May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Hi,

Few days ago, this forum showed aggressive attacks. I didn't want to react at this time, the discussion was impossible.
But i'm French, and i was not really pleased with what i read. Attacks against "the guy"becam attacks against french pilots and french Armée de l'Air.
So, for beginning, please excuse my poor english, and be sure that i don't want to be aggressive. I'd just like to answer to small points.

_For example, when i read that french officers kept for themselves victories claimed by polish pilots, i'd like to answer by another question : what happen in other Air forces when pilots claim more victories than the aircrafts effectively destroyed ? Some are confirmed, the others no. One error is possible, but many polish and czech pilots became aces during the battle of France, so i cannot admit this sentence as a generality.

_I read it and i can confirm it : there were no operationnal "Groupes de Chasse" (fighter groups) at villacoublay airbase when it was bombed in early June 1940. So, 30 fighters, all right, but how many armed, and how many operationnal pilots ? Who to give orders ? And what about the alarm, when was it given ? So many questions before concluding anything.

_May 14th 1940 : According to "secret" sources, four Battles from Squadron 142 were destroyed by GC III/7's Morane 406s. And the french pilots claimed Henshel 126s ...
Yes !!! Why not ?

The first to write that had a theory. This one, Arnaud Gillet, worked on original archives and did not find in the Luftwaffe any losses that matched. So, he concluded that they destroyed four Battles lost by the RAF in the same area.
But he made a mistake, Henschel 126s were detached in the Wehrmacht, and losses do exist. To name him, Jean-Yves Lorant found them.

"But Henschel 126s... " wrote someone. Seven pilots involved...
I was very sad, mister Brian, when i read your intervention. Were you really serious ?
I hope it was just the "Grozibou's effect".

Friendly,

Lionel Persyn

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Hi,

I think the best way is just to ignore some stupid opinion. Is just waste of time to try discuss with people, who have not idea about some subjects and have no arguments to support their opinions.

Warm Regards

Robert

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Lionel
The point is not about confirming (crediting) victories, but about crediting other pilots with victories achieved by Polish pilots. There were few such cases described by the Polish airmen in reports filed for Polish authorities.
No, there were not too many Polish aces for a very simple reason. Only a few pilots were send to operational units and saw only a limited combat.
This is one single case, but there are literally dosens of such accounts. Are all of them unfounded? They were published years ago, yet nobody in France bothered with them. Certainly, there were some positive remarks, but I would say they were in clear minority.
I understand you have been in touch with Lansoy, is he still alive? A pilot of his unit, Łaszkiewicz, wrote memories, no doubt based on his personal diary, and provided a critical insight into a life of French Grouppe de Chasse. I believe it was this unit visited by Fonck, and according to Łaszkiewicz, the former was most critical about French fighter pilots. Is it anti-French propaganda?

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Hello Petitpoucet
thanks for the info. One technicality
Quote:"Henschel 126s were detached in the Wehrmacht..."

You probably wanted to say that they were detached to the Heer (Army). Wehrmacht was the armed forces of 3rd Reich, consisting Heer, Lutfwaffe and Kriegsmarine (Navy) and probably also Waffen-SS, but I'm not sure on the last one.

Juha

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Thanks Robert for your nice message, and Thanks Juha for your kind remark. So, "detached in ground units" could be better.

Franek, i think it will take me more time to answer to you. But i think the discussion can be interesting.

First of all, in France, do you know that every pilots who fired an ennemy aircraft before it felt was credited with a complete victory ? For example, with the poor 7,5mm guns on their Curtisses, they were often a lot to destroy a Henshel 126 or a Heinkel 111.
Second point : i can understand that a pilot could be disappointed when one of his claim was not confirmed. But to say that french officers stole victories obtained by polish pilots, i think it is just a nonsense.
I studied a lot of reports, they are clear, and i never read or heard about something like that.
Could you give me some dates, some facts ? You have a lot of them as i can undestand.

About Villacoublay, and many other cases : just remember one word in France in june 1940 : disorder. I just tried to explain what happened in Villacoublay, but now, i don't really undestand what you want to tell me.

"They were not many polish aces..."
You're right. there were much czech aces because they joined groups equipped with better aircrafts (H-75, for example). On may 10th 1940, there were only four groups equipped with Curtisses, and the first one with new D.520 was operationnal two days later.
So, many Polish pilots used bad aircarfts (Caudron 714, MS 406) because they were the only ones available, but obtained many victories.
Many of them would become aces in the RAF where Hurricanes and Spitfires were available.

