Book on French AF 1939-40?

[Ruy Horta]

ORDER....ORDER

Gentlemen, lets not pursue this debate on a personal level. As I've asked before, and repeated more than once, this debate is too interesting too be spoiled by insult. Passion should not stand in the way of constructive and I'd like to add friendly debate.



I hope that it is possible for the participants to shake hands and continue in a constructive manner.

Ruy, this is perfectly all right for me. I have no objection.

I hope you noticed that, in spite of my sometimes angry tone, my arguments and QUOTATIONS are accurate and objective. One of the main problems in life quite generally is that many people want to look or sound interesting (!) but are much too lazy, often too stupid too, to inform themselves properly first. This is how some people absolutely wanted to explain for me in detail how I worked in my old profession (no connection with aviation), just in order to look clever, but of course they talked nonsense and I was forced to give them the correct version, which they really didn't like at all : pretentious clots. I fear all physicians (aka doctors) in the world know this problem : many patients insist on explaining medicine for them. Many non-native English speakers, too, feel they have a better command of English than any native speaker. This is why German people insist on saying "bleck, beck, treck" etc. for "black, back, track", and many other horrible things : they know better ("Beserwisser").

With this particular 1940-problem it's quite similar. In fact most people don't really know - with certainty - but they guess, they are under the impression that, they heard that, they feel, they "read somewhere" etc. Example : France (and also the UK, to the very same degree) suffered a terrible defeat 1940 so all the "Schlaumeier" (German phrase for "clever" nitwits) directly infer that the French Air Force (!) was hopeless and that the UK was NOT beaten (that's what they're told at school in the UK, I assume - now I'm guessing too) for the defeat took place... in France so "obviously" it was a FRENCH only defeat, and in the BoB which followed soon the UK was not beaten so "only the French were beaten". But what army was so thoroughly beaten that it fled over the sea in a hurry? Not the French army in any case.

I think I can understand the Brits pretty well - maybe I'm wrong. For all their life since 1940 they have been told and taught, and this is going on still today, that they always were wonderful (at least from 1066 through 2008) and their armed forces never were beaten, which is optimistic to say the least. Now that horrible French frog, or is it an old owl, is telling them that this is not quite accurate and that they ought to stop insulting the French, in particular their aircrew, and that 1940 the UK was not saved by the RAF but by the sea*, which prevented the nazi hordes from overwhelming their country, and perhaps also by the sacrifice of the French land and air forces which, admittedly fighting for their own country, kept the ruthless enemy busy for six weeks (46 days not 42 to be accurate) and inflicted losses on the Luftwaffe which most probably tipped the balance** in the BoB. This is a change and they don't like it.

* Of course this is only pure theory - just reasoning - for if that sea had not existed everything would have been very different in Europe. Perhaps the UK would have been part of Germany, or of France, or of the Netherlands, or conversely in all three cases. In any case Hitler's and Guderian's tanks had a problem crossing that French Channel.

** But what else could French aircrew do ? France was at war with Germany so the Armée de l'Air fought the Wehrmacht. Oh, I forgot : according to noted British historians French aircrew preferred to take shelter in their underground concrete "bunkers" or to eat lunch among exploding bombs (fairly cold-blooded people I have to say) instead of taking off to fight the enemy.

Yves Michelet (Grozibou, alias Big Owl)

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Grozibou

German people insist on saying "bleck, beck, treck" etc. for "black, back, track", and many other horrible things ...

... infer that the ... UK was NOT beaten (that's what they're told at school in the UK, I assume - now I'm guessing too) ... "only the French were beaten". But what army was so thoroughly beaten that it fled over the sea in a hurry? Not the French army ...

I think I can understand the Brits pretty well ... since 1940 they have been told and taught, and this is going on still today, that they always were wonderful (at least from 1066 through 2008) and their armed forces never were beaten, which is optimistic to say the least.

First point: the English upper classes of the 1930s and '40s also said "bleck, beck, treck" etc. for "black, back, track." This may readily be confirmed from old movies and newsreels and is widely regarded as absurd by the somewhat less deferential British of today. I trust that this adds something to your "understanding" of the British although I infer from the unremitting anger of your posts that you "understand" them (I'm English myself) through the distorting lens of some cherished personal resentment.

I know no one who doesn't believe British forces in France were beaten. But Britain continued as an active belligerent when the French Republic could not and I would suggest that this was to the long term benefit of both nations.

I don't need to assume: I actually went to school in England (from 1957–1969) and no one taught me anything about 1940. I was told a lot about the Romans in Britain (55 BC–410 AD) though. My generation picked up their first knowledge of the war from the adults around them, all of whom had lived through it, and from the bomb damage that was part of our everyday surroundings.

