New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet

[John Beaman]

All right, people, let's keep the tone "civil". No personal attacks. Keep the discussion on the subject. Otherwise, I will lock the thread.

[Nick Beale]

Arnaud: you have used the word "lie" and also "mensonge" so quite clearly there is no translation problem — "lie" is exactly what you meant to say.

You may doubt Many's claims very strongly but you are in no position to call them lies before you have even had an answer from WASt. You have displayed a lot of anger over several posts when you could have said calmly that you doubt his claims and asked him to share the evidence for them (or give the references for the WASt documents so you can request your own copies).

My own experience is that WASt can send two different answers to the same question, as the late Geoff Thomas and I found when researching KG 200. Some losses had been reported twice with slight differences in the details given.

I do not know who is right here but I think almost everyone on this forum would prefer a calm discussion about what is a very interesting series of events.

[arnaud]

M. Nick Beale,

Have you already been attacked in a newspaper in an 11 pages article? For me, this is the first time, so excuse me if I am not so calm as you expected.

I am not calm because the base of this attack is a Henschel 126 list that M. Souffan say having found in WASt. I had a special authorisation from high German authorities to have all copies from those German losses for the two months May and June 1940. The conclusion is that those losses are not stored in WASt. This is so simple and by conclusion this Henschel 126 losses list is lies.

I asked WASt information like this : “I need now your WASt Archive for the 1.(H)/14 : losses limited to May and June 1940. ”
Then I receive documents. But I repeat I had a special authorisation because as you know those archives are closed to public. I just knew the right person… This special authorisation was EXCEPTIONAL.

All the copies of all documents from WASt were very expensive for me because I had to pay. But that was essential to begin my researches on those two months, 20 years ago. I don't studied any other period only MAY and JUNE 1940. My live is not enough to complete it.

So I am not calm because I am attacked by lies : “ To utter falsehood with deceitful intention.” This is the definition of lie. I have no other word to describe this behaviour (excuse me again). This is actually a very strong word but the right word (excuse me again), but M. Souffan did not answer to this very big accusation which is very significant but it is true. He has no WASt document… This is as simple as this. You don’t believe it, this is your right. I can’t argue with that.

IF SOMEONE GIVES THE WASt EVIDENCE (COPY OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENT) ABOUT THOSE HENSCHEL 126 LOSSES I CUT MY HANDS. IS IT CLEAR? So to my enemies: found those documents: you have a very good opportunity to make me silence (lol).

I wonder what would be your position if you were attacked like this. I just find that unfair and actually shameful.

But that’s not question. My work about French (3 books) and British Kills (3 books) revealing that the French fighters only shot down only 355 German aircraft and 525 German aircraft shot down by British aircraft upset many French people. They are just fighting back. In France, many historians wrote the French fighters shot down 1.000 german aircraft, then reduced by all historians in France to 700 or 600. This new number 355 was a choc in France.

In “Fury”, I give all evidence about those friendly fires and I have not one doubt. But before writing on this air combat, you should have read:
1. The book “Fury”.
2. The article from M. Souffan.
3. And of course my answer to be published soon in the same magazine.

Of course if you just say: a Blenheim or a LeO is not like a Henschel, this is obvious and very simple, but this case is not so simple therefore we still speak about this combat which is significant.

In this thread, I just speak about the Henschel 126 cases. All evidences for the combat are in “Fury” reserved to my readers.

Have you read my last long French text about those Henschel 126 losses? If not because it is in French, you could translate it in English with Google. I don’t have time to translate this in English. If anyone want it, do it… Evidences are pretty clear that M. Souffan has no evidence.

I have a big book to publish about the British kills at the beginning of the year 2011, I can’t answer like this to all question. So dear readers send very precise question?

Yours sincerely

Arnaud

[robert]

Hi Arnaud,

I`m reding now various Koluft reports for WC and believe me there are a few losses - especially when no personal losses were suffered - that had been not reported to senior Luftwaffe commanding levels. They were reported only to army command and I don`t know why?
On the other side we have e.g. ca. 6 victories which were reported by I./ZG2 on 14.5.40 and perhaps this unit might be responsible for shooting down of those F.Battle bombers.
So just calm down because you are too aggresive and this will not earn you more respect. I very like your books and want to say that your reserach was a milestone in history of May-June 1940 campaign. I really appreciate your work!

