Unfortunately time is in very short supply to me right now. I hope you don’t mind my replying to all of you in one single post.
==============
Stig Jarlevik
17th May 2019, 00:23
Re: Galland’s victories on June 3, 1940……
________________________________________
Dear Yves
Not sure why you imply you are Swedish fluent.
- Yes I am but…
Has it anything to do with the topic
- Nothing.
or are you just trying to show off?
- Inte det heller – oh, sorry, not this either. I’m not the type to show off – believe it or not. My Swedish words were just meant as a harmless little joke (call it a poor joke or stupid if you like) and I feel they didn’t harm anybody. OK, maybe I was a fool but lots of people here insert German or French words in their posts – for the same reasons I think.
Here is a sample:
Wir greifen schon an!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxOCksQUKbI
Danke schön, Dank schön ich bin ganz comfortable!
I guess you know who adds these two German sentences at the end of each post. It has been bothering me for many years and I find it silly but well, if this author likes them it’s OK for me. You can see, too, that other people than myself add some URLs (we can see this very often).
Neither do I understand why you call me variously with SJ, ST and JP
- Boy o boy, you’re perfectly right. I guess I was much more tired than I had bargained for (I was very tired as a matter of fact – even if you don’t believe it I am only human). I feel the various abbreviations I wrongly used for your name are evidence enough. Sorry: I apologise for these terrible errors.
I know I’m silly but SJ is also the abbreviation for the Swedish State Railways: SJ = Statens Järnvägar. So you’re an iron man (järn is iron; I know you know but the other guys don’t). Now I’m scared (and silly, I know).
nor why you sign your message with "Cheers Stig"
- I didn’t sign like this, I left your own signature where it was for I had quoted you profusely (a great honor for you). OK, maybe I was wrong – and tired.
SJ: You say you have no admiration as such for Galland.
- I would not quite say that. I do admire Galland for his great skills – mainly as a pilot – his cleverness and for his courage, his bravery in battle in the face of extremely dangerous enemies AND in the face of Hitler and Göring themselves. He was quite outspoken when he met them, which hardly anybody else dared be (one of the others was tank general Guderian). Eventually Göring wanted him shot as a scapegoat (in the stupid hope of concealing he was no good for his god, Hitler) and Galland escaped execution quite narrowly because Lützow (others say Speer – perhaps both) had intervened by Hitler himself in the middle of the night, which was something absolutely unique for he had forbidden this and his generals didn’t dare wake him up even when the Allied landings in Normandy had begun!
SJ: Well starting three different messages with basically the same topic (…).
- The reasons for 2 more posts are obvious enough. No need to explain again.
SJ: The interesting point is that you for some reason seem to have every issue of every major translation made by Galland's books.
- Just have a look at the Internet – search for Adolf Galland, in English only. In thousands of instances Galland is called “the greatest fighter pilot of WW II, the greatest fighter leader, the most important man in this respect”, etc. and so on. I am not trying to follow the mainstream or the huge herd of sheep. No but this makes clear how important (to WW II and to air fighting) and how INTERESTING Galland was.
I purchased countless books on WW II and on air war or technology in German, English and French and I am still doing this. It has been going on for decades. No wonder I purchased several books on Galland or written by him during such a long period. I have my own reasons for being interested in a few of their translations (if any) too. It’s my own private privilege and pleasure. I feel I need not explain every single move I make. This would be overstretching readers’ patience.
SJ: Just so I am not missing something can you please scan two perhaps even three pages from the 1992 German edition of the T-C book so I can personally satisfy myself it is completely re-written by Galland.
- Sorry but this is unrealistic. How can you be satisfied (= certain; I am adding this mainly for French readers in order to avoid misunderstandings) that 3 pages were re-written by Galland? They were but I can’t see how this text proves it. Remember that the German book still is signed by Toliver and Constable – officially. So contrary to “The First and the Last” it doesn’t say “I…” but “he…” (“he” is Galland, seen by T-C).
SJ: Perhaps you also have something in writing which confirm that?
- Nothing but you can easily have a confirmation: just ask Galland’s German publishing company, which is Herbig in München (Munich). I think they don’t consider this a secret any more after 27 years or so have elapsed. Just email them and ask. I’m interested in learning what they’ll answer to you.
SJ: Quite frankly I have never come across anyone before who collects every translation made of a book by any individual.
- This is a wild overclaiming, much the same as when RAF pilots claimed 35 victories for 3 actual ones… I purchased the 1992 edition because I knew it had been re-written by Galland so I wanted to have an up-to-date version of his (auto)biography. A lot of things were still secret 1953 when his first book was released. In the meantime lots of archive documents had become open in Germany as well as in the UK and the USA.
