Heinz Bär book - weblog of author

[Jan Bobek]

Hi Joe,

according to my humble opinion:

1) Bär as Mölders´ wingman is fiction. They have met in late 1940 personally in off-duty time, but nothing else as far as I know.

2) authority - as far as I know, he started to attract Göring´s attention in Autumn 1940. Before this period he did some non standard flights. But that is usual with young men with powerful engines.

3) picture source: please proceed via: http://www.cptfarrels.com/ and contact webmaster by e-mail.

4) Yellow number on Channel Front: answer is no - Bär flew with 1./JG 51 (white fuselage numbers).

regards

[JG14_Josf]

Jan,

Thanks for the reply.

Myths are tough to stop when they get going. I think it is like a snow ball going down hill.

This is what does get me:

Nazi military men followed orders like robots.

I think that the above is a particularly disturbing myth for many reasons. I won’t bother you too much, I hope, with this diatribe. You can read or stop reading at will.

It seems to me, that, one of the reasons why the German people became efficient in war was the recognition of a need to allow individual decision making during combat operations. My observations appear to be supported by what I read concerning how ‘orderly’ the Luftwaffe was set-up. ‘Getting away with murder’ is a curious phrase.

Anyway your response to my curiosity concerning Heinz Baer’s (spelling?) anti-authoritarian nature leaves me curious. I think that Johannes Steinhoff had problems with Hans-Joachim Marseille and when I read a few comments suggesting that Heinz Baer was similarly, ahhh, anarchistic, or, self-motivated, whatever, it reinforced, the additional comments of information (right or wrong) reinforced my perception concerning the authoritarian nature of the German military.

You are probably familiar with Christer Bergstrom’s work, such as, Graf and Grislawski, A Pair of Aces, I am guessing, and if so it may be our mutual observation that Bergstrom appears to address the issue of ‘the robot Nazi soldier theory’ in such a way as to dispel such a Myth.

The exceptions might, curiously, span from one Gordon Gollob on one side of the spectrum to Marseille on the other. Perhaps I am stepping over the bounds of good conduct. A good Nazi in the Luftwaffe appears to have been the exception, or at least, that is my own ‘theory’.

I can offer quotes.

As long as I am being bold I’d like to offer help in getting the English version of the book out and that offer is an open invitation to copy text or whatever help you can use.

I think you have chosen a very good and timely subject to write about.

Your book isn’t going to be a simple documentation of facts – is it?

Where is the passion?

P.S. Speaking of Johannes Steinhoff – did you know that he helped author a book titled “Voices from the Third Reich – An Oral History”?

[Jan Bobek]

Joe,

thanks for rising this topic.

I think that it is useful to separate it into two topics

1) behaviour of some distinctive individuals
2) way how German government worked in 30´s and during the WW II and what was opinion of public in Germany

Comments to point 1:
Marseille and Bär IMHO can´t be compared too much because:

- Marseille was solo player having strong troubles with his father in the youth. His father was former officer and Marseille did not want to talk to him anymore. So you can imagine size of this son-father conflict. IMHO reasons for Marseille´s behavior were not related to regime, but to his past

- I see Bär as extremely capable leader and fighter pilot, but difficult to be 100% managed by his superiors. I see two basic reasons for his approach towards Luftwaffe superiors and regime:
a) health problems that started in late 1940, combined with injury in August 1941 and repeated physical and psychical exhaustion later on. If I simplify it - he either performed 110% or did not perform at all. His superiors tried to punish him instead helping him.
b) he seems to have "sceptical" approach towards regime and Luftwaffe command. There are several indications for it. He also had personal tension with H. Göring and Gen. Seidenmann, possibly with others.


Comments to point 2:
Well, the government did not work during the WW II on top level. Führer managed to prevent regular meetings of government, so you can imagine how strange was control of the country ... we should take into account the way how local governments and party authorities worked + what was opinion of public in Germany about the party, government, war etc. There were many people with different opinion, but for obvious reasons they had to remain silent, otherwise they would risk their lives.
I know what I am talking about (but not risking my life) because I grew in a country with similar political system.

In such society everyone was trying to find his/her way how to survive in the family, job, society, Party, military unit etc. This ranged between fanatic opinions driven by Party and propaganda, war effort or personal reasons .... to very educated and practical opinions.

Giving you examples - one of pilots I know, wanted apply for NSDAP membership as teenager before WW II. His father, already a local senior Party member, prevented him to do so telling him: "Don´t enter the Party, there are many strange things in it. I can´t cancel my membership, otherwise I would risk too much."
For instance also Hartmann´s father seems to be also very practical and educated person being sceptical towards regime.

Totalitarian regime is like a trap. If you are in it, you hardly escape if you would like to try it. And if you do so, you are risking lives of your family back home.

Hope you will my opinion find as useful.

And the book will be not only simple documentation of facts

kind regards

[JG14_Josf]

Jan,

When can I buy my copy of the new book?

I’m sympathetic to situations where a performer of a required function is reluctant, even steadfastly resolute against, performing when the capacity to perform is absent. I’ve been there and my employers, and my coworkers, could not understand why I didn’t just go to work and collect the pay even if my health or ‘spirit’ wasn’t going to allow me to perform my job. One might ask: “What is the purpose?” and my answer is inevitably going to be: “Do the right thing.”

The military code, as far as I understand it, demands that individuals do the right thing and those who don’t will be punished. See here how this works:

Superior: “Fly this mission”
Soldier: “I am incapable at the moment. To do so is suicide.”

How did German military law (from ages of experience) deal with such situations?

The Myth suggests that any disobedience results in death “on the spot”. The Myth, if I may, confuses Military “Justice” with organized crime, or, if organized crime is too honest and direct, then, call it politics.

What will “military justice” do after cases of ‘insubordination’?

Example (from one of Bergstrom’s books):

“Oesau was in bed with influenza. Suddenly, Goring phoned his staff: “Is the Kommodore flying?” – “No, he is in bed with fever.” – “Yes, yes, I know that kind”, Georing scornfully, “he has also turned tired and coward!"
Angered by this comment, Obersleutnant Walter Oesau mounted his Bf 109 G-6/AS and took off alone, despite high fever, and was never seen again.”

The facts, as far as I understand military justice, determine military justice. In politics, on the other hand, the facts merely get in the way.

I can’t imagine a Fighter Pilot not having a passion for flying and a very keen desire for the challenges of competition. This imagination of mine may not be factual. I can sympathize. While growing up I saw someone flying. Years later it was me who flew. No one ordered me to learn how to fly. Learning how to fly is a challenge. One must have the right stuff - no?