Laskiewicz joined a new formed group, the GC III/2, leaded by a great man, Cdt Geille, but he was not a great fighter pilot. The officers who leaded the two squadrons were not the best examples, but the group had great sub-officers. So i think i was not an anti-french propaganda, but the critiscim of his own group, and its commanding officers.

Hope i answered to all your questions,

Lionel

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Hello all,
I can only add that in Czech literature there are signs that some Czechoslovak pilots attached mostly to Morane equipped squadrons were highly critical primarily to the French higher command and even Czech higher officers (non-flying). The criticism was oriented mostly to bad equipment, bad servicing of machines and even the very bad social status of pilots who were attached to the Foreign Legion during training at the beginning of the war.
(this statement is supported by many first hand accounts from diaries of Svatopluk Janouch GC I/6, Stanislav Fejfar GC I/6, Sgt. Otto Hanzlicek GC II/5, Vaclav Cukr II/3 and others).

Some of pilots (namely Lts.- Janouch and Fejfar) were critical to their French comrades as well mostly for lack of discipline and co-operation during air battles which caused preventable losses. (S. Fejfar was killed himself on the May 17, 1942 when he deliberately departed from his squadron with his wingman and theirs Spitfires were bounced by Fw–190).

Generally speaking I thing that the French fighters fought with great skill, courage and determination which is supported by many confirmed victories at one side and sustained serious losses on the other side. The same applies for Czechs (and other Allied pilots)

What I found interesting is a high number of combat missions and hours flown by the pilots during Battle of France period. Is it known who were the pilots with highest numbers of missions?

Kind Regards. David

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Lionel
As long as it will not be emotional.
Yes, though I think the system was not introduced consistently, as it seems sometimes just every pilot in patrol was credited and sometimes not.
I do not think that 7,9 MGs fared any better, and actually most of the Battle of Britain kills were shared ones, but this is not the point.
I agree it is strange or weird, but this is what was actually stated by some pilots.
Not a lot, as there was not a lot of victories. One of them was already mentioned and it was Karubin's kill on 3 June over Etampes, that, according to another airman, was credited to a French pilot instead.
I just wanted to say, that similar accounts to the one of Villa, can be found in various memories. In general they describe a total lack of moral fibre across the French armed forces. On the other hand, there are some stories of elderly French people, who expressed to Poles their sorrow for such a behaviour of French army.
I think Poles were just too late to join the fight in any strength. There was a lot of time lost for various discussions, and attempts to make any acceptable agreement. There was also a lot of distrust on the French side.
Indeed, but the situation was different.
Łaszkiewicz considered Geille just too old for the modern conflict. He regarded him as a man, but considered just a man on the wrong position.
Well, this more-less fits with statements of Łaszkiewicz. If I recall correctly, he had a high esteem for such young pilots like Lansoy, and considered them the people who should take the lead. He could not understand, for example, that the pilots slept long, then had a breakfast, then a little rest and only then they were ready for flying. Then lunch break, and then the dinner with a lot of wine. Łaszkiewicz was just amazed, that the unit worked picnic-like. Otherwise he was quite critical about general approach to combat (lack of proper training), and quality of groundcrew, as well as some pilots. It seems Corniglione and his crew were considered especially bad, but this possibly to the fact, Corniglione took his aircraft, in exchange of overheated one.
The visit of Fonck was another matter, and general situation of French aviation was discussed. I cannot find it at the moment, but I will give you an exact date.

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Hello Petitpoucet
Quote:” So, "detached in ground units" could be better.”

Yes, at least most PanzerDivs had their own Hs 126 Staffel as had at least some Corps.

And thanks again for 14 May info. Arnaud Gillet seems to have made a classical mistake. He seems to have thought that he had checked all possibilities when in fact he had not been aware on certain organizational details. One major reason why a researcher should be careful in his conclusions.

On fighting spirit of French or whoever. One must remember that the Czech and Polish exile pilots were extraordinary motivated otherwise they would not have continued their fight after their countries were overrun. So their opinions on others’ fighting spirit might be too critical. Of course they might be right I haven’t studied the subject so I don’t have any firm opinion on the question.

Juha

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Hi every body,

Many sentences i read today are really interesting.
Juha first, when he compared motivation of the Polish and Czech pilots with French ones... I think you're right.

