Monolog?
 

21st August 2008, 23:10
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/image....ine=1110929281Ruy Horta http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/images...er_offline.gif
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Amstelveen, The Netherlands
Posts: 1,134
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/images...tation_off.gif
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/images/misc/im_icq.gif

Re: 1939-45 airpower and professional historians
I'm closing what is little more than a monolog, with a dose of name calling in between...

Grozibou :

I dare disagree. What monolog? Look better. The by far greater part of the thread on historians (professional or not?) was written by me simply because some other persons asked questions which I - with my usual generosity (my supply of time is not unlimited) and
good-will - answered as well and as completely as possible, taking my stupidity and my incompetence into account. Of course I could give much shorter replies and save myself a lot of time and effort, but these short replies would be far from satisfying. You failed to discover, to this day, that I never get involved in approx. 95 to 99 % of all threads! Don't you think this gives an acceptable average? If you don't like my "monolog", as you put it, just don't read it! You could call Ed West's photo threads "monologs" too because in many cases the main part is written by Ed. There are other examples of this kind.

As for name-calling you also failed to discover that a few trolls - and you know them - are PERMANENTLY looking for any opportunity to attack me viciously. The result : almost every time I post anything (even just a reply) there is trouble, dog-fighting and name-calling. Your naïve conclusion is that there is always trouble with me, which is a pain in the ass. This is precisely what the trolls are wanting. Remember a few years ago, when one of them (a well-known "member" (?) attacked me under a false name in such a clever way that everybody knew who he was. EVEN HE felt compelled to apologise by you (not by me!). Quite generally your patience is ALWAYS much shorter-lived for me than for those trolls who attack me systematically and unprovoked.

Why do they do this? I am NOT paranoid, quite on the contrary. I think there are two main reasons, close to each other :

1. 1985 I published the very first French translation (deserving the name) of Adolf Galland's book "Die Ersten und die Letzten / Les premiers et les derniers / The First and the Last". Galland himself told me that it was the best of all (16) translations. Indeed, I had made every possible effort to produce a comprehensive (not one single cut...) and very exact translation. In 23 years there never was one single justified criticism. The worst criticism was published by Mr. Michel Bénichou in "Le Fana de l'Aviation", October 1985 : "La traduction est par trop exacte, c'en est énervant" - "The translation is all too exact, this goes on your nerves." Some criticism! In the same issue (or in the following one) M. Bénichou published his translation of an English article on "Typhoons" (and "Tempests" I think). "The 4th Tactical Air Force" was mentioned, which gave the following in Bénichou's translation : "La 4th Tactical Air Force (4e Force aérienne tactique). Thanks God he was there to help the readers for without his help nobody could possibly have guessed that "4th Tactical Air Force" reads "4e Force aérienne tactique" in French. Here you can see who avoids all too precise translations. He simply had found nothing he could criticise in my book but he wanted to criticise something... I published this book about May 15, 1985. Already in July it received a fairly prestigious prize, presented to Galland in a big aviation festival before an audience of WW II aces and astronauts of the time. Galland having been unable to come I received the prize (and later forwarded it to him) and made a short speech to explain why Galland could not come. As you can see I had "my 15 minutes of fame", or something, much earlier than some people thought... (in fact much earlier than that).

In any case, at least 99 % of the interested people were absolutely enthusiastic but a few individuals almost died of envy and jealousy and, to this day, never "forgave" me for this feat, which they afterwards died of not having achieved themselves. They "only" forget that in order to produce such a faultless translation and earn the esteem, friendship and respect of Adolf Galland (who sent me some very clear letters on this) you need to have the necessary competence, will and skill to translate such a long and complex text (700 typed pages), which discusses many different, difficult subjects, and to become a publisher in the first place in order to publish it because all the existing publishing companies refused my proposal. These Internet-worms (not the publishers, although...) are going to persecute and harass me, mostly under false names, until I eventually die and even afterwards and they'll go and spit at my grave - some revenge! (Wonferful : no risk of a counter-attack or of retaliation... they naïvely think). "Who is that bl... Michelet anyway?" Just the son of a French Air Force major murdered by German soldiers as a member of the Résistance (some people still today prefer the nazis...), a parachutist, a reserve Air Force officer, combat aircrew and top-ranking international translator, in particular for German and having worked mainly in Germany, sworn translator and interpreter with German courts (including the highest court) from about 1969 to 2002 (with a few interruptions when I was not in Germany - it ends when you leave the region).

