Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

Dear readers,

"Un droit de réponse" is on his way. Nothing new in this article but he mention his source which is WASt Berlin.

If anybody has original documents about those Henschel 126s losses on May 14th 1940, please contact me.

Yours sincerely

Arnaud Gillet

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

Chers lecteurs,

L’article de Monsieur Souffan est basé sur une liste de pertes de Henschel 126 qui, écrit-il, se trouve à la WASt à Berlin.

Au tout début de nos recherches, nous avons réussi à avoir l’autorisation de copie de tous les documents de la WASt concernant les pertes de la Luftwaffe pour mai et juin 1940.

Or aucune des pertes des Henschel 126 citées par M Souffan ne figure dans les copies de la WASt en notre possession à une exception près.

J’ai écrit à la WASt. Si les pertes de Henschel 126 avancées par M. Souffan sont des mensonges, l’attaque de ce personnage est inqualifiable.


Arnaud Gillet



TRANLATION :

Dear Readers,

This article is based on a losses list of Henschel 126s which, as M. Souffan write, is stored in WASt Berlin.

At the beginning of my researches, I had a special authorization to have all copies of Luftwaffe losses for may and june 1940.

But not one Henschel 126 is mentioned in my copies I received from WASt except one.

I have written to the WASt archive to confirm it. If those Henschel 126 losses described by M. Souffan are lies, this attack is shameful.

Yours sincerely

Arnaud Gillet

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

Both sides of this debate having now presented their respective arguments, I am pleased that we are finally able to consider each case with better objectivity.

One the one hand, Arnaud Gillet gives us ‘Furie’, a characteristically robust defence of his original proposition that GC III/7 shot down three RAF Fairey Battles and a French LeO 451 rather than the four Hs126 as claimed on 14 May 1940. However, I feel that he throws more heat than light on the subject while offering little by way of additional evidence to support his (inevitably) controversial viewpoint.

Many Souffan on the other hand, in his recent Avions #177 article, presents a cogent, well-considered, and coherent version of events that I find entirely plausible. Also, the supporting evidence he provides is compelling. So I am entirely satisfied that I was wrong to accept Arnaud Gillet’s account (albeit with reservation) when compiling The Battle of France Then & Now and am more than happy to concede the fact. In my opinion, Many Souffan is to be congratulated on finally setting the record straight on this issue.

However, I must dispute his assertion that all losses to Hs126 units attached to Panzer Divisions were reported through Army rather than Luftwaffe channels. This is an over-simplification which in no way satisfactorily explains how the four Hs126 losses on 14 May 1940 (apparently) do not figure in the Luftwaffe QM General’s Returns of the period. It is also demonstrably incorrect for every one of the Heeraufklärungs units that he cites as experiencing losses on 14 May 1940 routinely reported other losses in the Luftwaffe QM General’s Returns (under a Gen.d.Lw.b.d.H. heading) between 12 and 19 May 1940. So I remain at a loss to understand why certain losses seemingly went unreported other than to speculate that those aircraft losses not involving personnel casualties were simply not notified by the Heer units concerned ?

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

Bonjour,

This article of M. Souffan didn't change anything to my conclusion until I see the copy from WASt archive. I need more that a write from a person whoever the person is, but a document as evidence.

This is what I think and how I work...

So here is my question from april 2009. This question has still no answer because M. Souffan has no copy of those losses stored as it is written in WASt. I will receive soon an answer from WASt. But I already know the answer because I have already asked the losses from those units of Henschel 126:

"Avril 2009... Fairey Battle of 142 Sqn shot down by french pilots on the 14th May 1940 :

What evidence ?

The Henschel 126 losses list is A LIE, I repeat A LIE, until I see the copy of this original document !

So P L E A SE........................ Sir Many Soufflan would you be kind enough to give us a copy of your fantastic and unbelievable documents you mentioned.

I am so sorry, but I don't believe what you wrote until I have in my hand those documents.... Then I will shut up... I promise...

Yours sincerely

Arnaud Gillet"

Byyyyyyyyyyyyyye

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

To Peter Cornwell,

I just want after reading your post to tell you that you are a most respectfull and respectable person.

Bernard.

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

"Avril 2009... Fairey Battle of 142 Sqn shot down by french pilots on the 14th May 1940 :

What evidence ?

The Henschel 126 losses list is A LIE, I repeat A LIE, until I see the copy of this original document !

So P L E A SE........................ Sir Many Soufflan would you be kind enough to give us a copy of your fantastic and unbelievable documents you mentioned.

I am so sorry, but I don't believe what you wrote until I have in my hand those documents.... Then I will shut up... I promise...

Yours sincerely

Arnaud Gillet"

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

1. Nothing in the general Luftwaffe losses list
2. Nothing in the WASt archive
3. Nothing in Bundesarchiv
4. Nothing in the local archive in Ardenne
5. Nothing in French archive
6. Nothing in the French archive
7. Nothing in a list of aircraft shot down in Ardenne written in 1941

I live near the Ardennes department and I never ever found any kind of information to confirmed all those informations: I repeat my question to Souffan from last year :

"Avril 2009... Fairey Battle of 142 Sqn shot down by french pilots on the 14th May 1940 :

What evidence ?

