A Galland mystery – Historical question to experts including J. Prien: Galland’s two victories won on 3 June 1940

[Laurent Rizzotti]

As Jochen say, I think that anything written in Germany during the 1950s about WWII should be taken as a first-person point of view, but certainly not as a 100% accurate history book. At this date, Galland had probably very few WWI-era documents available to support his writing, so much was probably done by memory. And to remember all exact dates a dozen years after the event would be impressive. It's a common occurence in witness stories to mix events that were close in time, so Galland could have mixed the Paula operation (that was an unique operation during the campaign) and another air battle on 9 June.

On the other had, Prien and co have gathered many sources that have become available since Galland wrote his books.

On a side note, I am not sure that speaking of translation of Galland's books as "separate sources" is valid: in most cases, the translator only translates, there is no new research or update done.

Last point, according to the JFV book, JG German pilots claimed 36 victories between 1430 and 1530 hrs in the area of operation Paula, to which 8-9 kills by ZG 26 could be added according to the files by Tony Wood, and not counting 7 kills by II./JG 2 for French fighters with no time in the Epernay area. 18 French fighters were lost, so almost 3 claims were made for each loss. In this case, identifying who shot down who seems difficult for me, and adding possibly or probably to any identification seems the right thing to do in my humble opinion.

By the way, I found some weeks ago a webpage I saved 20-15 years ago, with what was then considered to be Galland's claim list. A dozen at least of the claims had no date, or a date with question mark, and it was from a website about the Luftwaffe and the guy doing it did it best with the sources then available. I think that the collective work of the JFV series led by Mr Prien is now the most accurate victory list available, and it points missing claims and unclear dates when needed. And Mr Prien did not hesitate to correct the claims he wrote about in his former books on JG 53 for example, as new sources allow such corrections.

[rof120]

Really sorry gentlemen but I MUST attend some urgent business. I'll try to make it quick.

Have to leave now but please take notice of this: I did NOT insult anybody. I am not the type and I have no reason. An opinion is not an insult even if it dares differ from yours. Some people seem to really enjoy using this word. Well, this is their private pleasure, which does not make it true.

I'll be back as soon as possible (1-2-3 days?) with some new, quite convincing arguments - arguments not insults - or so I hope.


Be good in the meantime.

Bye.

[Snautzer]

You should tone down your way of writing quite a bit. You offended 2 esthablised writers in 1 go. These are not some kids with a book or two or who have read a wiki page of sorts. No. Very very much no. So count your blessings mr Prien et all are even bothered to reply. Make sure to present your arguments polite and factfull. I think not many will take you very serious otherwise. I have hard time doing this reading your posts as it is now.

[rof120]

Originally Posted by Jochen Prien

Dear Mr. rof120,

since you addressed me personally in your post I will answer your question albeit with considerable reservation which comes from the tone of your postings.

1 My birth date is 8 May 1952, hence exactly seven years after the end of the war in Europe or twelve years after the claims in question were made. If for you that means decades, well … However, what does my date of birth matter in this context at all?

2 The list of claims made by Adolf Galland including those in May / June 1940 was compiled by Hans Ring and Winfried Bock, and is based on official documents. IIRC Galland's Flugbuch was also checked and exploited. There is not a trace of two claims made on 3 June 1940.

You seem to be an ardent believer in the publications of Adolf Galland. I would strongly recommend that you try a more dinstanced and un-biased approach to his oeuvre which would show you that there are in fact quite a lot of - to put it mildly - inaccuracies in Galland's presentation of his exploits in WWII. Take a look at the introduction of JFV 4/I ( Purple Series ) and you will see what I mean.

Regards

Jochen Prien

The "tone of my posting* is not objectionable in any way. Writing that you are younger than Galland is not an insult, only a fact. You were not borne "decadeS" after June 3, 1940 and what Galland stubbornly reported 5 times from 1953 through 1999 but only ONE decade and two years, all right, good for you. I have no objection. I hope you'll admit that you did not witness Galland's air battles of 1940 so he knew better than you do (and than I do too). What does your date of birth matter? It does matter a huge lot since you can know these events only from reading various texts (books, articles, official documents IF they survived ("IF", brother"), from hearsay. The risk of being influenced much stronger by your contemporaries than by the 1940-45 fighter pilots who did the fighting and often the dying is very high if you're not very cautious. I'll give you a very simple example, not a complex one because this would lead us much too far and need a lot of precious working time: perhaps you, too, noticed that most French aviation enthusiasts write Mölders like this: "Moëlders" with corresponding French pronunciation. Heinz Bär becomes "Bar", too. These errors have almost become the only legal, acceptable version of their names (in France). So people influence each other not only with correct facts but with errors too, especially when time is in short supply. Here at TOCH you often can read that once published an error is eagerly and frequently reproduced in later publications until it becomes the truth.

