Fighter pilots' guts

[Ruy Horta]

Ah, I forgot to add an interesting quote from Paul Richey, who wrote the following on page 87 of this classic book Fighter Pilot:

The French CO was a tall, hard-looking man, bursting with efficiency and quite undisturbed by the numerous delayed action bombs scattered around the airfield. 'Oh, those!' he said contemptuously, they've been going off all night. One gets used to anything in time...'

Seen against this light, perhaps old Sholto Douglas was misinterpreting French cool nonchalance for inaction?

Main thing I'm trying to explain is that if there is any critique, it should be of Sholto Douglas, however to say that he had no right to judge or have an opinion on what he'd witnessed, as a senior officer, is not fair nor realistic.

Thanks Ruy for both postings.

Quote :
<< Main thing I'm trying to explain is that if there is any critique, it should be of Sholto Douglas, however to say that he had no right to judge or have an opinion on what he'd witnessed, as a senior officer, is not fair nor realistic.>>

Yes but Townsend did all the harm when he PUBLISHED his book, which was quite successful in the whole world and published in French too. Both the English and the French edition were published in... France. Incredible isn't it. I insist that his whole story must be forged - until I'm PROVEN wrong. No fighter unit what stationed at Villacoublay on 3 June 1940, this is a fact. Some fighter units were based there for short periods of time but NOT on this day. Villa is too close to the central target area : Paris. About 250 fighters were concentrated around Paris, a few dozen miles away (20-30 km or more) : at Chantilly, Lognes etc. This airfield (Villa) was used mainly for flight-testing new series aircraft produced by nearby factories, Breguet 693s and LeO 451s I think (no warranty). Besides, the French were informed of the German attack well in advance, much earlier than one day before, but French HQ were such fools that they spoilt everything and they had probably no advantage at all, rather disadvantages, from this knowledge. It cost the lives of about 8 good fighter pilots too many. In any case, this top conference either was not on 3 June or not at Villacoublay, or it never existed. It could - could! - rather have taken place at Dunkerque, but earlier, or even in Paris, for clearly it involved both the Air Forces and the Navies of both countries so the obvious guess is the Dunkerque evacuation. If this is correct it must have been much earlier than that.

Perhaps I can explain the error about "pilots". As you know RAF pilots (proudly) wear their "wings" on their battle-dress. They are made of some textile material. In the French AF EVERY MAN wears similar wings on his battle-dress, even the lowest ranks (ordinary soldiers). I ought to know : I was such an ordinary soldier (deuxième classe) before I became an officer. I forgot what you call them in the RAF. The colour of these wings is gold for officers and NCOs, orange below the rank of sergent. All this has nothing special to do with pilots but it is not surprising that a foreign general mistook the French wings for pilots' insignia.

The French pilot badge, exactly like the German one, is made of metal and is comprised of two horizontal wings inside a circle of laurel leaves, with a golden star which every member of the flying personnel wears.

Anyway nobody has the right to draw such drastic conclusions, on a foreign airfield, about a situation which he has no chance to understand if nobody explains it for him.

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by Hawk-Eye

Yes but Townsend did all the harm when he PUBLISHED his book, which was quite successful in the whole world and published in French too. Both the English and the French edition were published in... France. Incredible isn't it. I insist that his whole story must be forged - until I'm PROVEN wrong. No fighter unit what stationed at Villacoublay on 3 June 1940, this is a fact. Some fighter units were based there for short periods of time but NOT on this day.

You know the general subject interests me, so please keep in mind I am not trying to discredit the french fighter pilots of '39-40. But the above statement does show some double standards, especially if set against what you've written in the Graf/Closterman and the all yellow Fw 190 thread. So your opinion of French pilots is more important than an eyewitness account of a British AVM? Of course you could write page upon page of french accomplishments, but that does not automatically discount this account. The same thread covers the theme of slander, but in this case both Townsend and Sholto Douglas are being described as liars and forgers. Unfortunately you are using a double standard.