The Henschel 126 losses list is A LIE, I repeat A LIE, until I see the copy of this original document !

So P L E A SE........................ Sir Many Soufflan would you be kind enough to give us a copy of your fantastic and unbelievable documents you mentioned.

I am so sorry, but I don't believe what you wrote until I have in my hand those documents.... Then I will shut up... I promise...

Yours sincerely

Arnaud Gillet"




- Date : 14/05/1940 Lie
- Type : Henschel 126 B Lie
- Unit : 1.(H)/14 Pz Lie
- Crash site : Vrigne-aux Bois Lie
- Origin : by French Fighter Lie
- Damage : very damaged Lie
- Crew : Baled out, indemn Lie

- Date : 14/05/1940 Lie
- Time : 12.54 Lie
- Type : Henschel 126 B Lie
- Unit : 3.(H)/21 Lie
- Crash site : Chémery Lie
- Origin : by Fighter Lie
- Damage : > 60 %,
belly landed in friendly land Lie
- Crew : indemn Lie

- Date : 14/05/1940 Lie
- Time : 13.00 Lie
- Type : Henschel 126 B Lie
- Unit : 2.(H)/23 Pz Lie
- Crash site : Jehonville Lie
- Origin : by Fighter at Chémery Lie
- Damage : very damaged Lie
- Crew : Baled out Lie
- Fw D. Res. Franz Pörr wounded Right
- Date : 14/05/1940 Lie
- Time : 13.00 Lie
- Type : Henschel 126 B Lie
- Unit : 3.(H)/21 Pz Lie
- Crash site : Near Vendresse Lie
- Origin : by Fighter Lie
- Damage : > 60 %, belly landed Lie
- Crew : indemn Lie

- Date : 14/05/1940 Lie
- Type : Henschel 126 B Lie
- Unit : 1.(H)/11 Pz Lie
- Crash site : Villers-le-Tilleul Lie
- Type of crash site : in wood Lie
- Origin : by Fighter Lie
- Damage : > 60 %, belly landed Lie
- Crew : indemn Lie

An answer (droit de réponse) of 11 pages will send to Avion magazine for publication to denonce all those lies...

Then M. Souffan think before attacking people...

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

Droit de réponse d’Arnaud Gillet aux attaques de la revue Avions de septembre 2010