"Adolf Galland" is something of a magic name particularly in France. This has some historical reasons (too long to elaborate on). So the man who "suddenly" (after a career of 25 years already!) became Galland's translator, publisher and friend MUST expect incredible hostility from petty-minded, rather stupid, jealous people who quite simply can't accept that others are successful. This is very widespread in France and I understand in Great-Britain too. I guess Ruy Horta, too, was at the receiving end of similar attacks simply because TOCH was and is succesful.

Some insane worms, who possibly are not very far from here, even added something to Galland's Wikipédia-biography in French : "The translator has added many pages of his own without asking the author, etc. Keep clear of it!" This is quite simply a lie. So you see how far such people are prepared to go just to try to destroy a honest man (in my case they have NO CHANCE of success so they'd better give up!). Galland and also his wife, who both could read French pretty well, were delighted with my translation. What's more, thousands of German veterans who understood French were perfectly able to check it, which they did and they were fully satisfied and full of praise. What a difference with the usual nonsense in translations! (Recently, in an important historical book translated from German, "one single tank" (it was a French char B1bis, 1940 the by far heaviest in Western Europe, and it destroyed 13 German tanks III and IV, or perhaps only IVs, as well as several anti-tank guns) became "a minuscule tank" (!) just like "my seat-pack parachute" had become "the ejection seat" on June 22, 1941, in Galland's Me 109 F, in the old, terrible French translation (1954).

Besides, a few months ago one of the main moderators or members (I can't remember) at LEMB gave the advice, to people who understand written French, to read my French translation, which is much better, instead of the English one. A British citizen giving such a piece of advice in favour of a horrible French frog, this is certainly a unique historical event. We are right in the middle of History again!

2. The 2nd reason, close to the first one, is that some bilious, envious people simply can't stand other people being successful. Many females HATE famous top-models and actresses, many men hate successful men etc.

3. Well, in fact there is (at least) a third reason : some people consider me a competitor and want to kill any competitor, if possible. I need not insist on how stupid this behaviour is. I for my part am extremely glad and grateful that Docavia (Editions Larivière) and "Histoire de l'aviation" (Editions Lela-Presse) and more (in France), Schiffer, Crandall, D. Caldwell, "After the Battle" (with i.a. author Peter Cornwell), Motorbuch-Verlag and last but not least Jochen Prien (in spite of many errors), and all the others, exist and publish lots of extremely good and useful books.

It is quite disappointing, I have to say, that nobody ever intervenes and says, "Stop this, just leave him alone!" They're visibly afraid of being targetted too, and think that I am quite able to defend myself and hit back, which I am, but unfortunately Mr. Ruy Horta has a visible anti-Michelet bias and often deletes or locks my posts etc. but virtually never deletes insults hurled directly at me. I call this BIAS. OK, OK, I know this is no f... democracy here - nazism was not one either. "Qui se ressemble s'assemble?"

Don't insult me or any airmen (not the French alone) and I won't hit back - very simple!

If some of you wonder why most well-known authors abstain from appearing here as far as possible I think the main reason for this is to be found above.

Re: Monolog?
 

"Arrest driver, impound vehicle."

Yeah yeah!
 

The usual intolerant stuff and censorship. I presume you are one of these highly-civilised people who immediately punch others in their face if they dare disagree with you. Well, I dare disagree with you. Be careful, though, for some people use to hit back with a vengeance...

Why don't you mind your own business and let other people mind theirs?

"There is always trouble with that fellow", hey?

Re: Monolog?
 