Obsession? Sorry, we should leave that out of the picture....
- But you don’t. Anyway, I am not obsessed by Galland nor by anything else. Remember: all this fuss started when I quite innocently asked if someone – possibly J. Prien – could explain the discrepancies between June 3 and June 6, 9, 14 or whatever. I was very surprised by a storm of criticism and vicious attacks. I had just asked a question. Perhaps some people feel that this question endangers their infallible stories written by infallible persons and they don’t want to change anything for fear of looking foolish. I don’t know. As far as I’m concerned I am always glad and grateful when someone corrects an error I made: this makes it possible for me to improve what I know, think or write.
SJ: Am I correct in interpreting your answer that only the German edition of "Fighter General" is edited/re-written by Galland and that the 1999 Schiffer edition is simply a re-print of the 1990 original AmPress edition?
- No. You didn’t get it. The 1999 edition is an American translation of the 1992 German text. This is exactly what I wrote about Schiffer’s edition (it’s printed in the book itself on page 4, as I already explained). How many times do you want me to repeat the same information? Then you can wail, weep and cry because my posts are much too long. I don’t know how we can explain any complex questions in 3 words.
SJ: Since you have mentioned the Schiffer book at least twice in your three messages I must wonder in such a case why you never mentioned the original book from 1990 called "Fighter General"?
- Look again.
SJ: It is interesting you state you have actually no evidence of any of Galland's victories, but you obviously have a list written (by him ?) in 1985, presumably giving all his claims and not only his first 14?
- Only 14.
Whatever, can we have a scan of that please?
- As soon as I succeed in unearthing it from my 100 moving boxes. The Galland-boxes were marked by myself. Just be a little patient (I have a few other concerns and duties).
SJ: Yves, so far you have not produced a single evidence that Galland was correct.
- Oh yes I have but strangely several guys here seem not to know how to read. How often do I have to repeat it? Some people criticize me for repeating myself, which I feel is wrong, but then they ask me to do so!
1. The two (in fact 3) Galland victories on June 3, 1940 were described in detail (except the first one, the “Curtiss” which was a Bloch 152) by Galland himself. He was not a fool, not an old man either, talking nonsense: his age was 41-42. He was entirely reorganizing (almost creating) and modernizing the Argentine Air Force. This story in his own book is historical evidence. The former German general of all fighter forces knew what he was talking about. This description of an air battle perhaps would not be sufficient (I feel it is) but
2. It is simply impossible that a 1940 German soldier could be wrong about the precise day on which he fought very close to Paris ( flying at 5,000-7,000 m, even 3,000, was almost the same as flying over Paris) because Paris was a legend to any German person. What’s more he shot down three (3) French fighters during this single sortie. This doesn’t happen every day except for phoneys like Wick and Balthasar, who repeatedly claimed 3 and even 4 enemy fighters s/d in the same sortie (over France and over England). So Galland certainly remembered this particular sortie to Paris with 3 victories perfectly well. THIS EXCEPTIONAL, UNIQUE DAY COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE MIXED UP WITH ANOTHER DAY.
3. Galland actually collided with his first victim, damaging the propeller and the fin of his 109 and losing the radio antenna mast. This, too, can’t be mixed up with some other mission on some other day.
4. You believe nothing which comes from France do you (all)? I stressed that Galland’s two victories on Moranes from GC I/6 are perfectly confirmed by French sources. Even the crash places match informations of French origin so you can follow Galland’s flight path on a map of the Paris region. I have got such a map.
5. Galland confirmed this version several times including in a list of his 14 first victories he drew up and circulated 1985 (and perhaps in other years too). He had no reason to confirm this version if it was wrong. It did not change anything in his score as compared with victories won on other days but not on June 3. He did correct errors systematically and he was not ashamed at all (there was no reason). Quite on the contrary YOU (all) IGNORE EVERY ARGUMENT THAT PROVES YOU WRONG. Repeat: proves you wrong. See points 1-5 above, they do prove it, period.
SJ: Everything you bring up could easily be dismissed as hearsay.
- Please do, this is your private pleasure. Dismiss, I could not care less. I suspect we have the origin of all this “scepticism” here: some people enjoy to look “important”, “clever” and “well-informed” when they stubbornly claim that obviously correct information is wrong and conversely. They also enjoy to systematically contradict others.
Now some highly distinguished people are going to scream that my tone is not acceptable, “forgetting” in which tone I am being criticized and contradicted here.
SJ: Don't you think it is time you produce something useful (…)
- Sigh and re-sigh! I did just that including in this very post and before. This is where it ends. I don’t find it funny.