En 2003, nous avons décrit un malheureux combat aérien du groupe III/7 qui s’est déroulé le 14 mai 1940 et s’est soldé par une incroyable série de méprises contre des avions britanniques.
Cette révélation n’a pas été appréciée par certains. Je suis d’abord interpellé par un civil dans les murs du Service Historique de la Défense à Vincennes qui m’affirme que des pilotes de chasse français ne peuvent pas commettre de telles erreurs et que des Henschel 126 ont bel et bien été abattus : les immatriculations, les points de chutes et les heures sont exactes à la minute près de celles données par les chasseurs français !
La revue Avions reprend ces rumeurs lors de la critique de mon tome 1 des victoires britanniques en 2008 et en 2009, publie ces pertes en les rattachant au groupe III/7 ! La rumeur prenant maintenant la forme écrite dans un magasine pourtant réputé sérieux, j’ai alors cherché qui en était à l’origine pour trouver le nom de M. Souffan qui refuse de donner ses sources. C’est pourquoi j’ai porté la question en avril 2009 sur le réseau internet.
Nous apprenons alors que cette liste lui aurait été donné par un « historien bavarois », qui l’aurait reçu, avant la chute du mur de Berlin, d’un autre historien des pays de l’Est : documents disponibles au Bundesarchiv. Il se réserve la diffusion des côtes, ce que je comprends, dans un article critique sur mes recherches.
Or l’attente s’est éternisée à tel point que j’ai désespéré de voir un jour ce fameux article. J’en ai même conclu que ce Statu Quo avait pour ambition de semer le doute dans les esprits des passionnés : ou plutôt s’agit-il d’une sorte d’épée de d’Hamoclès si j’osais publier mon livre « La Furie » que je finis par publier à bout de patience car :
1) Après vingt de recherches, j’étais certain que ces pertes de Henschel ne reposaient sur aucune base sérieuse ce qui m’avait été confirmé par certains spécialistes.
2) Le silence de M. Souffan était, il faut bien le dire aussi, assez révélateur.
3) J’avais aussi accumulés de nombreux éléments de preuve renforçant ma thèse de 2003 et que je désirais communiquer au public dont la méprise du LeO 45…
Aussitôt sa sortie l’accueil de « La Furie » est bon aussi bien en France qu’en Angleterre. Mais après un profond sommeil, M. Souffan subitement sort du fond de sa caverne, réagit vivement à la sortie du livre et publie dans la précipitation cet article bâclé et partial de septembre dernier dans la revue Avions. Il reprend de nombreux éléments de ma recherche tout en passant sous silence les éléments n’allant pas dans son sens.
Nous n’allons pas ici relever les innombrables erreurs parfois grossières révélant une méconnaissance du sujet, mais concentrons notre attention sur la base de l’article : les pertes de ces cinq Henschel 126.
Les cinq Henschel 126 : mensonge ou réalité ?
Ce qui choque ce sont d’abord l’extraordinaire similitude entre les pertes allemandes et les revendications françaises. Les points de chute sont identiques, mais aussi et, c’est le plus exceptionnel, deux heures correspondantes à la minute près aux revendications des pilotes français ! Sauf que ce miroir quasi parfait est bien trop beau pour être vrai d’autant plus que ce type d’informations ne se trouve pas dans les archives de la WASt, mais se rapproche plus du manuscrit de H. Weiss aux sources inconnues. L’auteur ne citera pas ces pertes dons son ouvrage « Twelve Days in May » qu’il a coécrit à l’exception du Henschel de la 2.(H)/23 :
« Dans la région Dinant – Sedan – Rethel – Chimay – Dinant, les unités d’observation ont subi des pertes importantes, mais qui se sont limités à des dommages matériels :
- Un Henschel 126 B-1 de la 2.(H)/23 (1ère division blindée) a été gravement endommagé et abattu par des chasseurs ennemis et s’est écrasé à Jehonville, à sept kilomètres au Nord-Ouest de Bertrix. L’équipage a sauté en parachute : l’adjudant réserviste Franz Dörr est blessé (perte dûment confirmée par la Luftwaffe).
- Le XIX. corps d’armées dont est subordonné la 3.(H)/21 perd deux Henschel 126 B-1, suite à des attaques de la chasse avec pour conséquences des atterrissages forcés en territoire ami abgeschrieben werden mussten. Aucun aviateur n’a été blessé (pertes fausses voir ci-dessous).
- Près de Vrigne-aux-Bois, un Henschel 126 B-1 de la 1.(H)/14 (2e division blindée) a été mitraillé au moteur par un Bloch du groupe de chasse II/1. L’équipage non blessé saute en parachute (perte fausse).
- Près du Chesne, des Hurricane surprennent, à basse altitude, un Henschel 126 de la 1.(H)/11 (10e division blindée) et lui causent de gros dommages. L’avion parvient malgré tout à rejoindre les lignes amies et est endommagé suite à un atterrissage forcé.
- Au Sud de Dinant, un Henschel 126 de la 2.(H)/21 (III. Corps d’armées, 12 armée) endommagé à 70 % par les appareils de l’escadron n° 3 doit se poser d’urgence dans les lignes occupées par les Allemands. L’équipage a subi des contusions légères. »