Regards

Robert

[arnaud]

Mr. Robert,

OK. I will be now a good little boy. In fact I have nothing more to say as
I won't get any answer from M. Souffan about his source. I give up.

Have fun...

Adieu

Arnaud Gillet

[Ruy Horta]

Mr. Gillet,

Your research and contribution is valued.

Although I understand passion, sometimes it is good to step back, count to ten and walk away. If only for the time being. But I hope we have not lost you to the forum. Discussions here are not always so heated.

Just out of curiosity. have you had any contact with Yves Michelet on this subject and the 355 verified kills? I remember Yves to be very passionate about these kinds of issues and he must be popping a fuse or two!!

Cordialement (which also extends to M. Souffan!)

Ruy Horta

[Many Souffan]

Hello.

1/ I would like to thank some members for their support with their emails after the print out of my article.

2/ I would like to say a special thank for Peter Cornwell and his kind words, you are a gallant, man. For me there is no higher man than the man who has accepted that he did or took a wrong way. Nobody is perfect, me first. 1000 thanks again Mister Cornwell.

3/Please, I am not happy or satisfied for myself, I don’t care, but I like this idea, that I have contributed, a little, naturally, to advance to the truth, to the justice, and to give a little light and respect for all men (of all nationalities) of this event already lost in the limbs of History.

4/ I would like to say to Mister Gillet that my article is not an attack against you, as person or as historian but against the facts you have advanced, without a little conditional, without humility, Without the distance to put between the author you are and the History. I never understood why in all of your books you have 3 of 4 portraits of you. your subject must hide the author you are, if you want a little objectivity…

5/ I tried to write my point of view, because you didn’t want to hear my point of view in this forum. I have always spoken with you with the spirit of the medieval dispute or controversy always with the respect of your person. I did also this article because other members wanted to know my point of view.

6/ You can’t imagine mister Gillet how it can be hurtful to read all your attacks against me, that I am a lier, or a shameful person. I am a serious searcher.
It is unforgivable to speak about a civil (civilian) when we know together “the civil” is Jean-Yves Lorant one of the most serious French historian.
I am very disappointed when I read you in your last book that some diaries of French unit are false, simply because they don’t go to your conclusion

7/ It is a big consternation for me, when I compare your 2 versions. In the first version in the first part of your work about the French victories of Battle of France, you have written the Friendly fire concerned 4 Battle. In the last version (in the Furie), it concerned 3 Battle and a French twin bomber Léo 451, why this change? Because I gave an info in this thread, saying the 2 Germans of the third Hs bailed out, and in the same aera 2 French of the 4 of Leo 451 bailed out also. It was so simple.

8/ Please Mister Gillet don’t say there is nothing new in my article. I am sorry But I am very proud of my article, and I repeat I never attacked you. All my life I tried to be honest, respectful and a gentleman.

9/ Please Mister Gillet, when you ask some help in this forum don’t say: I want! It will be better to say: It is possible to have a help?
Another thing when in this forum, you show some pieces of a French aircraft, if someone tell you, it is not a Bloch with a proof, believe him. And I hope to say you in some months, where is buried Cne Coiral of GC II/1…

10/ Even if you look for since 20 years (that I can’t believe, sorry), go on to look for but at the right place. As I have written, it is always to the Wast, but I repeat not from Luftwaffe, but from Heer. Naturally it exit’s a list made by a searcher( not Luftwaffe list). But not only this. You must look for by unit which the Hs126 unit were attached. It is not easy I confess

11/ When there are some doubts in a couple between a woman and a man, the couple can’t go on. It is the same thing between a reader and a book. If the reader doesn’t believe or think there are some mistakes. The reader stop the reading. Since your first book (Betheneville) to the last I found too mistakes because you didn’t find materials and materials exist if you look for well. Your work is surely a good work, and it has the merit to be the first, and because it is the first we can accept some errors, but too mistakes kill your work. I am sorry.