2 The list of claims made by Adolf Galland including those in May / June 1940 was compiled by Hans Ring and Winfried Bock, and is based on official documents. IIRC Galland's Flugbuch was also checked and exploited.

- OK, I decided to believe you on this. So what? Of all the people around YOU know best that very often official documents contain some wrong informations and details, and that this has various causes: no time to do the paperwork immediately; often it's done days and even weeks later - from dwindling memories only. Or the clerks didn't get it right and wrote something else than the correct version etc.

JP: There is not a trace of two claims made on 3 June 1940.

- Which proves… what?

I have to say, your logic is a bit surprising "to say the least". There is not a trace of two claims made on 3 June 1940? Does it prove that these victories were NOT won? No trace? What about 5 different books, spread all over the world with a total number of copies probably near 4 or even 5-6 million. "The First and the Last" sold over 3 million copies in the whole world, most copies in German or in English. These books all contain Galland's version, which I dare consider much more reliable than yours. I know, I'm terrible.

You don't react at all on my remark that to any German person Paris was something extra special (it is still today) and a fighter pilot having flown there on June 3, 1940, certainly was able to remember accurately what he did on this day and during this sortie. Today's authors like you seem to swap Galland's and Mölders' victories on June 3 but this is not the case because Mölders claimed one Curtiss (which in fact was a Bloch 152) and a Spitfire (impossible in this region and on this day - must have been a Dewoitine 520 for Mölders knew the Morane well already: he had shot down six of them starting in March 1940 and certainly seen many more in flight, probably dozens). Mölders did not claim a third victory on this day but Galland did (one "Curtiss" which was a Bloch 152 and two Moranes). Galland gave precise details on when and where his victims crashed (please read it again in his first book). Most interesting is the fact that French sources, as I already mentioned, confirm the destructon of both Moranes at the very place where Galland not Mölders claimed them. According to French loss lists not one single other Morane was lost on this day (but (at least) two Dewoitine 520s from crack unit GC I/3 were). Mölders claimed no Morane but Galland very clearly claimed two and he was right. You seem to know everything better than both Mölders and Galland. Congratulations.

JP: "You seem to be an ardent believer in the publications of Adolf Galland."

- Not at all. I simply know that everybody can make an error, including myself (this makes me very cautious) as well as the unfallible Prien & Ring - this is just human. I know that Galland made, among others, an enormous error in his first book: he wrote that Japan invaded Midway, which is exactly the reverse of what happened in the very famous Battle of Midway (Japan intended to invade Midway but lost all four aircraft carriers deployed for this, and a few other ships too - six months only after the disgusting Japanese aggression at Pearl Harbor). Probably almost nobody noticed this error in Germany. Of course in the USA every kid knows the correct version. I was annoyed, too, because in his whole book Galland almost never gave the precise dates, certainly because he had no relevant documents at the time, but there is an exception: operation "Cerberus-Donnerkeil", the escape from Brest of two mighty German warships which sailed… towards Germany in the Channel between France and England, remarkably protected against British air attacks by Galland's fighter organisation and deployment (February 1941). I noticed a few other errors on other points but this is unimportant now.

JP: "I would strongly recommend that you try a more distanced and un-biased approach to his oeuvre which would show you that there are in fact quite a lot of - to put it mildly - inaccuracies in Galland's presentation of his exploits in WWII."

You don't know but "my approach" IS ALWAYS distanced and unbiased. Precisely. This is what obviously enrages and infuriates some people (not all people) who are not able - contrary to myself - to take part in a discussion without getting immediately overheated, yelling at me so to speak and speaking of "insults" and the like where there is nothing of this kind. They simply hate it to be confronted with strong logical arguments not intuition, fantasy and the like. I purchased quite a few of your books (about twenty from famous gem Gabi in München: JG 3, 11, 27, 53 and more as well as several JFV volumes - I can't afford the expense and the time of purchasing them all because I am working on several books myself with different subjects). I don't regret to have purchased about 20 of your books but please publish a corrected version of JG 53 (the printers printed the wrong text instead of your corrected version so YOU are not responsible for that).