Force est de constater, d’abord, que cet extrait, qui décrit les dommages de cinq Henschel 126, avec force de détails, est fort différent des informations de M. Souffan. En fait M. Souffan a repris les éléments du manuscrit qui l’intéressait c’est-à-dire les pertes de Henschel 126 tout en y rajoutant les heures et autres éléments donnés par les pilotes français pour faire coller à la perfection les pertes allemandes aux revendications françaises tout en affirmant que tous ces éléments ont été trouvés à la WASt.
1. Le Henschel de la 1.(H)/14 abattu à Vrigne-aux-Bois par le groupe II/1
Pour le Henschel de la 1.(H)/14 attribué au groupe II/1, M. Souffan écrit avoir trouvé ces informations :
« Un Henschel 126 B de la 1.(H)/14 Pz, en reconnaissance pour la 2 Pz. Div. à Vrigne –aux-Bois, très endommagé par les chasseurs français, l’équipage a sauté en parachute sur le secteur, indemne. »
Comme nous l’avons dit, cette unité allemande, pas de chance pour M. Souffan, a un historique fort bien détaillé intitulé « Die 1.(H)/14 Pz im Westen 1940 » écrit par Gerd Schroeder. Cet historique en parfait accord avec la liste des pertes de la Luftwaffe ne mentionne aucune perte de Henschel 126 ce 14 mai !
Au Bundesarchiv, un carton (RL 10/648) relatif à la 1.(H)/14 ne mentionne lui aussi aucune perte pour ce 14 mai. La liste des pertes de la Luftwaffe ne fait mention d’aucune cette perte ainsi que la WASt.
J’ai mené aussi mon enquête à Vrigne-aux-Bois : aucune trace découverte. Pourtant si l’équipage comme l’écrit M. Souffan a sauté en parachute, l’épave disloquée en mille morceaux aurait laissée des traces comme ces centaines de points de chutes que j’ai découvert. La préfecture des Ardennes qui a mené une enquête en 1941 auprès des maires est silencieuse aussi.
2. Le Henschel de la 3.(H)/21 abattu à Chémery par le groupe III/7
Le Henschel 126 de la 3.(H)/21 attribué au groupe III/7 près de la route 77 par M. Souffan n’est guère plus encourageante :
« Dans les rapports de pertes allemands (WASt), on trouve : Chémery 12.54, un Henschel 126 B de la 3.(H)/21 ; reconnaissance pour le XIX AK Mot. Endommagé par des chasseurs > 60 % et atterrissage forcé derrière nos propres lignes, équipage indemne. »
Voici le rapport d’engagement de l’adjudant Bertrand du groupe III/7 :
« 12.54 : patrouille Littolff – Mourier attaque un Henschel, je commande le ralliement de la patrouille à l’altitude de travail – aussitôt après le regroupement, je revois à nouveau le Henschel, je l’attaque suivi de tous les patrouilleurs – ont tiré : adjudant-chef Bertrand, sous-lieutenant Billoin, adjudant Littolff, lieutenant Mourier » (SHD/air, G 7889).
Premièrement les Français parlent un crash violent en flammes sans mention de parachutiste ce qui ne collent pas avec M. Souffan qui raconte que l’avion a fait un atterrissage forcé, équipage indemne.
M. Souffan non satisfait du manuscrit de M. Weiss, au lieu de donner une heure approximative, ajoute l’heure exacte à la minute près des Français ce qui n’est pas vraiment intelligent. Il reprend en effet l’heure exact des Français : 12.54 !
Les Français ne donnent jamais d’heures aussi précises. C’est l’unique exception. Et comme par hasard on retrouve la même heure à la minute près dans les archives allemandes : 12.54… ce que les archives allemande vont rarement également. Et M. Souffan de reprendre aussi le nom du village cité par les Français !
Sauf que cette perte ne figure nulle part, ni à la WASt, ni dans la liste des pertes de la Luftwaffe, ni au Bundesarchiv, ni dans les archives de la préfecture des Ardennes de 1941. Nos investigations le long de la route 77 nous rien donner, sauf la perte du Fairey Battle de l’escadron n° 142… (voir « La Furie »).
3. Le Henschel de la 2.(H)/23 abattu à Jéhonville par le groupe III/7
M. Souffan écrit que la WASt indique que le Henschel 126 de la 2.(H)/23 a été abattu comme suit :
« Les archives allemandes nous révèlent : Chémery, 13.00, un Henschel 126 B de la 2.(H)./23 Pz de la 1 Pz. Div. Très endommagé par des chasseurs, tombé à Jehonville à 7 km de Bertrix, équipage a sauté en parachute, l’observateur (Bo) D(er) Res(erve) Franz Pörr blessé. »
Cette perte figure bel et bien dans les archives allemandes, mais pas comme le décrit M. Souffan. La liste de Freiburg (Bundesarchiv) écrit qu’un Henschel 126 a été abattu suite à un combat aérien avec des chasseurs dans le Nord de la France, un blessé (perte enregistrée le 23 mai, entrée n° 38). La WASt donne le nom du blessé Franz Dörr (et non Pörr) :
« Près de Jéhonville, 7 km au Nord-Est de Bertrix le 14 mai 1940. Il a été ensuite envoyé à l’hôpital de campagne 23 à Offagne, à 3 km au Sud de Jéhonville. »
Voici maintenant un extrait du rapport d’engagement toujours de l’adjudant Bertrand :
« 13.00 : Nous découvrons un second Henschel au-dessus des nuages à 1.800 mètres. Seconde attaque, le Henschel nous aperçoit et pique. Tout le dispositif passe dessus en noria, l’appareil se disloque progressivement, au passage du dernier équipier la queue se détache – deux parachutes – l’appareil s’écrase également dans la région de Chémery » (Compte-rendu d’engagement, S.H.D., G 7889)
Encore une fois M. Souffan ajoute l’heure exacte donnée par les Français : 13.00 et reprend aussi le point de chute, Chémery. Il affirme ensuite que le tout se trouvent à la WASt ce qui est faux.