Gentlemen, fellow forumites:
May I suggest that henceforth we ignore this rude man: perhaps when he sees that nobody is rising to his bait, he'll just go away.
Max

Re: Monolog?
 

Who is "this rude man"? You're meaning yourself I presume.

There is no bait (I am not the type) - you're just too bête to understand. Simple-minded people always think there must be some trap.

You'll be delighted to learn that I am the greatest angler in the world : mainly pike and perch, cod too. I know a lot on baits...

Interestingly my threads and my posts are always read eagerly by very numerous people (see right column "Views", mostly 1,400-2,000 after a week). It seems that lots of people find my "nonsense" most interesting after all. This is precisely what Luftwaffe-worshipers and nazi-lovers can't stand, hence the permanent calls for censorship and gags on my all too candid mouth. So what people like you really want is to prevent others from reading what I have to say : the facts, the truth, the proofs. May I remember everybody that you can send me private messages in the case of renewed censorship.

Re: Monolog?
 

OK, people. If you do not "act nice" and be civilized, I will shut this thread down. it is serving no purpose...............:confused:

Re: Monolog?
 

Gentlemen,

Allow me to offer some clarity.
1. A historian is some-one who has studied, and still is studying, history during a significant portion of his/her time.
2. A licenced historian is some-one who studied the science of history, and got a degree in that. The document proves that he/she has managed to learn the tools of the trade, as taught in a university.
3. A professional historian is some-one from either one of the two categories above, who managed to make a profession out of this activity.

The combinations yield additional types: one can be a professional historian without university training in that field, or a licenced historian who is not a professional because he/she did not find a matching job, or a historian who is neither licenced nor a professional. The last category is also called "amateur historian". If that is understood as "beginner", then the term would not do justice to many "amateurs".

Please note that in these proposed definitions, undefined phrases such as "quality" have no place. Any scientist is as good as the arguments he/she produces, structured by logics, and based on facts that were searched and found in directions that may have been exploited by system, by vision, or by chance. Many licenced historians seem to be amateurs when it comes to methodology. Or at least the tools of the trade are never discussed, as if these are perfect and unquestionable. I find that "unprofessional".

A lot of the proceedings in this thread, and the closed one from which this one sprouts, confuse the man and the ball. The argumentum ad hominem has no place in science, and not on this forum either. What counts are arguments, based on facts and insights. Arguments with which the other guy can disagree in all liberty, if the premisses of the argument can be demonstrated to be in error, and/or if the logic used is at fault.

The utterly inconsistent loss numbers presented by Arnaud Gillet can be called a classical case of how NOT to write history. Or anything else, if one wishes to make sense to others. In prose or poetry one can be as inconsistent as one pleases. In a work of history, if conveying meaningful results of historical research is the target, one had better get such basics right. Meaning the data as well as the method. As lengthy as Grozibou tends to be, he usually scores on this count. His proficiency with languages, and his strong use of that, seem to trigger in others reactions that can hardly be called to the point.

However, Grozibou falls into the experience trap. He states that one has to have read very many books before a qualification to write about history can be called sufficient. As tempting as this statement may seem, there is no logical validity in experience. Nevertheless it is obviously a very good idea to be as widely informed as one can. The more you know, the more it becomes clear that there is much more yet to be known. I would like to expand the statement to other fields of knowledge. It seems that many historians have little more than a working knowledge of the technological fields. If you want to write about firepower of fighter aircraft, you had better understand a few basics of ballistics too. Again Arnaud Gillet's treatment of that subject leads to a merciless, but also a fully justified criticism from Grozibou, who does understand the basics of iron projected at high velocity, and the multiplying factor of explosives carried within such iron.

Grozibou hits the mark with his plea for criticism. That's not designed to annoy others, but to increase knowledge by questioning almost anything. The productive historian never ceases to study. Asking questions is the elementary tool. This may seem too elementary to mention. However, Grozibou is the first that I have read on this forum, or on the rafcommands forum, who raises a methodological issue. That's part and parcel of the science of history too.