Some people accused me wrongly of having "insulted" others but I must say, the way you sue poor Galland is not really friendly, not objective either, and obviously you HATE him. Clearly you find him terrible (this word is very strong in the English language). I don't know what he did to you or to one of your relatives during the war. Did he refuse to give you an interview? Did he reject your vision of certain events? Do you think Galland alone is responsible for the death of your father, or uncle, or whoever? (I'd be very sorry, honest, but alas people die in wars, for example my father, who was an aircrew and a major.)

JP: "Take a look at the introduction of JFV 4/I ( Purple Series )"

- OK, I'll read it again.

Sorry, have to leave now, I'm late.

More some other time, soon I hope.

[MarkRS]

Originally Posted by rof120

The "tone of my posting* is not objectionable in any way.

The fact that you write that means it is. I have no interest in this subject whatsoever. I do not care if Adolph Galland claimed he was at Kittyhawk and shot down the Wright Brothers. But repeating something 5 times does not make it true. The truth is, nobody knows for sure. Researchers are making their best guesses based on the sparse evidence and very unreliable eye witness reports available. And they work very hard at it, whether you agree with their conclusions or not. This is an academic exercise. You have made it personal, and not in a nice way. It does not help your cause. You may be right, but nobody is going to give you credit because of the way you present your case. If someone objects to your posting, for whatever reason, apologize and try to reword it in a less offensive way.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by rof120

The "tone of my posting* is not objectionable in any way.

As a moderator here, I think it is.

Writing that you are younger than Galland is not an insult, only a fact.

And a complete irrelevance in a thread that you chose to title as a "historical question to experts". If you ask a "historical question" you can hardly be unaware that historians need not have lived through the events they describe to contribute the elucidation of those events. Does my being six months older than Jochen Prien, and born slightly nearer the war make me a better historian of that conflict? Clearly it does not, any more than my being born that much nearer to the Battle of Cannae would, were we concerned with the Punic Wars. Should not a historian be judged on the quality of his or her work?

What does your date of birth matter? It does matter a huge lot since you can know these events only from reading various texts

And, as must surely be obvious, it is through documentation that one can bring together information from multiple sources that could not have been combined in time of war. What is more, contemporary documentation relies less on fallible memory than do memoirs written years after the events in question. The evaluation of multiple sources is a cornerstone of good historical scholarship, is it not?

Very often official documents contain some wrong informations and details, and that this has various causes

Just as personal memoirs are seldom wholly accurate in detail or dispassionate in tone. They are compiled—wholly or partially—from memories and impressions, many are written to glorify the author and/or to exonerate him/her from blame. Again, an important aspect of historical and scientific enquiry is the identification of potential sources of bias.

JP: There is not a trace of two claims made on 3 June 1940.
- Which proves… what?

That documentary support for certain aspects of Galland's postwar memoirs is lacking. That, in terms of historical enquiry, is a matter of some importance.

"The First and the Last" sold over 3 million copies in the whole world, most copies in German or in English.

So "sales = reliability"? Would you say, for example, that "The First and the Last" offers an accurate, objective and proportionate account of JV 44?

… certainly was able to remember accurately what he did on this day and during this sortie.

Let us use your own criterion. As far as I know you were not there flying alongside (or against) Galland, so what does your "certainty" rely on?

You don't know but "my approach" IS ALWAYS distanced and unbiased.

I confess that this was not apparent to me from your post.

They simply hate it to be confronted with strong logical arguments not intuition, fantasy and the like.

Again, your gratitude that Herr Prien confined his response to "strong logical arguments" does not exactly shine through in your post.

… Galland … obviously you HATE him.

This inference cannot in my view be justified in the basis of anything in the post to which you are responding. It is quite possible to argue the merits of a particular victory claim with courtesy and without making imputations as to the character of another party and I would ask that you please do so in future.

[rof120]

Just a quickie - am in a hurry. Thanks for your explanations even though you're mostly wrong. Strange Indeed. Now please look:

J. Prien wrote to me: "...there are in fact quite a lot of - to put it mildly - inaccuracies in Galland's presentation of his exploits in WWII."