En fait cette perte bien réelle ne colle pas avec la revendication des pilotes français qui précisent que l’avion s’est écrasé à Chémery. Or la WASt indique que Franz Dörr a été retrouvé à Jéhonville et hospitalisé à Offagne soit à un cinquante kilomètres de Chémery : le point de chute donné par les Français.
Bien sûr à Chémery, nous ne trouvons aucun Henschel puisque l’avion est tombé à Jehonville en Belgique sauf bien sûr la perte du LeO 451 dont cinq points corresponds, point pour point, à la revendication du groupe III/7 : L’heure de la chute du bombardier est établie entre 12.50 et 13.00. L’altitude d’approche et d’attaque est comprise entre 1.800 et 1.500 mètres. Les circonstances correspondent en tout point à la description des chasseurs : avion coupé en deux et la présence de deux parachutistes. Le LeO 451 tombe à l’endroit indiqué entre Chémery et Bulson. Nous avons depuis la parution « La Furie » retrouvé un nouveau document de plus signé par le général Escudier confirmant l’heure du bombardement des LeO à 12.55.
4. Le Henschel de la 3.(H)/21 abattu à Vendresse par le groupe III/7
Pour l’avant dernier Henschel, M. Souffan raconte avoir trouvé à la WASt ce qui suit :
« Les archives allemandes nous précisent qu’il s’agit d’un autre Henschel 126 B de la 3.(H)/21 opérant avec le XIX. AK Mot. de Guderian qui est tombé près de Vendresse, endommagé par des chasseurs avec plus de 60 % de dégâts, après atterrissage forcé derrière ses lignes, équipage indemne. »
Voici ce qu’écrit l’adjudant Albert Littolff :
« 13.12 – Une attaque effectuée par la patrouille du capitaine Lacombe. L’ennemi disparaît dans un nuage. Dès sa sortie du cumulus, l’adjudant Littolff suivi du lieutenant Mourier effectue une attaque dans le secteur arrière. L’ennemi semble désemparé, pique très bas, des tôles voltigent, des fumées et des flammes s’échappent. Nous le perdons alors qu’il rentre vers ses lignes, ayant l’air désemparé. Le combat s’est passé au Nord-Est de Vendresse à 13.12 » (S.H.D., G 7889).
Vendresse, à cette heure, est toujours occupé par les troupes Françaises ce qui rend le texte de M. Souffan doublement incohérent parce que « Vendresse » n’est pas « derrière ses lignes ». Ainsi l’équipage aurait dû être fait prisonnier par les Français. Or la liste des prisonniers des Français ne mentionne aucune perte de cette unité. Pire encore l’adjudant Littolff ne dit pas que l’avion est tombé à Vendresse ! :
« L’ennemi disparaît dans un nuage… Nous le perdons alors qu’il rentre vers ses lignes, ayant l’air désemparé. Le combat s’est passé au Nord-Est de Vendresse à 13.12 » (S.H.D., G 7889).
Bien entendu cette perte ne figure ni dans les archives de la Bundesarchiv, ni dans la liste des pertes de la Luftwaffe, ni dans les archives de la préfecture des Ardennes de 41. Nos investigations sur place n’ont pas permit de retrouver la moindre trace. Les documents de la WASt ne mentionnent aucune perte de la 3.(H)/21.
5. Le Henschel de la 1.(H)/11 abattu à Villers-le-Tilleul par le groupe III/7
Enfin voici le dernier Henschel mentionné par M. Souffan :
« Quelques instants plus tard, le Henschel 126 s’écrase selon les rapports allemands dans un bois près de Villers-le-Tilleul, entre Attigny et Sedan. Cette fois-ci c’est un Henschel 126 N de la 1.(H)/11 Pz en reconnaissance pour la 7 Pz. Div. En reconnaissance pour la 7 Pz Div d’un certain Rommel, l’équipage est indemne malgré un atterrissage forcé et des dommages à plus de 60 % causé par des chasseurs. »
Le capitaine Georges Lacombe du groupe III/7 écrit :
« Le Henschel 126 était au plafond inférieur [soit en dessous de 1.500 m.] (…). La patrouille II attaque la première, le Henschel se met en virage, effectue un retournement. Puis la patrouille I attaque suivie de la patrouille III. Puis je le reprends dans son dernier piqué, le rattrape, le tire en rase-mottes, et je le suis jusqu’à ce que l’avion se soit écrasé dans un bois (près de Villers-le-Tilleul) entre Attigny et Sedan à 12.25 » (S.H.D., G 7889).
Là aussi M. Souffan donne le même lieu que les Français Villers-le-Tilleul. Mais comme pour la perte précédente, ce village se trouve en plein milieu des lignes françaises. Or l’équipage n’a pas été fait prisonnier ce qui est confirmé par la liste des prisonniers Français en complète contradiction avec M. Souffan.
Cette perte n’est ni référencée dans la liste des pertes de la Luftwaffe, ni dans les archives de la préfecture des Ardennes de 1941. Nos investigations sur place n’ont pas permit de retrouver la moindre trace de ce Henschel 126. Enfin les documents que nous avons reçu de la WASt ne mentionnent aucune perte de la 1.(H)/11.
Conclusion
Bref ces pertes de Henschel 126 ne correspondent pas aux revendications des pilotes du groupe de chasse III/7. De plus toutes ces unités allemandes citées figurent bel et bien dans la liste des pertes de la Luftwaffe. L’article de M Souffan n’a rien changé à nos conclusions qui demeurent intactes. Les preuves et témoignages que nous avons accumulés n’ont permettent d’afficher une assurances certaines dans nos conclusions.
Nous encourageons bien sûr les initiatives comme celle de M. Souffan tentant de disqualifier nos travaux. C’est sain, mais nous regrettons la manière…