I believe that he is also perfectly right that language skills are essential if you wish to study an episode of history that spans several languages, in our case foremost the German, French and English language. When my wife took ill on a journey in Italy, some 30 years ago, I was amazed to find that none of the doctors in the Verona hospital spoke English. How the hell can these guys have followed the international literature in their own field?

There is one point of view that I would like to add to Grozibou's forceful plea for common sense and good scientific manners. It seems that a few of the targets of his arrows are unable to deal effectively with criticism, and that may have resulted from never having learned how to do that. This requires some knowledge, some training, and some ability to see the self not as the Napoleontic centre of the universe. As a generalization, scientists score better on this count than non-scientists.

Regards,

Rob

Purpose
 

The purpose is this :

To try to show for some thick-skulled, simple-minded, intolerant fellows that opinions differering from theirs and proven facts opposed to what they have been told for all their life have a right to exist and to be made public - which nobody will be able to prevent eventually for I am working on some books and books have the nasty habit of being here to stay at least for centuries, probably more - without having to expect immediate censorship nor ten-ton bombs. I feel Rob Philips' post, which contains some criticism directed at me, is one of the very best ever seen at TOCH for about 10 years, possibly THE very best one. Read it carefully, please (not diagonally...). I think it's the first time I see his name or in any case take notice of it (what I mean is that I don't know him).

John Beaman, I know you're a good man meaning well but here I feel you're misguided - maybe I'm wrong.

There are other subjects in WW II-history than aircraft serial-numbers, aircrew first names and places of burials etc. These other subjects (theory, strategy, tactics, military leaders, politics, industry, technology and more) inevitably are much more controversial than the difference between Me 109 E-3 and E-4 or some RLM paint colour shade. Precisely, some people here clearly can't stand any discussion at any level which is a little higher than the fin of a Fw 190. It ought to be possible to discuss everything as civilised people, without being called names nor threatened with a big club or a "big stick". You don't like it? That's fully all right for me - don't read it! If you happen to walk past a big bookshop you don't feel like buying and reading all the books there do you. You read what you like.

Last time I mentioned that the Dewoitine D.520 was a superlative fighter, which hardly anybody in the world disputes, this triggered a lot of mockery and "evidence" to the contrary from a so-called "Senior Member" of TOCH, who also was so kind and sent me 3 times insults as 3 private messages (I saved them in my PC pending a decision on legal proceedings). These insults have something to do with some natural opening of the human body. But remember : the "rude man" is me!

If you can't find anything constructive in this thread look again, please.

Re: Monolog?
 

There are other subjects in WW II-history than aircraft serial-numbers, aircrew first names and places of burials etc.
I agree, but the primary purpose of this board is to exchange information of that sort.

These other subjects (theory, strategy, tactics, military leaders, politics, industry, technology and more) inevitably are much more controversial than the difference between Me 109 E-3 and E-4 or some RLM paint colour shade.
Certainly, but on a non-accusatory level. It accomplishes nothing to say someone is stupid or pig-headed simply because you disagree with them, even if they state something incorrect.

Precisely, some people here clearly can't stand any discussion at any level which is a little higher than the fin of a Fw 190. It ought to be possible to discuss everything as civilised people, without being called names nor threatened with a big club or a "big stick". You don't like it? That's fully all right for me - don't read it!
Unless the owner of this board corrects me, I will continue to call people down for personal attacks or name-calling. If you do not like that, stay away from this board. This is your warning.

Re: Monolog?
 

John,

This has always been about method, not the message.

The method (what you call accusatory) is what either drives away or infuriates many community members. If you insult and accuse, expect to be insulted and hurt in return. It is a simple tit for tat situation, no innocent parties.

Members are free to question moderator action, but it doesn't help your case if you include insults, threats etc.

As a host I have to take notice of this matter, as a person I don't wish to have anything to do with Mr. Michelet (which is unfortunate because I am interested in the subject matter and general message). He knows why, but he is still free to participate (which must tell you something).

I won't close this thread, because I can be accused of bias, but I see absolutely no use for it.

This is the only comment I make or action I will take in this thread.

