[arnaud]

Bonjour à tous,

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See you again in another battlefield…


ADIEU…