Originally Posted by Hawk-Eye

I know I believed certain things on MY OWN LIFE which were wrong, as I discovered later. I didn't lie, I just was wrong. For example I would have sworn that I was on a certain airfield and did a certain thing but in fact it was another airfield (as my logbook proves). My memory betrayed me. Such things will happen.

So it may have been another field, but who's to say that on that field there were not a number of (fighter) pilots who acted as witnessed by Sholto Douglas? Maybe Sholto Douglas was wrong in some of his account, does that make him or Townsend forgers and liars?

Originally Posted by Hawk-Eye

Perhaps I can explain the error about "pilots". As you know RAF pilots (proudly) wear their "wings" on their battle-dress. They are made of some textile material. In the French AF EVERY MAN wears similar wings on his battle-dress, even the lowest ranks (ordinary soldiers).

Anyway nobody has the right to draw such drastic conclusions, on a foreign airfield, about a situation which he has no chance to understand if nobody explains it for him.

Again, this is not personal attack, which is the last thing on my mind Yves, just looking at the case, which you yourself have been presenting on numerous occasions, on its own merit. But here you set an annecodotal episode of a book against what amounts to nothing but an assumption, one that also assumes that AVM Sholto Douglas doesn't know the difference between an ordinary airman and a pilot, albeit a frenchman. Perhaps you assume that this AVM also saluted to the local janitor because like all french generals he had such a beautiful moustage?

The main point you fail to put into proper perspective is that Sholto Douglas (or Townsend by quoting) is decribing an event as he witnessed, and as AVM RAF he deserves the same credence or perhaps more than all those other personalities - like Closterman - we are so fond of. His authority is his senior rank and background as a WW1 fighter pilot of some repute.

Bottom line remains that Sholto Douglas is a reputable witness, if his observations do not agree with your sense of what's right and what's wrong, it is time to double check the facts, not attack the person. Since I am very particular (and peculiar) about this sort of thing I couldn't help but order a copy of Years of Command: A personal story of the second war in the Air (Collins, 1966), to check this episode myself.

There may be mistakes, but if we don't like what we read it doesn't mean we are also looking at lies and forgeries. One question, did you ever double check Sholto Douglas' biography?

Again, is it really impossible that AVM Douglas saw a number of nonchalant french pilots that did not jump to "their" airplanes, during an air attack, keeping in mind the aggressive nature of this senior officer? Also with his background in mind is it really surprising if he looked favorably upon the free-french under his command, compared to what he saw in those darker days of 1940?

Instead of considering lies and forgeries, I'd be more inclined to believe that there were indeed moments when élan was not as high as usual amongst the french, especially through the eyes of a visiting senior officer. Those were days of defeat, not victory...

Back to Townsend, his book covers the campaign in France to a limited extend, but doesn't do so any worse than other titles from an RAF perspective, I wonder how much harm his publication really did. Did French fighter pilots really suffer that much from his publication? As I've tried to point out by quoting Townsend, there are also positive signals that even things out - in my humble opinion.

In the eyes of the British, the French failed by discontinuing the fight, those are pretty harsh terms but set against the summer of 1940 and without the benefit of hindsight, not really surprising. The questionable role of Vichy France doesn't make it easier.

It is obvious that there was resentment between the British and French after the collapse in the west. The men of that generation took (at least some part of) that resentment with them, judging by your writing some of that resentment has been passed to the next generation and still lingers on.

What remains obvious is that something went terribly wrong in the summer of 1940 and for some the explanation needs a scapegoat.

Writing as an enthusiast, not as a moderator.

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by Christer Bergström

those that some seem bent on trying to denounce

1. Who's really denouncing who, on this forum or even in literature?
2. There is actually a lot of irrelevant material in this thread.

First the idea that French fighter pilots are being slighted wholesale by the world, by the British, by the french, by everyone, except a few honorable men...

nonsense

Second a thread basically dealing with a single book by a single writer, who's occused of anything but canibalism and child molesting, but those are probably lesser crimes

However this book seems to be a reoccuring theme, call it the catalyst, to fuel this ongoing pashionate blaze.

What I don't see is any reasoned argument, I see a lot of irrelevant writing about pre-war france and even the fact that little Holland was attacked by Germans in dutch uniforms, but not a solid thing about why Sholto Douglas is unequivocaly wrong, or proof that Townsend misinterpreted his annecdote.