I have learned since that Britain in 1940 had an integrated air defence system that no other country in the world had then come close to matching and that this was a critical factor in frustrating German war aims. That system was designed for the air defence of an island, the inhabitants having noticed, several thousand years before you mentioned it, that they were surrounded by water.

Your wish to see proper recognition for the efforts of the Armée de l' Air is undestandable. Your posts do appear to confirm that France had not managed by May 1940 to equip itself with a really substantial force of its best fighter, nor the integrated command, radar and reporting networks that might have realised their full potential in air defence. An effective force for the tactical support of French armies in the field is of course another matter, albeit one of comparable importance for a nation sharing a land border with a potentially hostile power, I should imagine

P.S. You are more than a little out of touch with what is "going on still today" in the teaching of British history.

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

First point: the English upper classes of the 1930s and '40s also said "bleck, beck, treck" etc. for "black, back, track." This may readily be confirmed from old movies and newsreels and is widely regarded as absurd by the somewhat less deferential British of today.

- All right, this is true but even 70-80 years later (!) no German has noticed yet. They're pretty slow sometimes, die haben eine lange Leitung (they've got a long pipe (to forward the message). How come that all other nationalities don't make this error, not even the French, who admittedly are not really good at languages?

Still today the Germans are the only people in the world saying "viski" for "whisky" (the Russians possibly too?). For several centuries they called the US capital "Voshington" (certain of being remarkbly fluent in English). I spent 18 years in Germany and I was incensed at this stupidity. "Ve heff a bird vith bleck vings". Absolutely ridiculous even if their knowledge in vocabulary and grammatics can be pretty good. They don't say "we have" but "ve heff". They are perfectly able to pronounce English perfectly well if they so wish but no, they have decided that only their "English" is the good one! They are taught it this way at school already and no English-speaking radios or TVs can change anything (AFN had their transmitters in Germany for about 50 years and most German youngsters listened to it very eagerly because of the music, or "music"). THey don't even believe their English-teachers from... England, they insist on being right.

The Nasdaq index and the lap-top were not invented in the 1930-40's but in Germany they say "Naisdaiq" and "Laiptop". Frankly I think they're nuts - sorry for our German readers, who know better, I know. The so-widely used @ is "ett" in Germany! Sole country in ze vörld! Zay eat a "Big Meck" (and they even write it "Big Mäc" - jokingly) ett "MaicDonald's". OK, let me stop or I'll explode. Just listen to German radio or watch German TV and you'll see... er, hear. Formula 1 champion Lewis Hamilton is called "Haymiltn" in Germany (yes they always think that the end must disappear : not "HaymiltOn").

I infer (...) that you "understand" them (I'm English myself) through the distorting lens of some cherished personal resentment.

- Wrong as usual. 1940 I wasn't borne yet, far from it. No member of my family took part in the French Campaign, none was killed or wounded. No, the deep reason of my reactions is that I quite simply can't stand any big, shocking errors nor some swines insulting dead heroes who died fighting for their country, which is fair enough, but for liberty and civilisation too. The average French fighter pilot, for example, was aged about 24. So when Hitler took power they were aged 17 and still civilians. They had plenty of time (the older ones too) to think of it and decide what they would do, so it is absolutely outrageous to hear and read, again and again, that they were not eager to fight, not keen, not brave etc. They had joined the Armée de l'Air knowing perfectly well that Germany was about to start a war again (ze vhole vörld knew it), in which THEY would personally take part and probably die, for they were aware of all the dire hazards of being an aviator, in particular a combat aircrew. Admittedly many joined the Air Force because they wanted/loved to fly but this doesn't exclude the other part.

I mentioned repeatedly that in my book "Invisibles vainqueurs", published 1991 by myself, I stressed that British AND (even) GERMAN aircrew were brave men, simply because some people expressed doubts on this in France and elsewhere. Likewise I explained (1985 in "Les premiers et les derniers", or so I think) that it was a stupid legend (spread also by JE Johnson, RAF) to say that the high scores of German fighter pilots were easy to explain because a German unit leader would get all the credit for all victories won by his subordinates. Ludicrous! It would mean that some German commanders would have got the credit for 3,000 victories each, and more.

I know no one who doesn't believe British forces in France were beaten. But Britain continued as an active belligerent when the French Republic could not

- Good! France had the bad luck not to be on the right side of a sea protecting her from the German hordes.

and I would suggest that this was to the long term benefit of both nations.

- Of ALL nations including Germany! But remember that the UK alone never would have been able to land back on the continent and chase the German army. Instead, the Red Army of our good Soviet friends would have invaded Europe entirely to the Atlantic coast, and eventually the UK probably too, as the last "horrible capitalist plutocratic country" (with a KING on top of the rest, can you imagine what good ol' Stalin thought of the British king!).