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

I've been following this thread for a short while, and had no previous knowledge of this controversy (a real can of worms as they say in the UK). So, can I just ask a simple question, without any preconceived judgements about who wrote what, and with no agenda of my own:

How is it possible for the French fighter pilots to mistake a Fairey Battle for a Henschel HS.126? One is a low-winged, inline-engined aircraft with a long glazed canopy and retractable undercarriage, and the other is a parasol-winged, radial engined aircraft with fixed undercarriage.

I can understand something like a Blenheim being mistaken for a Ju-88, which happened on occasion, but to mistake a Battle for an HS-126...??? :confused:

Best regards

Simon

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

And what about mistaking a twin-engined bomber (LeO 451) for a Hs 126?
They must have been blind as a bat!

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

All right, people, let's keep the tone "civil". No personal attacks. Keep the discussion on the subject. Otherwise, I will lock the thread.

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

Arnaud: you have used the word "lie" and also "mensonge" so quite clearly there is no translation problem — "lie" is exactly what you meant to say.

You may doubt Many's claims very strongly but you are in no position to call them lies before you have even had an answer from WASt. You have displayed a lot of anger over several posts when you could have said calmly that you doubt his claims and asked him to share the evidence for them (or give the references for the WASt documents so you can request your own copies).

My own experience is that WASt can send two different answers to the same question, as the late Geoff Thomas and I found when researching KG 200. Some losses had been reported twice with slight differences in the details given.

I do not know who is right here but I think almost everyone on this forum would prefer a calm discussion about what is a very interesting series of events.

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

M. Nick Beale,

Have you already been attacked in a newspaper in an 11 pages article? For me, this is the first time, so excuse me if I am not so calm as you expected.

I am not calm because the base of this attack is a Henschel 126 list that M. Souffan say having found in WASt. I had a special authorisation from high German authorities to have all copies from those German losses for the two months May and June 1940. The conclusion is that those losses are not stored in WASt. This is so simple and by conclusion this Henschel 126 losses list is lies.

I asked WASt information like this : “I need now your WASt Archive for the 1.(H)/14 : losses limited to May and June 1940. ”
Then I receive documents. But I repeat I had a special authorisation because as you know those archives are closed to public. I just knew the right person… This special authorisation was EXCEPTIONAL.

All the copies of all documents from WASt were very expensive for me because I had to pay. But that was essential to begin my researches on those two months, 20 years ago. I don't studied any other period only MAY and JUNE 1940. My live is not enough to complete it.

So I am not calm because I am attacked by lies : “ To utter falsehood with deceitful intention.” This is the definition of lie. I have no other word to describe this behaviour (excuse me again). This is actually a very strong word but the right word (excuse me again), but M. Souffan did not answer to this very big accusation which is very significant but it is true. He has no WASt document… This is as simple as this. You don’t believe it, this is your right. I can’t argue with that.

IF SOMEONE GIVES THE WASt EVIDENCE (COPY OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENT) ABOUT THOSE HENSCHEL 126 LOSSES I CUT MY HANDS. IS IT CLEAR? So to my enemies: found those documents: you have a very good opportunity to make me silence (lol).

I wonder what would be your position if you were attacked like this. I just find that unfair and actually shameful.

But that’s not question. My work about French (3 books) and British Kills (3 books) revealing that the French fighters only shot down only 355 German aircraft and 525 German aircraft shot down by British aircraft upset many French people. They are just fighting back. In France, many historians wrote the French fighters shot down 1.000 german aircraft, then reduced by all historians in France to 700 or 600. This new number 355 was a choc in France.

In “Fury”, I give all evidence about those friendly fires and I have not one doubt. But before writing on this air combat, you should have read:
1. The book “Fury”.
2. The article from M. Souffan.
3. And of course my answer to be published soon in the same magazine.

Of course if you just say: a Blenheim or a LeO is not like a Henschel, this is obvious and very simple, but this case is not so simple therefore we still speak about this combat which is significant.

In this thread, I just speak about the Henschel 126 cases. All evidences for the combat are in “Fury” reserved to my readers.

Have you read my last long French text about those Henschel 126 losses? If not because it is in French, you could translate it in English with Google. I don’t have time to translate this in English. If anyone want it, do it… Evidences are pretty clear that M. Souffan has no evidence.

I have a big book to publish about the British kills at the beginning of the year 2011, I can’t answer like this to all question. So dear readers send very precise question?

Yours sincerely

Arnaud

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

Hi Arnaud,

I`m reding now various Koluft reports for WC and believe me there are a few losses - especially when no personal losses were suffered - that had been not reported to senior Luftwaffe commanding levels. They were reported only to army command and I don`t know why?
On the other side we have e.g. ca. 6 victories which were reported by I./ZG2 on 14.5.40 and perhaps this unit might be responsible for shooting down of those F.Battle bombers.
So just calm down because you are too aggresive and this will not earn you more respect. I very like your books and want to say that your reserach was a milestone in history of May-June 1940 campaign. I really appreciate your work!

Regards

Robert

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

Mr. Robert,

OK. I will be now a good little boy. In fact I have nothing more to say as
I won't get any answer from M. Souffan about his source. I give up.

Have fun...

Adieu

Arnaud Gillet

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

Mr. Gillet,

Your research and contribution is valued.

Although I understand passion, sometimes it is good to step back, count to ten and walk away. If only for the time being. But I hope we have not lost you to the forum. Discussions here are not always so heated.

Just out of curiosity. have you had any contact with Yves Michelet on this subject and the 355 verified kills? I remember Yves to be very passionate about these kinds of issues and he must be popping a fuse or two!!

Cordialement (which also extends to M. Souffan!)

Ruy Horta

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

Hello.

1/ I would like to thank some members for their support with their emails after the print out of my article.

2/ I would like to say a special thank for Peter Cornwell and his kind words, you are a gallant, man. For me there is no higher man than the man who has accepted that he did or took a wrong way. Nobody is perfect, me first. 1000 thanks again Mister Cornwell.

3/Please, I am not happy or satisfied for myself, I don’t care, but I like this idea, that I have contributed, a little, naturally, to advance to the truth, to the justice, and to give a little light and respect for all men (of all nationalities) of this event already lost in the limbs of History.

