voytech gave information from the sphere of sociographical evidence, that is relevant and should not be ignored. This is a systematic point, that needs to be considered when writing about history.

Allow me to give an example in another field. In Holland many family men were send to Germany as forced labourers, the so-called "Arbeitseinsatz". They did so because they saw no choice. Resisting would mean no food for the family. Thousands perished in Germany. Very many of their names are not recorded in the Casualty Register of the Dutch War Graves Commission. This resulted from the fact that they were considered traitors after the war, as they had worked for the Germans. It took decades before a more intelligent view of things surfaced, before a clear distinction was made between voluntary and involuntary work for the Germans. Still, their names are missing from the Casualty Register, and no action is being undertaken to correct that. This tells you something about the power of opinions, even when overtaken by time that brought better insights.

Therefore, feel free to report whatever you find, but be careful with giving verdict about the opinions in these finds.

Regards,

Rob

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Thanks for the nice comments.
Franek
1) It would be good for you and everybody else if you read other people's posts carefully, and tried to understand what they said, before you reply.
2) It would also be good if you re-read your posts before posting them, preferably using some sort of spell-checking device. That would help others understand what you wanted to say.
3) If I don't reply to any further posts it might be because I will be off the forum (and internet in general) for several days. But it might also be because I can't see the point.