France wanted the peace and was not prepared to the war, especially the civil population. In the army, it was not the same. They were professionnal and there were also really great french pilots, with the same motivation. It cannot be a generality, this is just why i'm not agree with you.

As i said to you, GC III/2 was not the best example of a french flying unit. Motivation was one of the lacks of the squadron leaders, so i'm not really surprised. I also read the war diary of another "young pilot" (a sub-officer, René Pizon), and i saw approximately the same things.
But as you said, this is one hand. I another hand, i can speak hours about the GC I/5. Accart, Dorance, Marin-La-Meslée, Vasatko, Perina, Morel .....
To answer to David's question, i think that Marin-la-Meslée was the pilot with higher number of war missions.
I also liked what you said about lack of discipline, to conclude that Fejfar was killed when he deliberately leaved his squadron ...
But how Polish and Czech pilots would have not been critical against a country that lost the war ?

June 3rd 1940 : Arnaud Gillet made a huge work, and be sure that there were no Dornier 17s detached to ground units !
Adj Benausse, A/C Balmer and Sgt Karubin attacked a flight of Do 17s from I./KG 76 near Ham (Somme). They claimed one sure each, but there were just three Dorniers ... damaged. No one seems to have been confirmed.

Lionel

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Hi Lionel

Since you mentioned my query, I suppose I will have to become involved again. You wrote:
__________________________________________________ ___________

May 14th 1940 : According to "secret" sources, four Battles from Squadron 142 were destroyed by GC III/7's Morane 406s. And the french pilots claimed Henshel 126s ...
Yes !!! Why not ?

The first to write that had a theory. This one, Arnaud Gillet, worked on original archives and did not find in the Luftwaffe any losses that matched. So, he concluded that they destroyed four Battles lost by the RAF in the same area.
But he made a mistake, Henschel 126s were detached in the Wehrmacht, and losses do exist. To name him, Jean-Yves Lorant found them.

"But Henschel 126s... " wrote someone. Seven pilots involved...
I was very sad, mister Brian, when i read your intervention. Were you really serious ?
I hope it was just the "Grozibou's effect".
__________________________________________________ ___________

Yes, I am really serious - and why are you very sad? Sad that friendly fire incidents occurred? Yes, we all agree they are tragic. Sad that I should ask such a silly question? But how do you know that Arnauld Gillet falsified the 'facts' to suit his account? Has he admitted this? And where is Jean-Yves Lorant's proof of the Hs126 losses? Or is this just your opinion - we've had enough of Grozibou's opinions!

For the past few years I have been researching aerial friendly fire incidents during WWII - my compliation now runs to three volumes and contains 100s if not 1000s of such incidents - air-to-air, air-to-ground, ground-to-air, all air forces - and I am sure that I have only scratched the surface! Many dozens of these incidents occurred during the battle of the Low Countries May-June 1940.

I am not anti-French, anti-German or anti-anyone else. Some of my closest friends in the field of aviation research are French.

Cheers
Brian

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.

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Rob
The one who is not present. ;)
In history, almost every fact is an opinion, actually. We constitute facts based on opinions.
No doubt about it, but please tell me what are you going to prove?
I am just pointing out, that most of Polish veterans of FC were highly critical about French effort, to say the least. Lionel asked for details that could help him to verify those opinions, and suggested that I am selective with the choice of the units involved. Otherwise, he suggested that those accounts were not what they meant, so I have provided him with an exact quote.
I consider all the evidence, and in general Poles were very negative about French soldiers. More, they describe numerous events, where they were entertained as heroes fighting for France, this combined with some bitter remarks about French army.
This is the area of my judgement - that the opinions of Polish airmen (and soldiers) were negative.
Voytech provided his very own opinion. This may be true or may be not.
The problem is, that this does not contribute to the general picture of the French Campaign as seen by Polish, Czechoslovak or even British soldiers. This may add a little to the explanation of such and no other behaviour, but does not help to establish the truth.
I am afraid some people are mixing opinions of Polish airmen with the ones of myself.
Therefore I have invited you to read the another thread, where the discussion actually started.
No spell checker. Is that everything constructive, what can you say?
Are you going to be elected for a president?

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Thanks, Franek. "Ugly liar" source understood.

I was not out to prove anything. I offered ideas for you to reflect upon.

In as far as you report negative statements by Polish servicemen about the French in the early days of the war, that's perfectly OK. I'm no specialist in this area, but I'm sure that you are reporting this correctly.