You may call this friendly but I dare disagree. I dare a lot, it's horrible. I am horrible, that's all. But I was thinking more of what J.Prien wrote precisely in the introduction of his volume JFV 4/I. I remember(ed) only the general message and tone (several well-filled pages, a lot of text). JP is not really friendly to Galland "to say the least". Uninformed readers could follow that this Galland fellow was a clot and a nitwit, which I would find is slightly exaggerated. If Galland had been still alive he would have had every chance of winning legal proceedings against Prien for numerous insults and slandering - I think Prien didn't realise how hostile and hateful his comments on Galland were and still are (see at the top here). Experience shows that many people, not Prien only, are not aware at all that what they say or write is heavy slander and can result in very serious trouble in court. That said, I don't know if Galland would have sued Prien (I don't think so). You may find that I use some hard words - this is your private pleasure - but Prien's words against Galland are about 100 times harder and meaner. This, too, is his private pleasure. As far as I'm concerned he may do as he pleases. This does not mean that he's right. Please read the mentioned introduction to JFV 4/1 again and then think again.

The fact remains that Galland was one of the greatest fighter pilots AND FIGHTER LEADERS of WW II and even of the whole of the XXth century (including WW I), taking all countries into account. On the Internet virtually everybody agrees that he was the best, the greatest etc., especially American and British people but others too. This world-wide admiration and commendation must have some good, real reasons. I understand that Galland's JG 26 was considered the best German fighter wing in the BoB and was preferred by bomber crews for protection against British fighters. All this cannot come just by chance.

He had an exceptional career as the fighter general appointed by Göring after Mölders accidental death. (He didn't want this.) So he was not Göring's first choice but Mölders being lost he was the obvious choice, even taking Göring' great sympathy for him (and for Mölders) into account: Göring just liked them very much, but this is not the whole explanation. Galland was simply very good and very clever. Unfallible? Nope.

You might care to have a look at Yves Michelet's (Galland's very exact French translator and publisher) blog: https://admin.over-blog.com/2675016/write/90559430

There is a short summary in English, German and French at the top. This particular part (or chapter) of the blog gives a long account of Galland's life and first book - in French - with numerrous photographs (most of them never published before). He explains, among other things, why Galland is the most famous fighter pilot of the XXth century and most probably of all time.

More some other time.

[Matti Salonen]

rof120,

Instead of person worship I would like to see facts, which are based on original documents. Personal opinions and memories are not sufficiently scientific material to the researcher members of this forum.

Matti

[rof120]

Worship?

All right then - but just to please you. Finnish airmen have a good reputation of markmanship and honesty so…

Here is the list of Galland's 14 first victories, all won in the French Campaign in May-June 1940. This list was written and circulated by Galland himself in the years 1980-95 and possibly at other times too:


N° 1-3 May 12 3 RAF Hurricanes

N° 4 May 16 1 Spitfire 5 km South of Sedan

N° 5-6 May 19 2 Potez 63 (most probably 63.11 recce AC)

N° 7 May 20 1 Potez 63

N° 8-9 May 29 2 Blenheims

N° 10 June 2 1 Spitfire

N° 11-12 June 3 1 Curtiss, 1 Morane

N° 13-14 June 14 1 Blenheim, 1 Defiant

MY REMARKS:

Except for the three Hurricanes Galland always gave the correponding details on time and location, like for N° 8-9 "12.58 and 13.04 hrs 15 km (about 10 miles) north of Gravelines".

N° 4: a Spitfire cannot have been South of Sedan on May 16. Spitfires were not allowed to fly over the continent and they didn't have the range for Sedan anyway. So it was some other fighter, possibly a Dewoitine 520. D.520s were very often misidentified as Spitfires or Moranes but were much better than the latter and did'nt have the typical wings of the Spits.

N° 7: newer sources say it was a LeO 45 not a Potez 63. Both types were twin-engined, twin-fin AC.

N° 11-12: as I already mentioned this "Curtiss" was in fact a Bloch 152 and TWO Moranes are perfectly confirmed by French sources.

N° 14: it seems that it was not a Defiant but a Battle.

In any case this list - without my remarks - was circulated by the former "General der Jagdflieger". This man was not a clown writing nonsense according to his fantasy. This document without any doubt can be considered official.

His victories N° 11 and 12 match not only French losses perfectly but their combination, with the crash locations and times, fits the details of French losses perfectly too: first a Bloch 152 near Senlis, then the two Moranes around Lognes/Ozoir.

I'm tired of this now. Some people enjoy contradicting others in bad faith just for fun (not you Matti - I wouldn't even reply). I don't enjoy being wrongly accused of "insulting" others etc. For me this is the end of this not-too-helpful discussion. Schluss, basta.

[John Beaman]

I am closing this thread. It has drifted far from the original purpose and the tone of some of the replies is not acceptable on this forum.