:angry:

Re: Monolog?
 

Gentlemen,

Some more. The original topic was writing about history, if I'm correct. I believe that this topic would be fully within the scope of this forum. The topic evolved into a discussion, not of method, meaning tools used by historians, but of style. Ruy uses the term "method" in that sense in the post above. Here we enter the field of social intelligence, as opposed to rational intelligence. Freedom of speech, and freedom to differ in opinions, is not a birthright; it exists because of an essential premisse that is hardly ever mentioned, but usually active. The premisse is that we shall not bash in each other's head whilst disagreeing. If I could not trust the other guy to subscribe to that premisse, I would keep other tools at the ready next to the mouth and the pen.

Next to bashing heads comes deliberate insult. In clumsiness we may insult the other, and we apologize when made aware of that. Deliberate insult is another matter. That should simply have no place here, or anywhere else. It is utterly unintelligent, in the social sense of the term. One can be razor sharp, upfront, strong worded, scientifically correct, and what have you, without crossing the line of deliberate insult.

Grozibou claims meaningful content in his posts with reference to high visitor counts. That claim cannot be substantiated, as we do know how many of the visitors seek scandal rather than statement. Scandal sells much better than statement to the general public. The owners & moderators of this forum are not book editors, they have nothing to sell. Still they allowed Grozibou's style up to the warning given above. This can only be understood as the result of a genuine desire to be a forum where opposing opinions can meet. That's grand, deserves appreciation, and should not be misused. Improving a style that does not subscribe to the essential premisse of discours, would be a step towards showing appreciation. That's an advise, not a prescription.

Now the challenge. Could you direct the intellectual energy on the subject of methodology of history writing? Fine with me if limited to writing of WW2 aviation history. I'm not talking about where to find historical data, but about how to process it. Surely there is more to tell than that one needs to have read a lot, and that language skills are important. Surely the discussion could be about methods of first class history writers rather than those who fail to see their data inconsistencies? Surely this could lead to something that has meaning to others? It may even be a first in the field of WW2 aviation history writing. If a clear view on methodology can be achieved, which is unlikely to be easy, then, perhaps, innovation may become possible as the next step. Then the scientist becomes "der wahre Anfänger", the real amateur.

If you take up this challenge, then this is a suggested first item that needs to be investigated: independency. It is generally agreed that science can only function and develop in freedom. If the science is mathematics, and in our free Western societies, that's not too problematic. With the science of history there are, or could be, problems. Many of the professional historians are employed by their governments. Their writings are about actions of the past, including those of their own government. That's a potentially unfree situation, as governments are particular about what they want to hear, and what not. What does this do to scientific activities of government employed historians, and to their freedom of speech? Can we substantiate that these professional historians are in fact unfree in their research? If so, which are the limits, and what cannot be said, or written about?

Regards,

Rob

Rules...
 

Grozibou : I was surprised by this statement for I can't remember anything of this kind so I went to the "first" page of TOCH and I could find nothing. If this "primary purpose" is mentioned somewhere please tell me where, post the relevant quotation here. In any case, no matter if it's rivet-counting or top-level strategy or anything in between, I think any subject is allowed and legitimate just as long as people are polite. I don't mind posts by rivet-counters or modellers, with a reservation though : in many cases they don't announce the purpose of their post clearly in the title, so that you read many posts which to you are useless and you waste a lot of time. Luckily modellers have become rare here lately, I suppose because they now have some sites of their own, which is a good thing and I wish them luck and success (I was a modeller myself when I was a boy). Personally I don't care in the least who was the pilot, or the mechanic-air-gunner, of He 111 so and so which crashed at this or that place, but, unlike some people here around, I do not jump at their throat to ridicule and insult them every time they dare post something which I find uninteresting or... because I don't like these persons (I am the victim of such attacks all the time - look again and you'll admit it - of course I use to hit back, I am not a sissy. Provocations?...). Quite on the contrary, they have every right to try to find the information and data they are looking for and I wish them luck too. To be really clear at last, or so I hope : millions of people buy and read newspapers and magazines I wouldn't even look at. So what? They're interested in yachting, cars, motorbikes, fashion, famous movie-stars etc. and I am not, and conversely they don't find airpower exciting in the least. Sorry for making such basic, grass-root-level, obvious statements!