In as far as you imply that these statements were true, then you sit in judgement, and my advise was to be very careful with that. If I misunderstood you, I apologize for that. I realize that we are both expressing ourselves in a foreign language, and that this may cause some confusion.

No doubt the negative statements were true to those who gave them. Please be advised that "the truth", to which you refer in one of your statements, does not exist. We are talking about human behaviour, not about mathematics. Historical "truth" is what you and I agree to be so. If we do not agree, for instance because we do not share the same set of premises, then we shall have two truths: yours and mine. Then others can decide which of these is the better one, by looking at all premises involved. Their input shall ideally be learning material for us.

My example of the "Arbeitseinsatz" is there to demonstrate that "the truth" of 1950 is no longer "the truth" of 2008, meaning that "truth" is not a rock solid item, but an idea that changes over time, as new information becomes available, and as new ways of looking at old issues are developed.

Please be careful with statements such as "the general picture of the French campaign", and "all evidence has been considered". These are actually variants of the "the truth" statement. Generalizations are always opinions, and you cannot be sure that you have seen all the evidence.

You said: In history, almost every fact is an opinion, actually. We constitute facts based on opinions. Actually, I disagree. The negative statements can be demonstrated to be facts because the statements were given. Aircraft crashed, and aviators died, all facts. Any value we choose to attach to these facts is an opinion. It is wise to make a clear distinction between these two terms. In fact, this is essential when writing about history, or about anything else, if you wish to make sense. It is perfectly OK to offer opinions, but then it is wise to make it clear which of the statements are opinions rather than facts. If everybody would share our opinion, then still this opinion does not transform into a fact. The fact here would be the mutual agreement, that holds until some-one presents evidence that changes this agreement.

If you would be using a very different definition of the terms "fact" and "opinion", then please clarify.

Please do not take these comments too personal. Even those who are held in the highest esteem by many occasionally appear to have difficulties with these two terms. There is a body of knowledge about what knowledge is, and that's also under constant debate, ever evolving. Let's call that "methodology". As this subject is hardly ever mentioned in works about history, it may be true that many historians are happily oblivious of the subject. Still, if you wish to engage in science, you need to give the methods some thoughts too.

Regards,

Rob

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Well, I am trying to.
They are true in the way there were honestly written (I have no reason to to believe they were not) in the period immediately following the Battle of France.
Nope, this is not logical. The truth is the actual course of events, which happened in their own unique way. Researching history, we are just only trying to find out the truth, but for several reasons we can only present our views on it.
Nope, the truth was there in 1950 and is there in 2008. The thing that has changed is our approach, and our knowledge. Another thing is the political (financial) influence, which is always present.
Indeed, but the evidence is overwhelming. There is very little if any enthusiasm, in kind of 'with the bunch we could have win the war', that should appear otherwise. On the other hand, generalisation is perfectly known scientific tool, known from statistics for example. Talking about the general picture of events, we cannot talk about exceptions.
The fact, let's say the crashed aircraft, for us is only a opinion, because it is always based on some sort of account, be it in document or verbal. Even if we have the wreckage, and we can establish that this is the aircraft, everything else, time, course of events, is based on opinions, and it is the latter that makes the core of the history.
The problem is that in history, methodology is a very fluent term. This, mixed with political nature of it, must always lead to 'astonishing' results.

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Thanks, Franek. I rest my case, feel free to continue to believe that an absolute truth exists. Look around to find others who saw it that way too, and decide if you want to belong to that group. Your choice.

Statistics follow mathematically well defined rules, leading to probabilities and likelyhoods, which are not the same as generalizations. The generalizations seen in writings about history, do not usually follow rules, let alone well defined ones, let alone mathematically defined ones, let alone that such rules are declared, so that others can understand and check and, perhaps, disagree.

Throwing in politics confuses the issue even further. I refrain from trying to clarify all that. If you consider everything else but the wreck to be the result of opinion, then you have dismissed several fields of science, such as forensics, but also any science of history. Be advised that I shall challenge generalizations when methods leading to these remain unstated, unexplained, and can therefore not be checked. Claiming that all the historical evidence has been considered, is not going to help as it can never be true. In your theory this claim is even nonsense, as you believe that evidence equals opinion. Finally, the claim is contrary to your theory of generalization, in which exceptions by your definition "cannot be talked about". These ideas need some rework to make them a bit more consistent.