The accusation is one of forgery and lies, should these statements not be backed up some relevant facts?

This post is not a personal attack against anyone.

I do not remember reading about french traitors, cowards and murderers, about french forgers and liars etc etc etc. But every now and then this AA vs RAF theme pops up and these words fly...towards the British that is.

So I'll ask all of you a question.

Why should I allow this thread to continue?
Should I allow this discussion ever to raise its head again?

If not with reason and objectively, not at all.

Stand by please! I am working on my reply to your preceding posting, which is quite long. It takes time because I am reading YOUR text carefully and writing my replies carefully too. You'll see you're too heated and too quick in your conclusions.

Remember : censorship can't prevent the facts from existing, on the contrary, they make them more interesting and attractive.

I don't know why you sound so angry now. I don't think anybody attacked YOU or your statements. I suspect you read other postings too fast, too hastily, and then you draw some wrong conclusions. Or is it forbidden even to criticise anything British? I know relationships between UK and NL are very tight. I feel up till now this was a gentlemanly discussion even if I used the word "liar", which I can prove is justified. I was called quite other names at TOCH some years ago, including some of the worst English words, which you neither forbade nor deleted for a long time (and Christer recently was called names too, including "liar", which you didn't delete IIRC).

Let us calm down and keep a cool head. Are you as quick-tempered as your Brazilian fellow-countryman Coronel Pierre Clostermann? In any case I am not your enemy either, I just want to discuss this matter thoroughly and completely. No reason to explode. After all the insultees are THE FRENCH as usual. Remember what the UK-US press wrote when Bush's 2nd Irak-war started and the French (like the Russians, the Germans and many other countries on top of the UNO) disagreed. They were traitors, cowards etc. as usual, the French President was a "worm". Well, what do you say now (the Irak problem is not solved yet)? Who was right? Was it soooo terrible to have said "no"?

Same thing here : please have a little patience, wait a little, it won't kill you. I happen to have a few other concerns and business to attend.

[Ruy Horta]

STOP...

There is no censorship on this forum, period.

The original case, mainly against Townsend, should be made without the use of irrelevant information.

Take all the time you need, there is no rush.

As I have pointed out, at least as far as I am concerned, it is not about attacking anyone or anything (I think that my main line of argument will support my claim).

[Ruy Horta]

Yves your last post has been considerably altered after my message was posted, the two actions could have coincided (see my posting time, and your original time and edit time).

Never-the-less I reacted to a much simpler message as posted at 08:10, not the one after editing at 08:23.

Some of that edited material seems actually to be an answer to my reply, so that will confuse people even more.

BTW, my personal views on the UK, France or even the 2nd Iraq war are irrelevant when it comes to this discussion. Actually I am simply waiting for that copy of Years of Command to arrive so I can double check Sholto Douglas.

IF Sholto Douglas is the originator, that will release Townsend, since quoting an AVM RAF who'd actually been on the spot won't be regarded as a faux pas, not even if the message is one we don't like.

Yes when my last posting was finished I was surprised to find your reply already! It was there. I assumed you were able to read my text whereas I was still writing. I can't remember I edited it afterwards but, if so, only typing errors and the like. I avoid to add important parts afterwards now because I feel part of the readers would miss them, which I obviously don't wish.
I don't feel Townsend can be considered innocent in any case for he visibly enjoyed quoting (or inventing) S. Douglas' thoughts. Repeating wrong accusations doesn't make you innocent in the eyes of a court even today.
But stand by, you'll see. EVEN IF some French pilots really kept eating lunch under falling bombs it is very risky to draw such hateful conclusions. There can be hosts of explanations. Want an example? They had just landed and were quickly having lunch at last (often this was not simple) whereas their aircraft were being refuelled. See? Taking off without any petrol in the tanks nor ammunition would have been rather pointless. There are other possible explanations... But to me this whole story, which I consider highly suspicious and disgusting, was forged.
"Aviators' mathematics are not so simple" (Adolf Galland).