Quote:

These other subjects (theory, strategy, tactics, military leaders, politics, industry, technology and more) inevitably are much more controversial than the difference between Me 109 E-3 and E-4 or some RLM paint colour shade.

- I couldn't agree more. I am the most democratic person in the world on top of the greatest angler (baits...). Did I do something of this kind? When? References please. Of course I use to write, for example, that so-called "historians" are unserious and incompetent if they write in their books that the Polish and French air forces were annihilated in the first day(s) of the German offensive, or that "French aircraft production was not of the same quality..." (the contrary was true), or that French fighter pilots didn't like to fight and preferred to fly the wrong course (course to the front + 180°). All evidence including the graves prove the contrary. I am going to demolish these scandalous allegations of Polish origin completely, soon. A little patience please. Mr. Franek Grabowski, you may prepare your apologies to French fighter pilots, the bravest in the world (together with all others).

Some wrong statements are not outrageous, only erroneous. Some others, especially on the French, who are permanently targetted by people having their own reasons to do so, ARE totally unacceptable and dishonest and they do have a certain purpose. Remember that Boeing not Dassault sold a new fighter to Poland a few years ago... It was a $ multi-billion-deal. Dassault is a French aircraft maker and it existed from approx. 1914 through 1940 under the name of Marcel Bloch, later Marcel Dassault... 1940 numerous Polish pilots flew a Bloch 151 or 152 fighter. I'd say they were slightly better than their ol' PZLs. This could be the explanation of all the hate SOME people have for everything French...

In any case, trying to destroy the honour of a whole air force (!) is something extremely vile and filthy, disgusting, contemptable*. My dear John, some things cannot be accepted in life, like nazism, neo-nazism and spitting at the graves of French airmen who died 1940 fighting nazism. I'll never change this point of view, if this is what you are hoping for. No way.

*It would be sooo easy, to me, to do the same for 1940 RAF fighter pilots and also for the whole British army! They FLED with their tails between their legs didn't they. Sure, but they, too, were the victims of circumstances and of military operations far beyond their influence and even their understanding. Many died fighting nazi Germany, just like the French and the Poles. All I am asking for is fairness and honesty instead of systematic insults (just have a look at Franek Grabowski's posts : "Too bad the Polish pilots couldn't shoot the French", or something like that... I know you find this statement fully all right for you never warned FG to stop making such statements and you never deleted it. You warn only ME. This is an interesting one-sidedness indeed. Do you realise at all that your behaviour is totally one-sided? No you don't for you feel, "deep inside", that decent people (this means British people) can only despise those small French cheese-eating monkeys and the outrageous Polish accusations of cowardice are OK. Proof of this : you never reacted. WHY? This is a question and I am expecting an answer : thanks in advance.).

[quote]Precisely, some people here clearly can't stand any discussion at any level which is a little higher than the fin of a Fw 190. It ought to be possible to discuss everything as civilised people, without being called names nor threatened with a big club or a "big stick". You don't like it? That's fully all right for me - don't read it!
- Fine! Wonderful! AT LAST! Not to soon! Of course this is valid "even" for people insulting ME? I hope you'll really implement this and I expect you to do so. Remember, though, that polite and civilised criticism, in particular of books, is fully legitimate, always was even long before you were borne, and always will be. You really should inform yourself and read the book-reviews of all kinds (about novels too) published in the press for several centuries.

Re: Monolog?
 

Rob, I think this is a very interesting question, and well worth discussing, but I am not sure if it will attract many replies in this particular thread.

Re: Rules...
 

During 1940-45 many more Polish pilots flew Spitfires and Mustangs, much better than their old PZLs or the French Blochs. According to your logic, this should presumably lead to a lot of hate for everything British or American, right?