Regards,

Rob

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Rob
Yes, I firmly believe that there are no parallel worlds, and that the past happened in its single, unique and very own way.
Of course I do not have anything against people believing the earth is flat and on a big turtle.
Statistics is based on generalisation or approximation, whatever you call it. Of course it is based on mathematical rules, but most importantly it has some limitations.
Indeed, and I may add, that historical writings usually do not refer to mathematical methods at all. That is why so many illogical conclusions are drawn by historians.
I will add at the moment, that there are several mathematical methods and models, that are being used to describe the reality in which we live. For some reason they are rarely used in history.
It is very simple. History is often used as a political propaganda tool. Take for example various claims in regard of Kosovo, and trying to legitimise power over this province.
I do not know why do you call forensics here. Anyway to make it more clear.
Somewhere in the past an aircraft crashed. Now, if we find remains of the aircraft, we may probably find several information, like that the aircraft crashed at high speed or that it was burning or not, but note that those analysis will be done by human beings with the tools available to them at the moment. Therefore those findings will remain opinions, perhaps better founded, or based on good evidence, but still just opinions. It will be just your belief, perhaps based on some experience, considering those findings as facts. The same goes for various reports, accounts, etc. describing the event. They were always prepared by human beings, and as such based on observations and opinions of witnesses, hence so many conflicting reports. It is again a matter of your research, experience and belief, finding some of those more accurate than the others. We still have an opinion, perhaps better founded, but still an opinion.
There were just too many cases, when established facts turned to be false, because the new evidence appeared.
Okay, if I will state that generally, French fighter pilots were, err, Frenchmen, would you challenge this claim?
No, it is not true. I find the difference between evidence itself, and further conclusions drawn from it. The latter is an opinion, perhaps better founded, but just only opinion. You see, burned piece of wood is an evidence, but claim that it burned seven days ago is just an opinion.
My theories demand tools that are applicable to each case. Therefore I can generalise Polish opinions about French soldiers, when we talk about the conflict. It would be a serious mistake to apply such generalisations, when discussing relationship between particular pilots in a particular unit. But this comes from mathematical methods of statistics.

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Hi Franek,

I shall not challenge the claim that French fighter pilots were generally French, because the statement is circular, too uninteresting to do so. I note that in your theory anything conceptually produced by humans needs to be called opinion. I note that you express agreement with many of my statements, using the curious form of "nope" to begin with. I conclude that this is likely to be based in confusion about definitions of terms. I repeat that clarifications are needed, if we wish to make sense to the other. If you claim that generalizations follow "mathematical methods of statistics", then please declare which, rather than engage in such phraseology. It could help if you took another look at what others had to say about the game of science. That could sharpen your view on what is opinion and what can be called fact, and why, by whom, and for how long.

Regards,

Rob

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Hi guys

It appears to me that this discussion is rapidly following the lines of those that disgraced Grozibou. Let's stop all the bickering - 'cos we all know how its going to end!

Why not agree to disagree and get on with the subject dear to all of our hearts - aviation research.

That's my humble opinion!

Brian

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Rob
Well, this is just a generalisation, so the question is if you find it true or not.
Well, there is perhaps some oversimplification, also in terminology, but yes, every intellectual product of human being must be treated with criticism, and we must be aware of all deficiencies of any human statements. This may be followed with several examples. Of course it may look paranoic a bit, but that is the reality.
Yes, an old method of approximation, and the general rule that you cannot apply statistics to individual cases.
Oh yes, I am looking for other sciences, and in view of explaining views of Polish airmen, thesis of Voytech should be considered as valid. Actually, we have written together an article about understanding of documents concerning air combats, and we have stressed the point of psychological approach to every account (the issue which remains unknown to just too many historians).
My point in this discussion is, that the general Polish opinion about Frenchmen was negative, with such and such arguments. Lionel found them slandering, and suggested that it is an expression of my personal views. I did not add my opinions and I was not selective with my comments, however, and just only tried to explain this. That is all.
BTW
I have found Łaszkiewicz's account of Fonck's visit.
It happened on 6 May 1940. Fonck arrived for lunch (or dinner, depending how to translate the main afternoon meal), and is described as a man full of energy and force to achieve his goals, and also with a natural air of authority. Fonck was disappointed with poor results of French fighters, and compared them to British ones. When Rougevin complained about poor performance of French aircraft comparing to Spitfires(!), Fonck noticed, that it is still possible to win on a worser aircraft. Then Łaszkiewicz described a combat that occurred just two days before (Ju 88 flew just above the ceiling of MS-406C-1, so pilots were unable to reach the enemy), and Fonck replied that the enemy will not fly that high all the time, and apart of that, they will receive better aircraft.

