Ju-88, Volume One

[edwest]

Originally Posted by Rasmussen

From the mentioned link in my poor English:

- informations from the early history of the a/c are very limited (Gassner and Evers only in an subordinate clause, the part of Zindel is missing complete)
- the extensive trial in Rechlin since mid of 1939 is missing complete
- many versions like the Ju 88B-3 are not explained or wrong explained
- missing explanations of cooperation between RLM, general staff and aircraft factory regarding development of versions (Why was an version developed?)
- missing informations regarding "Werkserprobung" by Junkers
- missing names: Who developed the Ju 88?, Who were the test pilots?

some of the specific errors:

p.7: the greatest German aircraft factory in 1933 was JFM, but: JFM existed only since 1936 after the fusion from Junkers Flugzeugwerke AG and Jumo Motorenbau GmbH

p.16: Junkers bought in 1936 an existing aircraft factory in Leipzig, but: Which? (For me an answer would be interesting too because I from Leipzig - ATG, Erla, Junkers? Junkers bought Junkers?)

p.26: first flight of the EF 61 V1 was roundabaout at the same time like the first flight of the Ju 88V1, but: it was 3 months later
(and his crash date of the EF 61 V1 is wrong too)

p.28/29: first flight date of Ju 88V 1 is wrong, an crash on 10.04.1937 didn't exist, confusion between V 2 and V4 on the picture, the V4 was an "Schnellbomber" and the V6 the first a/c comparable with the later serial a/c (Medcalfs story is an old Nowarra/ Green story)

p.123: Ju 88B, crashed on the Russian front, but: crashed in Birkenwerder (Germany)

p.174: Paul Kratz, "development director", but: he was director of "Ausbildungswesen" (education department ?)

and so on ...

I haven't the book from Mr. Medcalf but is the dissertation from Lutz Budrass "Flugzeugindustrie und Luftrüstung in Deutschland 1918 - 1945", 1995, about 800 pages (on the example Junkers) in the bibliography? It's the standard in Germany for understanding of processes in this industrial field and time.

And edwest ... what about learning German language? You are interested on German aircrafts, on German history and ... the German language? I am interested on Czech aircrafts and I learned read Czech language fluently, I was interested on Polish aircrafts and I learned read Polish language (not fluently but it's enough for reading texts with dictionary), the same with Dutch and Russian.

Thank you, very much, for your detailed answer. You are right. I should learn to at least read German. I can read Polish. I can also read Russian but only if it is in English characters, not Cyrillic.



Thanks again,
Ed

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

But do we read in a book on e.g. the P-51 that it was designed and built by a Democrat regime? Or that it was a tool of the Rooseveltian ideology? No, we don't.

I too get a bit tired of Hitler's this and Nazi that, but can anyone reliably separate state and party under National Socialism? The NSDAP and its Führer claimed to embody the national will - or some such mystical BS - and preached »Gleichschaltung« (bringing everything into line) so where does one draw the line?

[Lennart Andersson]

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

you're implying that Medcalf hasn't done any of these things.

I do not know anything about that but if so many errors can be found on just one page of the first chapter of the book, one must be excused for wondering.

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

I have now read Achs "review", although he didn't have the courtesy (or the ability..) to publish it in English, but I needn't have worried.

I sense an unfriendly tone here. Peter Achs posted his message on a German language forum, so why should it be in English?

Anglo-American versus German authors
In my opinion there is little difference when it comes to accuracy (by the way I am Swedish). A fresh example: William Green, I think it was, once invented aircraft versions and designations that are complete fantasy and many authors have reiterated these, again and again. In the latest issue of the German magazine Jet & Prop there is a photo of a Heinkel He 45 and in the accompanying caption the German author (the editor?) tells us that the first flight was in 1932 (it was not), and that the "He 45b" built by Gotha was designated "He 45C" (the He 45b was a modification of the He 45a and both that, the He 45B and He 45C were built only by Heinkel). In addition it is likely that the photo shows a He 45D and not the He 45C.

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

Aside from a relatively small selection of mistakes that frankly could have eluded anyone , most of his 'criticism' of Medcalf's work focuses on a number of German language typos.

I do not agree.

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

no, I don't think an aeronautical engineer who has spent the best part of a life-time researching a foreign aircraft type warrants the level of criticism he gets from Achs because he can't write German like a native...

We are talking about history here and Peter's main criticism was not about the author's language skills. An author has a responsibility towards the reader and if even facts that can easily be checked and verified are wrong, then criticism is justified. For example, on page 22 Udet is said to have imported three Curtiss Hawks. There were only two and I have never seen a source maintaining that there were three, so where did that come from.