I don't need to assume: I actually went to school in England (from 1957–1969) and no one taught me anything about 1940.

- Too bad! It would be bloody necessary. In France they are taught about WW II (I guess at the age of 16-18) but I fear they're taught a lot of bullshit, in particular about de Gaulle's imaginary influence on the 1940 fighting, and quite generally about Our Great Hero de Gaulle (tons of exaggeration). He did the right thing - no doubt - but his influence was much smaller than they claim in France still today.

I have learned since that Britain in 1940 had an integrated air defence system that no other country in the world had then come close to matching and that this was a critical factor in frustrating German war aims.

- Indeed! It was emulated in the whole world in the meantime. You simply have to admire it.

Your wish to see proper recognition for the efforts of the Armée de l' Air is undestandable.

- One more misunderstanding! This is not what I am looking for - it is French people's own job to reach this goal and I must say that in the last 17 years and even before ("Icare", starting 1970, and more) many authors and several publishers have made a tremendously good job which I very much admire and enjoy, mainly with remarkable aircraft monographs (I mentioned most of them at the beginning of this thread : Docavia, Lela-Presse, Icare, Les Ailes de Gloire, etc.) - "usual disclaimer" from my part. These works contain very interesting pages on actual fighting 1939-40, losses, victory claims etc.

No - what I wish from foreign (non-French) authors is just that they stop insulting and libelling French aircrew as non-keen, non-eager-to-fight cowards. Is it asking too much? As I already remarked these insults are ludicrous anyway, not credible in the least in view of the missions actually accomplished and of the losses in combat, and such insults eventually make only their authors dirty. They ARE dirty.

Besides, it happened quite a few times that French fighters protected British bombers effectively or took part in air battles against German fighters, together with British fighters. I never heard that they didn't look keen in these instances so why should they not be in other air battles?

Your posts do appear to confirm that France had not managed by May 1940 to equip itself with a really substantial force of its best fighter

- This was a matter of but a few weeks! Bad luck! 6 more weeks and hundreds of excellent D.520s, soon the even better (!), much-improved D.523s and D.524s, would have shot the Luftwaffe to ribbons. I mean it. Remember : you can't always win and if your top generals are hopeless fools you have no chance to hold the ground and produce your excellent aircraft designs... (the UK was lucky enough to be able to do this but alas only the "Spitfire" was an excellent aircraft).

As I already remarked aircraft technical superiority is an alternating business : you are better for a while, then the enemy, then you again etc. This went on for the whole of WW II, ending with Me 262s and Ta 152s.

nor the integrated command, radar and reporting networks that might have realised their full potential in air defence.

- Here I fear that they were just as hopeless as the US forces (remember Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, 1 1/2 years later! They were hardly better.). France was aware of radar, which equipped for ex. the Atlantic liner "Normandie" (for icebergs...), but those old moustached generals never realised its military potential even though I suspect that they were duly informed by their British counterparts but didn't take it seriously (!). Or was it TOO secret to be revezaled to the French?

I think that NO country is perfect in all categories at the same time : the French were making the best tanks and the best aircraft cannon in the world, which is not that bad, and from August 1940 on they would have mass-produced half a dozen superlative aircraft types : D.523-524-551, Bloch 175, CAO four-engined heavy bomber and many more. French naval ships including subs, albeit less numerous than the British, were superlative ships too, very fast, well-armed etc. The UK didn't produce any good aircraft weapon (except US Browning .30 machine-guns) but it did produce decent fighters (Hurricane) or excellent ones (Spitfire) in due time, not too late, and had the exceptional, unique merit of building up this remarkable (unique at the time) radar and radio-control system. Nevertheless the RAF still had a lot of "Gladiator" biplanes in May 1940... To sum up, one of the advantages of an alliance ist that every country has his own strong points and these can be shared.

Let us remember that French AC production was just approx. 4-6 weeks late : what are 4-6 weeks in a world war lasting for 6 years? But even 5,000 excellent French aircraft would not have prevented the clever German generals (Manstein, Guderian, Rommel and more...) from beating the senile French fools - I am not meaning the actual soldiers who fought on the ground. Did you know that the C-i-C of all Allied forces, general Gamelin, had been suffering from syphilis for years? This illness destroys your brain, too... Of course the French government was aware of this. But I guess Gamelin was a good-looking and welcome guest at political parties and the like, possibly for political reasons too. Well, I fear this is hardly different in Washington even today (No I have no insider informations!).

[Ruy Horta]

I'll only answer the comments on the date and reason for Douglas' visit.

The high ranking french officer's didn't come to the field, the British delegation visits them (at their respective headquarters?). I simply haven't quoted the continued text.

Douglas is just expressing surprise that there is no welcome, which is then explained by the impending air attack. Something that could serve as a confirmation of the date.

