WW2TV Horvath lecture/presentation

[keith A]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO_XTOjpUEo

I watched this last night on YouTube and really enjoyed it. It is rare to focus on a single ace, even the much proclaimed Hartmann, without getting a lot of hyperbole and mythology. The only part of the lecture I thought needed clarification was the part that covered Luftwaffe rules on claims. What the presenter appears to say is that the Luftwaffe originally at least, only credited the victories that were verifiable (i.e. on German controlled areas of the battlefield). Much like they (sort of) allowed WW1 aerial victories. And that only those that fell the other (Russian in this study) side of the German lines and were verifiable losses can be accepted as "kills".On these criteria I wondered how the Luftwaffe allowed aces such as Wick, Moelders, Galland and others to claim Spitfires and Hurricanes shot down over England in 1940 or indeed those claimed over the English Channel in 1940-41 where wreckage is not available? Perhaps many of the claims made by Luftwaffe pilots were just a marrying up of RAF losses - by historians post-war?

This main argument for Hartmann or others does not really cover other eventualities. Is a "kill" only acceptable as an aircraft loss? In most cases this is true but what is the pilot is killed or severely wounded, what if the aircraft lands with a mortally wounded pilot? I would regard the loss of an airman more substantial a loss than an aircraft but even more so a pilot. All of this requires a post-war examination of enemy records (something that is difficult for the reasons that in WW1 and WW2 Axis records are fragmentary because of war damage).

It is equally evident in the German Panzer "Aces" claims for Russian and other Allied tanks in WW2 where a single knocked out tank could be claimed by any number of crews until it is destroyed completely.

That said I enjoyed the presentation and recommend the "Verified Victories" book which is exceptional.

best regards

Keith

[Nick Beale]

The only part of the lecture I thought needed clarification was the part that covered Luftwaffe rules on claims.

Daniel goes into this in detail in his book "Verified Victories" (Helion, 2022) and it's far from simple!

[keith A]

See my last line, "That said I enjoyed the presentation and recommend the "Verified Victories" book which is exceptional."

Yes Nick, I have the book and it is very, very good. What I was hinting at was that the Germans disregarded a lot of their rules very quickly after war began and, as Daniel and many of our fellow forumites have made clear is that by 1944 they'd loosened them to such a degree that the claims have gone from inaccurate to ridiculous.

I wonder if the Germans had tried a little less at making so much of their "aces" they might have looked at while the perpetual picking off of inexperienced enemy fighter pilots might raise individual scores they needed to get better results from attacks on bomber formations. I assume that was the reason the points system for decorations was introduced?

Not surprisingly there are parallels with WW1. The Germans rarely ventured far over enemy lines and instead of attacking the British and French airfields waited for formations to appear and picked off a lot of stragglers. This of course meant that the British and French were able to damage transport and installations behind German lines. Once again allowing their "aces" to build up scores and promoting them in the print media. Towards the last year of the war they again relaxed their confirmation system to bolster the "aces" tallies.

[VtwinVince]

It's common knowledge that all participants engaged in massive overclaiming for propaganda purposes, not a specifically German phenomenon.

[keith A]

Vince? Here we are again on another forum I think you are right but you must agree that British/Commonwealth claims in the ETO are much more accurate as the war progresses whereas the Germans are wildly inaccurate on the Russian Front and among certain "aces" who came to the ETO after serving on the Russian front showed the same behaviour, and in many cases became casualties. I am leaving out the USAAF in the ETO because ...well ...just because. After all they wiped out the Luftwaffe in 1943, then again in 1944 and again in 1945. Don't ask me about what the US Navy/USMC and USAAF did to the Japanese because they wiped them out completely every year of the war (apart from 1942)

[keith A]

And as we know from the films they did it on their own... despite arriving late for the war - again.

https://www.google.com/search?q=john...9BKilYk9Q,st:0

[Nick Beale]

Back on topic, I thought Daniel’s talk was excellent—25 minutes very well spent.

[Nick Hector]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

Back on topic, I thought Daniel’s talk was excellent—25 minutes very well spent.

Fully agree. An excellent presentation

[Stig Jarlevik]

So did I, even if I usually take a more lenient view regarding claims vs victories.
Always nice to put a face to a text since I have your book, Just wished Gabor
would have dared to show his....
May I also commend your for an excellent English. Very important in a presentation like this!

As I see it, the Luftwaffe verification system during 1939-45 was basically a modified WW 1
system. Not strange since basically all the top brass was individuals from that war.

The system itself fell apart very rapidly. During BoB for instance there were no way
anyone could verify claims over Britain or the Channel, so what was left was to either trust
what the pilots and their back ups said when getting back or not. It was either that or
you would basically have say to the only arm actually fighting the war, we don't trust you!
Since nobody was prepared to do that, the fighting over enemy territory became their
first exception. Now as soon as you are prepared to accept exceptions, you immediately
become prone to pressure from within to accept exceptions elsewhere.

The British came up with a quite genius idea during WW 1, the so called OOC (out of control)
system. Unfortunately historians have interpreted all OOC claims as a officially verified
victories, which they were not!
Also unfortunately the Germans did not come up with a similar system during WW 2.

With regard to Erich Hartmann I believe he was the equivalent of the Canadian Billy
Bishop during WW 1. The "kid who couldn't miss". While Germany more and more rapidly
went downhill, the state and PR machine needed someone who went uphill.
Hartmann fitted that bill perfectly. Young - blond - handsome - daring, you name it.
In other words a perfect National Socialist raw model, this time not on posters, but
in real life. Probably a good choice since his myth still lives on today.

Very little has been said about Hartmann's post war career. As far as I know nobody from his
old unit ever said anything bad about him. He never reached any higher rank in the new Luftwaffe,
Oberst I think, and that was that. Not even after his early death did anyone (as far as I know)
speak up about him. Out of pity? Never "kill" a legend? No idea.
But he is interesting, even to me (my interest is focused on aircraft) since it shows what one
can achieve with a propaganda machine in full swing.
It is still done today in Social Media day after day with an Industry always ready to support
an "influencer".
The less I say about the latter phenomena the better, since I would probably be banned
from TOCH forever.....

Thanks again Daniel
Cheers
Stig

[HGabor]

Hello all, this is Daniel using my fathers account (I unfortunately do not have one).
THANK YOU for your support The show tried to cramp in a couple big myths about Erich Hartmann into a very short time span so obviously not everything could be covered ... that's why I kept suggesting the book because its 215 pages and ~560 footnotes can better answer those questions with raw facts.

Kieth, I believe I responded to your very question in the comment section but did not make the connection to TOCH. Yes the claiming system is very complex. I believe we have written perhaps the most comprehensive material on the Luftwaffe claiming system in the English language to date, yet even I have some remaining questions about it particularly for 1945. Long story short, the system kept changing over time to reflect the war, cracks would naturally appear and opportunistic individuals would take advantage of it. Correct and complete filed paperwork is less important than arrive home safely.

Nick, thank you as well for your support

I hope you enjoy/ed the episode and if anyone on TOCH who is comfortable with the English language wishes to appear on WW2TV Paul is a great host!

All the best,

Daniel (using Gabor's account)