You complain about some statements from one Polish member of this forum (why haven't you complained when they were posted?) and this leads you to make general statements about "Polish hate" and "scandalous Polish accusations". You should not be surprised that your posts make some people feel rather uneasy about French people and French subjects in general.

Re: Monolog?
 

Hi VoyTech,

Thanks. The matter is directed at Grozibou. He'll respond when he is ready for that. We'll see what develops. I'm aware that methodology is a topic that may not attract a lot of visitors, certainly not at the start, in whichever of the chapters of the forum. There is no problem in that. We are after knowledge, not entertainment for many.

Regards,

Rob

Difference
 

- I know you're honest and mean well but, as so often happens, you're misguided and poorly informed (SIGHHHH!).

Frankly 1939-June 1940 and 1940-45 are two entirely different things and can hardly be compared to each other. You could have added that from 1944 on the Germans flew jets and this was frustrating for the Polish and French pilots flying within the RAF.

I fear it is really not possible to explain this whole Polish-French problem here and its is not the right place (a book is, or an article in a serious historical review). When the Poles arrived in France 1939 they were not treated - by the POLITICAL French AUTHORITIES - as well as I would be the first man to wish. If I had been in charge (but I wasn't borne yet) I would have billeted them in good hotels, if possible in the best hotels of the region and there are many in the Lyon-area. These hotels were empty or almost so anyway for the country was at war - tourists were rather few. Many hotels and "châteaux", as British people say, were used by some HQs and military units so why not by the Poles? I don't think they were treated like this - billetted first in the cold Lyon-Fair halls - on purpose, it was just the usual French stupidity, usual at the time, 1939-40. This is what antagonised them.

More : they wanted to fight immediately, without any delay, they wanted to throw themselves at the Huns and kill as many as possible, but it was simply NOT POSSIBLE to disorganise and jeopardise the whole French fighter arm (with over 200 Polish fighter pilots in a force of about 400-500 at the time!) just in order to please them! Most of them, if any at all, had never flown a "modern" aircraft, i.e. equipped with a retractable landing gear (something new and very important for pilots for they had to change many of their reflexes!), with flaps, cannon, modern gunsights (optical devices), a closed cockpit, a very powerful engine (even the MS 406 had 860 ch, the others around 1,000 ch) etc. Some people were not able to cope with all these technicalities. They needed a full new training - not to forget, in the French language too! They simply MUST understand what people said to them and this was not easy, in particular inside an aircraft with all the terrible noise and the horrible radio interferences.

Most people are not aware of it but if fighter units are to be effective in battle (I am meaning 1939-40) they MUST be trained, fly and fight as TEAMS not as gaggles of wild, fanatic individuals listening only to their hate of the Huns. This is not an indidual game like tennis or bow and arrow (and even these sports have a lot of rules!) but is more like a collective sport like football and especially rugby (rugger). Every single pilot was not a lone fighter in the sky but a member of a UNIT, of a formation, of a team and every man had to play a certain part. French pilots had received an outstanding training in this field. This means that before they could be sent to combat the Polish fighter pilots had to be retrained on modern aircraft AND also AS FIGHTING TEAMS, either purely Polish or intermingled with French and Czech pilots in French fighter units. 1939 and until June 1940 the Poles were still convinced that the Allies would win soon or at least stop the German army in their tracks so understandably they were very impatient to have a go.

They didn't understand French fighter tactics (similar to RAF tactics 1940 over France), in particular NOT always flying a direct course at any German aircraft they spotted (this was often suicidal and didn't give any result), which were new to them and entirely different from their old Polish tactics, which corresponded low-performance aircraft (with a... fixed undercarriage!). These new tactics were not only made possible, but imposed, by the much higher performance of modern fighters including "even" the MS 406 and, not to forget, including the enemy. You simply can't use the same tactics with fighters having a max. speed of 250 or 480-500 km/h. You can-NOT! I fear most Polish pilots never understood this and remained very resentful and angry at the French. They're wrong.