4/ I would like to say to Mister Gillet that my article is not an attack against you, as person or as historian but against the facts you have advanced, without a little conditional, without humility, Without the distance to put between the author you are and the History. I never understood why in all of your books you have 3 of 4 portraits of you. your subject must hide the author you are, if you want a little objectivity…

5/ I tried to write my point of view, because you didn’t want to hear my point of view in this forum. I have always spoken with you with the spirit of the medieval dispute or controversy always with the respect of your person. I did also this article because other members wanted to know my point of view.

6/ You can’t imagine mister Gillet how it can be hurtful to read all your attacks against me, that I am a lier, or a shameful person. I am a serious searcher.
It is unforgivable to speak about a civil (civilian) when we know together “the civil” is Jean-Yves Lorant one of the most serious French historian.
I am very disappointed when I read you in your last book that some diaries of French unit are false, simply because they don’t go to your conclusion

7/ It is a big consternation for me, when I compare your 2 versions. In the first version in the first part of your work about the French victories of Battle of France, you have written the Friendly fire concerned 4 Battle. In the last version (in the Furie), it concerned 3 Battle and a French twin bomber Léo 451, why this change? Because I gave an info in this thread, saying the 2 Germans of the third Hs bailed out, and in the same aera 2 French of the 4 of Leo 451 bailed out also. It was so simple.

8/ Please Mister Gillet don’t say there is nothing new in my article. I am sorry But I am very proud of my article, and I repeat I never attacked you. All my life I tried to be honest, respectful and a gentleman.

9/ Please Mister Gillet, when you ask some help in this forum don’t say: I want! It will be better to say: It is possible to have a help?
Another thing when in this forum, you show some pieces of a French aircraft, if someone tell you, it is not a Bloch with a proof, believe him. And I hope to say you in some months, where is buried Cne Coiral of GC II/1…

10/ Even if you look for since 20 years (that I can’t believe, sorry), go on to look for but at the right place. As I have written, it is always to the Wast, but I repeat not from Luftwaffe, but from Heer. Naturally it exit’s a list made by a searcher( not Luftwaffe list). But not only this. You must look for by unit which the Hs126 unit were attached. It is not easy I confess

11/ When there are some doubts in a couple between a woman and a man, the couple can’t go on. It is the same thing between a reader and a book. If the reader doesn’t believe or think there are some mistakes. The reader stop the reading. Since your first book (Betheneville) to the last I found too mistakes because you didn’t find materials and materials exist if you look for well. Your work is surely a good work, and it has the merit to be the first, and because it is the first we can accept some errors, but too mistakes kill your work. I am sorry.

11/ I would like to help you for the second part of the British victories during the battle of France. The 26 may F/O “Cobber” Kain claimed a Hs 126, you will not find in the very good book of Peter Cornwell any info, but it is a Hs 126B of 2.(H)/12 attached to VI AK, which forced landed, with 65% damage in the sector south of Bouillon, no problem for the crew.

To finish, I wish you good researches for the Future mister Gillet.

For all, I am happy to belong to this community.

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

Bonjour à tous,

My ADIEU was not long indeed until M. Souffan comes back. As now, I will answer to any single attack from M. Souffan, I come back and hope it is the last time.

1. I would like also to thank all my friends for support after the direct attack to my researches in 11 pages!

2. As M. Souffan mention M. Cornwell, I would like also to thank M. Cornwell for his contribution. I don’t know him but I am sure he is a gallant man. And for me too, I could repeat what wrote M. Souffan. I am totally agreed : “There is no higher man than the man who has accepted that he did or took a wrong way. Nobody is perfect, me first. 1000 thanks again Mister Cornwell.”

3. Studying war, men killing other men, is a serious matter indeed…


4. M. Souffan write that this article is not a personal attack. I completely disagreed because since 2003 I am attacked and the words he used are directed to my capacity of studying history which are personal attacks. I won’t write down all his attacks. He used also very strong words against me like those precise he is using in his answer. This is personal attacks and I don’t answer to those attacks. If you find photograph of me in my book is because I am very proud of my work. Actually my books and I are one. I work hard every day on my books for 20 years now. I don’t copy books as lots of historians do. I work only with original documents I have found in France, Great-Britain, Germany. Only for the National Archive in London, in 20 years of researches, I have lots of paper copies and 75.000 photos of documents. I don’t like subject that other people have already written. I don’t bother and I am not interested. I work on new subjects that I have discovered by myself only. I am highly proud about “Fury”. I am preparing a study about the air bombing on Sedan on May 14th 1940. It will be a real choc in France and a lot bigger than “Fury”.

5. I appreciate you write you point of view. I will encourage anybody to do so. I clearly understand your point of you and this is the problem. You are not agreed with my conclusions as one of my friend. He wrote me a big letter against my conclusion. He has just read my book and took element for his position without mentioning elements against his own conclusion. In Fury anybody could find argues to my way or another.

