Fighter pilots' guts

[Smudger Smith]

Hawk-Eye,



I don’t seem to all the realities of war, ? I think my friend you should read your past posts, digest, and learn from them.



You presume I have not experienced the realities of war. Unfortunately and in a similar fashion to your other posts you make a statement without the facts and presume wrongly.



Regarding the condition of flying or non-flying RAF aircraft left in France, the few left by the AASF was really insignificant and of little real value, the Germans had the whole French Airforce to pick-over and use at their leisure once your government handed them over. !





This is my last post on the matter. I wish you well in your efforts.

Originally Posted by Smudger Smith

Hawk-Eye,
......the Germans had the whole French Airforce to pick-over and use at their leisure once your government handed them over. !

I regret you force me to say this is a ludicrous statement (same quality as Townsend's). Firstly the French government ordered all aircraft which had the range to fly to French North Africa - not only the fighters. This they did. This government was led by Paul Reynaud. Then Pétain took over and everything became different (but these flights were not stopped).
According to Danel and Cuny approx. 550 modern fighters were flown to N. Africa, a considerable force. Add numerous bombers and recce AC. 1,155 modern fighters were left in the UNoccupied part of France (plus many bombers etc.). Most of these didn't have the range to fly to N. Africa. Those which had (for ex. 170 Dewoitine 520s) couldn't escape for lack of a pilot, petrol or some vital part, or they had still been in the factories, many just off the assembly lines. We'll probably never know how many AC were left in the occupied part of France, most probably a few hundred plus many wrecks of destroyed AC. The Germans were not interested in the intact AC in unoccupied France, they didn't seize them but left them where they were.
Of course all AC should have been systematically destroyed by the French before their surrender but here we bump into the realities you ignore. This was tried whenever possible. Many civilian and military pilots flew AC to safety, taking great risks for themselves. Why do you think that almost all Arsenal VG-33s were in the South (Bordeaux...)? They came from Villacoublay near Paris where the factory was situated, hundreds of miles away. The German invasion was much too fast to allow systematic destruction of all remaining AC. The British army and the RAF made similar experiences. The German soldiers were very glad to seize intact British stores with enormous quantities of whisky, cigarettes etc., not to mention aircraft, vehicles etc.
After the Allied landings in French N. Africa in November 1942 Germany invaded unoccupied Vichy-France and this time seized all aircraft. In the meantime, 2 1/2 years later, they had realised that this war was not finished yet and they took whatever they could get. Thousands of French AC were used mainly for training (D.520s, Bloch 152-155s etc., Potez 63.11 recce AC) and transport (LeO 451 bombers). There was not much the French could do about this was there. All these aircraft were nearing obsolescence by now.
The agreements between Germany and Pétain according to which French factories produced thousands of AC for Germany including some German types (Siebel 204 (?), Ju 52...) as well as many aero-engines and AC parts and repaired thousands of other German AC including fighters is another matter. The Germans could force the French to do this at will, just like in Czechoslovakia and even Poland, where an important German AC production took place too but quite naturally the greater part of this production took place in France, which possessed an intact and very powerful aircraft industry.

[Alex Smart]

May I suggest that anyone who is tired of all this repeated literary diarrhoea
reply to this thread by posting a



Good night all.

Alex

[JMSmith]

seconded, about time!

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by Alex Smart

May I suggest that anyone who is tired of all this repeated literary diarrhoea
reply to this thread by posting a



Good night all.

Alex

The remedy to your terrible misery has been known - here at TOCH - for years : do not read what you don't like! Leave the others alone. You are just continuing the usual libelling in another manner. Gotcha!
You wouldn't go into a bookshop and buy all the books you don't like would you? And then be angry and ask all publishers, printers and governments to stop publishing, displaying and selling these books?
Obviously many people here are interested in this discussion, probably because it is a subject they don't know well, or not at all, and suddenly discover and find of interest (but they could tell us why). If they like it they have every right to. After all the French air force engaged over 1,500 combat planes 1940 and the resupply rate was much higher than attrition (many French units were CREATED or reequipped entirely with brand new aircraft during the fighting) so this element - among others - is not quite as negligible as England has been trying to make the world believe for 65 years. After all approx. 4,000 (four thousand) aircraft of all countries were destroyed during the May-June 1940 French Campaign. Is this so negligible and uninteresting? I am trying to give the necessary explanations and to answer questions as best I can (too bad if I'm not good). You can't claim there is nothing new in my new postings, except if I lament that someone is forcing me to repeat myself.
Don't be rude just because you don't understand, or don't like, a subject. Remember what the British press and almost every Englishman wrote and said about the French and Jacques Chirac when they refused to accept the British-American aggression war in Iraq, which regrettably cost about 1,500 US and a few UK lives as well as approx. 250,000 Iraqi ones (at Nürnberg the Allied court sentenced quite a few people to death by hanging for this very reason). "Up yours France!, "Chirac the worm", etc. You will repeat the same errors and the same nonsense on and on and on won't you. Insults and libelling are your "arguments".
The lesser you provoke me the lesser I'll reply : a great improvement!