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

I'd invite starting a new thread on the original subject if there is an interest and also start a new one on methodology.

Although I dislike policing subject matters, I do think it is a shame that certain subjects tend to become derailed and drift into endless bickering. As Rob mentioned elsewhere, this is in part due to style. Grinding down the opposite view is not constructive debate.

I'm not even entering the problems of letting politics (or political views) color the debate.

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

On methodology
in principle the key is critical appraisal of available documents.
An old example
Swedish king Gustav Vasa ordered in late 16th century the commander of Hämeenlinna castle (in southern Central Finland) to move a cavalry unit to Viipuri castle (in SE Finland) because of Russia was planning to invade Finland (then part of Sweden).
Is this a proof of that Russians were planning invasion? NO
Is this a proof that Gustav Vasa thought that Russians were planning invasion? NO
What it proofs? It proofs that for whatever reason GV wanted to move the cavalry unit from Hämeenlinna to Viipuri.

Same principle can be applied for example a combat report in which pilot X claimed that he had shot down a dark blue enemy type Y a/c at 08.15 am over place z.

Juha

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Thanks, Brian & all others. We differ in style, but I believe that Franek and I are mature enough to keep matters civilised. I also believe that these methodological considerations are part and parcel of studying aviation history, even if such matters are not discussed very frequently. I would agree that matters were drifting into spheres of theory, even if I was not prepared to let the matter expand to political theory too. Therefore I offer the following, to bring it all back to earth, and to clarify my request for clarifications rather than vague generalizations.

Facts:

1. A total of X Polish military aviators participated in the French campaign.
Source:
2. We have found accounts of Y of these aviators, in which dissatisfaction is expressed with the French military aviators.
Sources:
3. The dissatisfaction that was expressed can be summarized as follows:
A. About the men
B. About the machines
C. About the organisation(s)
4. Y/X is a significant percentage. We cut short the definition of "significant" in statistics, and declare =>10% to be significant.

Opinions:

1. As the matter is significant, it requires closer examination.
2.A. Dissatisfaction A has the following connotations (discussion of differences in culture and historical experience of Polish and French military aviators)
Sources:
2.B. Dissatisfaction B has the following connotations (discussion of technicalities involved)
Sources:
2.C. Dissatisfaction C has the following connotations (discussion of differences in high command strategies and, perhaps, commander personalities)
Sources:
3. Conclusions

All opinions offered pending more and better data and insight.

I believe that in this way the matter can be lifted from generalizing phraseology, that easily leads to polarisation, to something in which many can participate, with contributions from their specific fields of knowledge, with all cards open on the table, leading to an increasingly developed view of a complicated matter. As a working method or style I would prefer the "yes, but" as the more productive one over the "nope".

Regards,

Rob

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

About 190 Polish fighter pilots took part in the French Campaign. About 45 are known to file reports to Polish authorities, and describing activities of them, their units and subordinated airmen. About 8 airmen had their memories published post-war. Substantial number of airmen described their experiences in their unpublished diaries, diaries of friendly airmen, correspondence with researchers, press articles and interviews, etc. In my opinion, roughly at least half of the airmen left some memories.
Is this satisfactory to you?

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Thanks, Franek. I'm not looking for satisfaction, but for knowledge. Your reply tells me that many Polish aviators produced accounts about the French campaign. That's a start. Now the rest, please.

Regards,

Rob

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Rob
IMHO you made a fundamental error here.
IMHO your list should be like:

1. A total of X Polish military aviators participated in the French campaign.
Source:
2. We have found accounts of Y of these aviators.
Sources:
3. of these accounts in Z dissatisfaction is expressed with the French military aviators.
Sources:

4. The dissatisfaction that was expressed can be summarized as follows:
A. About the men
B. About the machines
C. About the organisation(s)
5. Z/Y is a significant percentage. We cut short the definition of "significant" in statistics, and declare =>20% to be significant.

Juha

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Thanks, Juha. I consider this as consent with my proposed strategy to deal with the matter. You propose increased clarity, which is exactly what I'm after.