The talks themselves don't seem out of place either, the British looking for some reassurance in case Italy entered the war. The extended text wasn't quoted by me, so don't be to quick to dismiss events.

He experienced an air raid on his aerodrome in WW1, with casualties, that would have been dwarfed by the attack on Villacoublay by virtue of technology and numbers of planes involved. His personal courage should not be questioned, he was just being realistic in his assessment.

It would be nice if anyone could confirm the airfield and date.

I'm disappointed to see a lot of assumptions and at best educated guesses.

If the dates and places are correct, I am not convinced that Douglas did not see numerous fighters, and that he did see air force personnel in the officers' mess. Whatever misinterpretations he may have made, it left a bad impression on him.

Sholto Douglas isn't gospel, just a high ranking british air officer who wrote his experiences of two world wars and his life before, in between and after. In short an autobiography as many...

Ruy, I tried to send you a PM but your box is full. Please do something, thanks.

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

The high ranking french officers didn't come to the field, the British delegation visits them (at their respective headquarters?).

-Yes this is fully possible but not credible - 0 % credibility - on the day of a massive German air attack aimed at airfields the Allies were aware of! You may be crazy but there are some limits somewhere. Please remember that general Vuillemin was the C-i-C of the French Air Force and on this battle day he had other concerns than drinking a nice cup of tea with a few Rosbifs.

Douglas is just expressing surprise that there is no welcome, which is then explained by the impending air attack. Something that could serve as a confirmation of the date.

- My foot! They probably made a navigation error and landed at a wrong airfield, possibly Orly, Marseille or Bordeaux! Then Douglas didn't want to admit such an error... Coming PRECISELY on June 3 is out of the question. They had about 95 % chances of being shot down by German fighters, or by FRENCH fighters, or by French AAA. This is RI-DI-CU-LOUS, please try to understand at last. Why not on June 1st or 4th, hmmm? Why precilesy June 3? To be able to libel every single Frenchman afterwards? No high-ranking HQ general from any country ever went on sight-seeing PRECISELY at the place and on the day of a big battle.

The talks themselves don't seem out of place either, the British looking for some reassurance in case Italy entered the war. The extended text wasn't quoted by me, so don't be too quick to dismiss events.

- This is all very fine but why the hell precisely on June 3?

His personal courage should not be questioned, he was just being realistic in his assessment.

- Come on! I was just joking about rushing into some shelter. I would have run faster myself and taken shelter first!

I'm disappointed to see a lot of assumptions and at best educated guesses.

- Is this aimed at sweet little me? I only can repeat that the whole Sholto Douglas-story is totally incredible from the first to the last word. It is not true. It was entirely invented, possibly to show (after the war!) what a hero SD was. Remember that his behavior during the Battle of Britain was extremely objectionable in the "big wing" discussion. Later his "nonstop offensive" which achieved nothing but heavy British losses really was no basis for glory (see "The JG 26 War Diary", volume 1, by D. Caldwell, page 212). He needed to show what a great man he was, for he was not.

If the dates and places are correct, - GZ : BUT THEY ARE NOT! - I am not convinced that Douglas did not see numerous fighters, and that he did see air force personnel in the officers' mess. Whatever misinterpretations he may have made, it left a bad impression on him.

Now please let us travel from France to England, namely to many RAF fighter airfields during the Battle of Britain. It certainly happened often that RAF fighters did not take off when German formations were flying overhead and even bombing nearby places. How come? They were waiting, and rightly so, for the order to take off and accomplish their mission within a whole, complex strategical and tactical system. A foreign observer as dumb as Sholto Douglas, possibly a Franek Grabowski, would have been outraged at all the RAF fighter pilots not jumping at the enemy's throat immediately.

See?

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Grozibou

They were waiting, and rightly so, for the order to take off and accomplish their mission within a whole, complex strategical and tactical system. A foreign observer as dumb as Sholto Douglas, possibly a Franek Grabowski, would have been outraged at all the RAF fighter pilots not jumping at the enemy's throat immediately.

Nope, Krasnodębski and Zumbach were pilots with some experience, and knew their trade. Quite contrary to you, they were at Etampes, and took part in those combats. They managed to UK and they wrote their statements for Polish officials. They marked quite clearly, that the French pilots from Etampes did not want to engage the enemy. They either flew in the other direction or engaged solitary aircraft, instead going for the main force. Poles and Czechs commented, that French pilots took best aircraft in order to escape faster from the enemy, leaving crap for their allies.
This is in perfect agreement with the situation at Villacoublay.
I suggest you to look further for French airmen at both Etampes and Villacoublay, instead of suggesting that Zumbach had no knowledge about fighter tactics. The latter makes you just ridiculous.