[Kutscha]

It is not the message but your method of delivery Hawk-Eye. There are other boards out there that thrive on the venomous hatred of the posters.

I am suprised Ruy has not shut down this thread as well.

[Allan125]

If we are going to endure any more of this diatribe - god knows why as it is not going to solve anything after nearly 65 years - can we have some consistency in references to people for the UK.

I, for one, am getting fed up with reading about England and Britain in the same article, sometimes even the same sentence "Remember what the British press and almost every Englishman wrote and said about the French" for example. Also, does that mean 50 million English people picked up a pen and wrote anti-French articles, perhaps that explains why the British Library in London is so large!!??

If you must continue, just make references to Britain, or British people as appropriate. Not all British people then and now are English, although the English make up the bulk of the UK population.

I also worry about newcomers to this excellent Forum and wonder what they make of it all - whatever their nationality

None of us were around at the time being written about - well maybe a few as babies, but certainly none in a position to influence matters.

Hawk-eye, give us all a break - please !!??

Originally Posted by Allan125

If we are going to endure any more of this diatribe - god knows why as it is not going to solve anything after nearly 65 years - can we have some consistency in references to people for the UK.

I, for one, am getting fed up with reading about England and Britain in the same article, sometimes even the same sentence "Remember what the British press and almost every Englishman wrote and said about the French" for example. Also, does that mean 50 million English people picked up a pen and wrote anti-French articles, perhaps that explains why the British Library in London is so large!!??

If you must continue, just make references to Britain, or British people as appropriate. Not all British people then and now are English, although the English make up the bulk of the UK population.

I also worry about newcomers to this excellent Forum and wonder what they make of it all - whatever their nationality

None of us were around at the time being written about - well maybe a few as babies, but certainly none in a position to influence matters.

Hawk-eye, give us all a break - please !!??

Here we go again! Always the same tricks : No counter-argument, no counteranalysis, only lamenting devoid of any basis : the usual old stuff from England (Britain if you prefer). You want me to unify my vocabulary? All right, I'm sorry : put "English" everywhere. Satisfied?Besides, Wales and Scotland are only poor English colonies having the bad luck of sharing the same island with the English imperialists so it is perfectly justified to use the most widely used phrase : England instead of the so-called "Great-Britain". Not to mention Ireland... When will your paratroopers once more shoot women and children peacefully walking in the streets of Derry (the English colonialists keep calling it "Londonderry" : no comment)? Tomorrow? In one month? In five years? Does it matter when? Can't you leave the Irish alone in Ireland? Even YOU can't do otherwise than calling the northern part of Ireland "Northern IRELAND". So it's Irish isn't it. When no stranger listens you call the Irish "cattle" and such things so you must understand I don't fancy call them "British", which actually means "English". Scots don't take kindly in being called "English" and they're damned right.
Don't ever try the same "peacekeeping" in "Londoncalais", Londonboulogne", "Londonparis" or "Londonmarseille".

Please Kutscha
explain who is displaying venomous hatred : those who claim that not one single member of a nation's 40 million inhabitants was keen nor gallant during a war or he who is trying to make the truth known to all... This is precisely what certain people want to prevent with all means.
Hatred towards what or whom? Be specific, give us precise information. I for my part praised British airmen's gallantry several times HERE with the highest respect, which I herewith confirm.
Perhaps a piece of information points in the right direction : in several English books on the later stages of WW II, especially on RAF Bomber Command, I found some grateful remarks on the fact that all Bomber Command crews felt relieved already when they knew they had left German (or whatever) airspace and were over France - sigh! - for they knew that if they had to make a crash-landing or parachute there they would enjoy the immediate help of the local people, who would hide them, protect them from the Germans and very often spirit them back to England thanks to their permanent organisation. Only a small minority of the French was really active in this (which was part of the French Résistance) but almost the whole population hated the Germans and had great sympathy for the British. When taken by surprise when some airman/airmen landed near them they almost invariably helped as best they could. Many veterans were / are very grateful and come and visit their brave French (as well as Dutch and Belgian) friends from the war regularly.
Remember that if a member of the RAF was taken prisoner by the Germans this was certainly not a reason to rejoyce but at least they would certainly survive the war in some prisoner camp. On the other hand every French person "helping the enemy" could be shot on the spot or tortured for a long time and murdered, his / her entire family too, or, worse still, all these people could be sent to a concentration / extermination camp in Germany or Poland (Dachau, Ravensbrück etc.). In fact many French people paid their resistance with their life, sometimes with the lives of their wife/husband and their children. Think of it Mister Wonderful.