You raise three issues, to which I would like to respond as follows:

1. The paragraph 3. you propose is in fact present in my paragraph 2, after the comma. I am not interested in the total number of accounts produced by the Polish aviators who participated in the French campaign, but in the total number of Polish aviators who produced accounts expressing dissatisfaction with the French. The wording was selected so as to avoid counting multiple accounts by the same aviator. However, your suggestion shall work just as fine.

2. You suggest that relevance be established by looking at the dissatisfaction accounts divided by the total number of accounts. This could work, but I suggested the other way, as Franek is looking for ways to generalize. My proposed way looks at all Polish aviators involved. Your proposed way looks at those of the Poles who produced accounts. That would mean a limitation of the group called "The" Poles, hence a limitation of the scope of the generalization. Consider the situation that the group size would be 200, and that there were 10 notorious rebels, who were always venting dissatisfaction. If a generalization would be made on that basis, then this would not do justice to the 190 others, and therefore not to the group.

3. Perhaps therefore you suggest to raise the significance level from 10 to 20%. That's fine with me. It has always surprised me that in medicine doctors produced theses on the basis of less than 10 cases of a certain type of disease, whilst the group described runs into the millions. A level between 5 and 10% is usually accepted as sufficient to declare significance, but surely a higher percentage shall deliver a clearer case. We are free to make these choices, as long as we explain what we are doing, if we wish to make sense.

An improvement of the proposed strategy would be to shift the significance declaration to the chapter "opinions". In fact this is a nice example of Franek's statement, that much of what we call fact is in fact opinion. Again, the fact here is the agreement about the content of the statement, not the content itself.

Regards,

Rob

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Hello Rob
my point is that if we are interested in how common the negative attitude to French performance during the BoF was amongst Polish pilots we must study the group of whose attitude we has knowledge. Then there are those whose attitudes are unknown to us now. And the attitudes of those we cannot study now.

An extreme example would be:
3 million soldiers from country A fought in WWI, nowadays we can find written description on how they felt during the war from 50 000 of those soldiers, of which 45 000 describes mostly negative feelings. Now 45 000 out of 50 000 gives impression that negative attitude to WWI style warfare was very common amongst participants, 45 000 out of 3 000 000 on the other hand means that negative feelings were not common. Of course in the first case we must make clear that we have know ledge of attitudes of only 1/60 of participiants and there might have been tendency of those who were critical to be more likely to vent their feelings.

Juha

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Thanks, Juha, good point. The difference with "les poilus de la Grande Guerre" is that ALL pilots were debriefed, which gave them a first opportunity to express whatever they wanted, including dissatisfaction with others. Certainly any knowledge we may gain is limited to the data we can find, and needs to be updated if we find more data. The way out here would be to follow both paths, the ones suggested by you and by me. That would make clear the limitations of any conclusions to which we might come.

Furthermore, studying the complaints can shed light on the foundation of these complaints. If an objectifiable and marked difference in aircraft and/or armament performance would be at the basis of this, then this would tell us something, whether reported by few or by many.

If we want to generalize AND make sense, we need to dive deep into the matter, and we need to make clear what we are doing and how we are doing that. Your point is a good illustration of that.

Regards,

Rob

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Thought 5% was significant in a normal distribution.

But we can go too far in the mathematical approach, imho.

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Thanks, Ruy. I hope that I did not give the impression that I believe that these matters can be transformed into and resolved as mathematical equasions. It is just that mathematics, and I include the rules of logical inference, are tools to make clear what we want to say, in ways that can be checked by the other guy. I believe that a lot of the confusion, and even emotion, and even anger, that arose in this thread came about as a result of unclear language. Statements such as "many aviators", certainly when given in forceful ways, do not lead to a lot of clarity. Statements such as "20% of the aviators involved", and in as far as these statements can be demonstrated to be accurate, give the other guy a better chance to agree, or a better handle to disagree in a bizlike way. I could demonstrate that the extreme opinions vented in this thread are less opposing than believed by their proponents, who fell victim to their own lack of clarity, in other words to their own "method" or style. And that's a pity, leading to a lot of energy lost in the wrong directions.

Regards,

Rob

Re: May 14th 1940 and few little things
 

Hello Ruy
I highed the percentage because a) it isn't uncommon that surviving historical records are somewhat biased.
b) because war was/is unnatural enviroment to man of 20th and 21st century and in at least almost all armies and wars SNAFU is a common phenomenon there always has been certain amount of critisism towards how the war was conducted. More so because errors cost lives not only money and IMHO there are no error free organizations.

Juha