I know very little about the Ju 88 - that is why I bought the book. I was interested to see the colour profile of D-AXVM on page 71. When checking the caption I see that the c/n quoted is 088050. As far as I know D-AXVM was c/n 0885025.

Lennart A

[FalkeEins]

Originally Posted by Lennart Andersson

We are talking about history here and Peter's main criticism was not about the author's language skills.

rubbish .....part of the very first sentence of Achs' commentary reads (quickly, cos I can't be bothered to translate it word-for-word for you..) " .. here's proof that non-Germans can't write about German aircraft...". AFAIK Medcalf wouldn't even consider himself an "historian", he's an engineer, that's the approach this first volume takes...unfortunately with his typos he leaves himself open to the charge by the likes of Achs that as he doesn't know German - or indeed is not a German - he's somehow incompetent...

[Jukka Juutinen]

Lennart A. questioned where did certain pieces of info come from. Interestingly, when reading the book I was quite surprised by the scarcity of source notes. Surprised because usually authors with engineering background are quite comfortable with copious source noting. This same issue concerned me greatly when I read the Ju 87 book by the same publisher and compared its source noting to the very proper source noting in Daniel Uziel's Arming the Luftwaffe.

[edwest]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

I too get a bit tired of Hitler's this and Nazi that, but can anyone reliably separate state and party under National Socialism? The NSDAP and its Führer claimed to embody the national will - or some such mystical BS - and preached »Gleichschaltung« (bringing everything into line) so where does one draw the line?

Nick,


I don't mean to derail but who produced all the aircraft, mined and refined the metal and built the electronics and optics? Hitler? Who backed him? Industry and science were thrown into a war footing long before Hitler - as wild-eyed spokesman - was brought in. And there was more than one attempt to kill him during the war.

Krupp
Thyssen
Siemens
GEMA
Telefunken
Zeiss
I.G. Farben


Best,
Ed

[Dénes Bernád]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

I too get a bit tired of Hitler's this and Nazi that, but can anyone reliably separate state and party under National Socialism? The NSDAP and its Führer claimed to embody the national will - or some such mystical BS - and preached »Gleichschaltung« (bringing everything into line) so where does one draw the line?

Nick, I believe in the XXIst Century one must distance himself of the popular (particularly in North America) 'Nazi' epithet when writing about the IIIrd Reich. It's similar to someone referring to the Soviets as "Reds" or "Commies". Otherwise, the book/article might, rightfully, sound as cheap, sloppy and journalistic, but certainly not historically sound.
I always wonder when someone writes 'Nazi' aircraft, did he somehow find that particular aircraft's party membership card?

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by edwest

Nick,

I don't mean to derail but who produced all the aircraft, mined and refined the metal and built the electronics and optics? Hitler? Who backed him?
Best,
Ed

I don't disagree Ed. I was merely pointing to the Nazi Party's claim to somehow embody Germany's (supposed) will or destiny. It was all a load of cobblers, obviously, but influenced the way many still write about it all (so we're still on topic, just!). Party organisations did subsume or duplicate functions of the state, so untangling the strands isn't easy.

[edwest]

Nick,


As with any war, at least until the Korean War, the conflict had to be sold to the common man who would fight and die with the fancy hardware built by someone else and profited on by others. With the greatest respect for the sacrifices made by the British, how did the home press recount the First World War while it was going on? It was only a bit later that the true picture of the carnage would emerge. Without making any direct connection to Hitler - he was the front man, the carnival barker, the necessary fanatical voice with a propaganda minister who "sold" the war by any means necessary. Fatherland. German unity. Whatever would appeal to the people and inspire the Jungvolk, the Hitler Youth, those who served in the the RAD and DAK who had a reason to believe. In a bit of black humor, I watched a short movie where three men agreed that "there's no money in peace." so they plotted a war.


Best,
Ed

[FalkeEins]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

But do we read in a book on e.g. the P-51 that it was designed and built by a Democrat regime? Or that it was a tool of the Rooseveltian ideology? No, we don't.

of course not, because there was no such thing as a "Rooseveltian ideology". Nor did the "democrat regime" (again a complete non sequitur in English) launch a war of aggrandisement on the back of the militarisation of an entire society, that led to the violent deaths of millions. The Nazis did and German industry developed the Ju 88 family (along with much else) to help them do it... I don't think Medcalf is writing sloppy journalese there, but he is stating the obvious! Looks like it needs re-stating too (Hitler as "wild spokesman" ? a mere 'tool' of Germany's big industrial concerns? C'mon Ed! )