TOCHs readers actually seem to be interested in the information and details published by myself, probably by the discussion too. 655 views since May 15 at 20.32 hours (in less than 3 days) is not too bad for my uninteresting explanations – and this is still going strong once more. I feel the number of visits is a good criterion because so many people cannot be completely wrong on such a straightforward discussion: did Galland win 2 victories on June 3, 1940 or was it on another day? I reject the false “explanation” according to which people rush to look at an argument for they enjoy a dispute. This “explanation” is a bit too simple.
==============================
#11
17th May 2019, 20:53
Adriano Baumgartner
(…)
(…) you did not apologize for a well known German writer and member of this Forum/Board.
- I just re-read what I wrote and I don’t see why I ought to apologise. I insulted nobody. I just remarked that Prien’s version differs from Galland’s. This is simply a fact. Read it gain. What is it here at TOCH? We already know “it’s not a bloody democracy” but what is it, a bloody dictatorship in which nobody has the right to say otherwise than the Few Great and Clever Ones? Nonsense. If they fear that my remarks could jeopardize the sales of their books this is an error, they can’t. So be reassured, no loss of turnover caused by me.
AB: Quoting your last message: “Why didn't you, or your father, tell them?”
We do not need to go this low as civilized persons, do we?
- You don’t notice when someone is joking do you. All right, I was joking. I never meant to insult your father either or anybody else at that.
I do guess (supposition) that we all here on this Forum do have the same passion for Aeronautical and Military History. That’s what links us, in spite of our social, economical, cultural, ethnical, religious, birthday dates, Historical knowledge, backgrounds and differences.
AB: As far as I see or even re-reading what I posted, I have not:
a) offended you personally; - I NEVER CLAIMED THAT
b) offended or mentioned any member of your Family directly. I NEVER CLAIMED THAT EITHER.
AB: Do you see, my late father passed away some years ago. He was my greatest friend and Example in life. He concluded his Ph.D in France, enabling us, as Family to live (4 years), to know and to visit your country, from North to South; which we consider one of the greatest experiences we had in life, as Human Beings. It is a lovely country indeed and we do love it as ours.
- I find this extremely fine.
(……)
AB: What I want to express here Yves is that:
Even if you interviewed him (Galland or his Wingman), or reviewed with Galland himself all his list of victories, during your visit in Germany; Galland’s memory, after thousands of combats and flights; circa of 100 hundred plus victories could have been affected by the time…One’s tend to mix events or things, if we do not have notes, a Logbook on our side, or additional data on our side.
- Galland most probably HAD. I never asked him if he was able to prove what he had written for I was trying to be polite.
AB: So, Yves, without documents, we will go nowhere regarding those Galland’s claims.
- There ARE some documents: possibly Galland’s logbook and victory reports, I don’t know. Certainly the French loss reports with time and places matching what Galland published in his book many years before it was possible to scrutinize the French documents. See also my reply (above) to Stig Jarlevik.
AB: Maybe you managed to interview the French pilot who survived or Galland’s wingman….do not know.
- I never thought of that. I never imagined that some people would systematically reject all arguments and evidence I could produce (which I did). In my eyes I have proved Galland’s version correct.
AB: Why your secret source is so secret that you can not share it here?
- As I mentioned several times Galland was very ill at the time. He was lying in a hospital bed after heart surgery (one more – he had undergone at least 4 already, namely in the year 1984). Believe it or not, here we are entering an area of very personal, very private and sensitive things and feelings. Some people are very sensitive in such matters even after decades have elapsed (like myself, like millions of other people, about my father, who was murdered by some enemy soldiers when the war was almost over. At the same place a man riding his bicycle was shot dead by a soldier who wanted to get his bicycle in order to flee faster but the victim was deaf, didn’t hear anything like “Halt!” and the like behind him.). So my source can only be a member of Galland’s family or a member of the (numerous) medical team, or possibly one or several old fighter pilots. If I say who my source is this person, or these persons, could react with great indignation and be furious (and rightly so) so I want to ask first if I may reveal it.
(…) or you could have found a French Air Force combat report supporting your theory for the 3rd June 1940, etc…
- I did mention French sources several times. Look again.
Wish you and yours a nice week, in health and peace.
- Same to you
(…) ASV 00.344 – what is this?
=========================
Message to everybody it may concern (on discretion):
About the source I refuse to reveal without having asked this “source” before:
The English, the German and the French languages, and probably all other languages, have a few expressions which are relevant here:
Privacy – Discretion – Decency – Good manners – Respect (of privacy)
When one of your close friends or relatives is very ill and had surgery (like Adolf Galland 1992) you prefer the mentioned rules of behaviour to be observed.
THE END