But M. Souffan, I have a big problem with you not because you write a LeO is not the same as a Henschel 126. I obviously agree. What I don’t like is your article could be sum up in two points.
1. You clearly don’t know your subject: the air bombing of Sedan as most of historians and I am deeply sorry. You write that Gaulier was not the main target, this is very very wrong but this is a very very very difficult question.
2. But the biggest problem I have against you is very simple. You lie about those Henschel 126 losses. This is as simple as this. Excuse me for writing this but you know why and I do know too why I write this. I am not use to it. This is actually the first time I say to someone he is a lyer. Be serious M. Souffan since April 2009 I am asking you to give evidence about those Henschel 126 losses. You say those document come from a historian, then from Bundesarchiv now in your article from WASt. I know those archives. I have all documents. You’re not lucky with me. Try next time another archive, I have never been in the archive in the U.S.A. try here then I can’t argue… I know where those Henschel 126 come from: the manuscript of M. Weiss. The problem is that he didn’t mention those losses except one in his book “Twelve days in May” : this is the only problem between you and me and your article is shameful for that. Perhaps you thought the WASt archives are closed to public so let’s mention this archive, A. Gillet wouldn’t be able to get into this archive. But I have already been to his archive. You came into that gape by yourself.

6. Those lies hurt me when I read your article but a lie is a lie. There is no other word. This is a very strong accusation. I know but what can I do. You are a serious searcher but the problem you take H. Weiss manuscript as evidence. A historian should work on original document.

You mention the name of the “civil”. Of course I know the name of the “civil” in the Service Historique de la Défense. I just don’t want to accuse anyone else: this is a problem between you and me. You mention a name: this is your problem…
Yes, yes, yes some diaries of some French units are false specially for the one from the Leo 451 simply because the French wanted to cover up this friendly fire. The take off times and the bombing times are very very wrong. I have in Fury several testimonies to prove it German troops and a Potez crew who saw the leo 45 shot down. I have found too another testimony: Général Escudier write that the Leo 45 bombed target at 12.55.
Then the Leo 45 crews wrote they went went to Sedan without fighter escort. You write it do. Or Groupes III/7 and I/3 were on mission to cover Sedan from 12.50 to 13.30 not for fun but for protection of the first French wave against pontoon bridge. Battle of 142 Squadron took advantage of this protection to see what happen there before the second British wave. I don’t write diaries are wrong because they don’t match with my conclusions. No no no. This is another direct attack and you know it if you have read Fury all evidence are there : French and German.

7) I have already say why the version 2003 and the one in Fury 2010 is different. During those 7 years, I have found lots of documents. Of course I knew the mistake about the Leo 45 in 2003. How could I write that in 2003! In 2010 this is not easy but I am historian and this is my job.

Actually I thank you very much for your attack since 2003. I really do and I mean it. By studying this combat I have understood lots of things for May and June 1940. I have found too some others subjects to study. In fact Fury is essential to my new direction of seeing May and June 40.

Excuse me, I don’t understand what you mean about that. But obviously this don’t explain the differences between 2003 and 2010. Sorry :
“Because I gave an info in this thread, saying the 2 Germans of the third Hs bailed out, and in the same aera 2 French of the 4 of Leo 451 bailed out also. It was so simple.”

8) Sorry but I repeat there is nothing new in your article at all. I didn’t find anything interesting. Sorry again :
“All my life I tried to be honest, respectful and a gentleman.”
I am sure of it : I have only one point against you : the Henschel 126 list. You could have criticised my article without mentioning this list and I would not say or write anything again and I would be in fact agree with you or accept your point of you. The problem is this list that’s all. You know and I know that this list is very very doubtful but why did you use it…

9) So please M. Souffan would you be kind enough to give evidence about the Henschel 126 losses ? Please. I try… I don’t know what is your problem about the Bloch 152 thread? I have doubt as every historian should have. In some months, those doubt will disappear for ever. Just wait and see. At this moment I do not know anything… I have a lot of doubt…

10) I don’t argue with that… In fact I give up for that one.

11) Since Betheniville airfield, my first book. A lot of time is gone now for me. When I wrote the book about Betheniville airfield, I thought that historians were very efficient when they write books. At that time, I have work in the National Archive and in the Imperial War Museum. For the Luftwaffe losses, I used books. I have tried to study n° 501 Squadron claims. I used for that purpose books. But I discover at that time that nobody has published anything about Luftwaffe losses. Therefore I began to work on that subject. Then very quick I gave up to work with book as there are so many mistakes sometimes in every sentence as your article. Béthenville airfield is good for the British description, for Luftwaffe losses this is not right and there are a lot mistakes because I was young. I repeat, at that time, I haven’t work on Luftwaffe Losses: a mistake I have now corrected…

11 bis) Thank you I will check it before publication.

I think we are now all right. Everything has been written. I have spent too many time on this thread. So for now I wait for that letter from WASt then I send my “droit de réponse” to Avions to denounce those “lies” (ou “mensonge”).

If you want to attack me or other historians, it is up to you. This is your right… But historians have to defend themselves too. This is one part of the job: a job I like very much and I thank you again very much for this article in Avions…

See you again in another battlefield…


ADIEU…

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

Amen ;)

Re: New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet
 

I think enough has been said. I'm locking this thread.