In the French AF and, I understand, also in the RAF, Polish fighter pilots had a reputation of being excellent and very brave pilots but terribly undisciplined and unpredictable : poor soldiers. In particular over France if they saw an enemy AC they couldn't stand it and they often left formation in order to kill the Hun. They didn't care about the ordered mission (which could be entirely different, and they didn't know that often other French units were taking care of the other Huns, just like over England during the BoB) nor about discipline and the cohesion of their own formation. They didn't even understand that the French "cowards" didn't behave like they did and that there were some hard "explanations" on the radio (if it worked) and after landing... German fighters often took advantage of such situations to attack with far better odds so some French pilots were killed because of bad¨Polish discipline in flight .

What happened later in GB is an entirely different story under entirely different conditions of numbers, radar-control, own territory, safe airfields (no German tanks in England) etc., not to forget strict British discipline-or-else! and after a while the Poles were bound to understand at last - not to soon! - for they were not more stupid than the French or the British, but 1940 in France they dad not understood yet, they had to change their habits and their way of thinking.

QUOTE (see above) : << You complain about some statements from one Polish member of this forum (why haven't you complained when they were posted?) >>

- I always did. If I happened to forget or not have any time virtually all readers know what I think about such insults, like French fighter officers taking the wrong course, away from battle (!). This has been repeated many times here. That Grabowski regrets that the Poles couldn't shoot the French is a relatively new element. You can make your own opinion on his statement.

It is not only ONE Pole for I fear these weird ideas are widespread among Polish people even today (!) - whatever the reason. May I repeat that France unwillingly declared war on Germany ONLY because of the German aggression on Poland and as a consequence had to endure terrible destructions for 5 years and high human losses - "because of Poland only". French HQ and government didn't do the right thing from September through May 1940 and I am very upset myself but they BELIEVED they could do nothing else (this was an error). I know, French people didn't shed enough of their blood : French blood and the lives of their small children didn't matter for they were only French not Polish or British so they had no value.

Remember, dear Polish friends and faithful allies, that 1940 France experienced exactly the same German invasion as you did 1939 - with machine-gunning and bombing of refugees on roads, massacres etc. - but that France contrary to Poland, which had been attacked and invaded in the first place, could have stayed aside and NOT declare war on Nazi Germany, and live in peace behind border fortifications and with an air force which would have been invulnerable by early 1941. Do you think the latter would have helped Poland more?

I'll only add that in 1940 France - contrary to the UK - readily accepted the formation of a national POLISH AIR FORCE on French soil (in France) including Polish bomber units. Too bad the German victory came so soon and prevented this from giving concrete results. Within the French AF contrary to the RAF fighters flown by Polish pilots sported a large Polish national insignia on both sides of the fuselage. We never saw this within the RAF! How come? And how come you don't hate the Brits?

And finally within the French Air Force, the Armée de l'Air, contrary to the RAF, Polish pilots flew exactly the same fighter types as their French comrades, including the best, the "élite" types : Curtiss H-75, Bloch 152 (it was not at all that bad!) and also, "even", D.520. The French didn't make any difference for, as I said above, every pilot was important and it didn't matter if the comrade who saved your life or otherwise did the job was a Frenchman, a Czech, a Pole or a Senegalese. What mattered was his skill as a fighter pilot, yes, AND HIS BEHAVIOUR.

These myths of the horrible French giving the poor Poles, the victims, only the worst aircraft etc. are pure nonsense. Dozens of FRENCH pilots were killed flying the Bloch 151 (151 not 152), a rather poor fighter (armed with only 4 light machine-guns and no cannon, with a weak engine) which French HQ had classified "Not combat-worthy" but some dozens had to be used (?) in battle at the beginning, as well as flying some worne-out models of the MS 406 while eagerly awaiting the arrival of the hotly wanted D.520s!

We shall not forget that all these Polish pilots except the superior officers (from major upwards) were very young guys, prone to explode very quickly and think only afterwards. National Polish temperament, too.

Re: Monolog?
 

Grozibou / Yves Michelet has been suspended for three months.

Very last warning, next time it is for the duration.