11/ I would like to help you for the second part of the British victories during the battle of France. The 26 may F/O “Cobber” Kain claimed a Hs 126, you will not find in the very good book of Peter Cornwell any info, but it is a Hs 126B of 2.(H)/12 attached to VI AK, which forced landed, with 65% damage in the sector south of Bouillon, no problem for the crew.

To finish, I wish you good researches for the Future mister Gillet.

For all, I am happy to belong to this community.

[arnaud]

Bonjour à tous,

My ADIEU was not long indeed until M. Souffan comes back. As now, I will answer to any single attack from M. Souffan, I come back and hope it is the last time.

1. I would like also to thank all my friends for support after the direct attack to my researches in 11 pages!

2. As M. Souffan mention M. Cornwell, I would like also to thank M. Cornwell for his contribution. I don’t know him but I am sure he is a gallant man. And for me too, I could repeat what wrote M. Souffan. I am totally agreed : “There is no higher man than the man who has accepted that he did or took a wrong way. Nobody is perfect, me first. 1000 thanks again Mister Cornwell.”

3. Studying war, men killing other men, is a serious matter indeed…


4. M. Souffan write that this article is not a personal attack. I completely disagreed because since 2003 I am attacked and the words he used are directed to my capacity of studying history which are personal attacks. I won’t write down all his attacks. He used also very strong words against me like those precise he is using in his answer. This is personal attacks and I don’t answer to those attacks. If you find photograph of me in my book is because I am very proud of my work. Actually my books and I are one. I work hard every day on my books for 20 years now. I don’t copy books as lots of historians do. I work only with original documents I have found in France, Great-Britain, Germany. Only for the National Archive in London, in 20 years of researches, I have lots of paper copies and 75.000 photos of documents. I don’t like subject that other people have already written. I don’t bother and I am not interested. I work on new subjects that I have discovered by myself only. I am highly proud about “Fury”. I am preparing a study about the air bombing on Sedan on May 14th 1940. It will be a real choc in France and a lot bigger than “Fury”.

5. I appreciate you write you point of view. I will encourage anybody to do so. I clearly understand your point of you and this is the problem. You are not agreed with my conclusions as one of my friend. He wrote me a big letter against my conclusion. He has just read my book and took element for his position without mentioning elements against his own conclusion. In Fury anybody could find argues to my way or another.

But M. Souffan, I have a big problem with you not because you write a LeO is not the same as a Henschel 126. I obviously agree. What I don’t like is your article could be sum up in two points.
1. You clearly don’t know your subject: the air bombing of Sedan as most of historians and I am deeply sorry. You write that Gaulier was not the main target, this is very very wrong but this is a very very very difficult question.
2. But the biggest problem I have against you is very simple. You lie about those Henschel 126 losses. This is as simple as this. Excuse me for writing this but you know why and I do know too why I write this. I am not use to it. This is actually the first time I say to someone he is a lyer. Be serious M. Souffan since April 2009 I am asking you to give evidence about those Henschel 126 losses. You say those document come from a historian, then from Bundesarchiv now in your article from WASt. I know those archives. I have all documents. You’re not lucky with me. Try next time another archive, I have never been in the archive in the U.S.A. try here then I can’t argue… I know where those Henschel 126 come from: the manuscript of M. Weiss. The problem is that he didn’t mention those losses except one in his book “Twelve days in May” : this is the only problem between you and me and your article is shameful for that. Perhaps you thought the WASt archives are closed to public so let’s mention this archive, A. Gillet wouldn’t be able to get into this archive. But I have already been to his archive. You came into that gape by yourself.

6. Those lies hurt me when I read your article but a lie is a lie. There is no other word. This is a very strong accusation. I know but what can I do. You are a serious searcher but the problem you take H. Weiss manuscript as evidence. A historian should work on original document.

You mention the name of the “civil”. Of course I know the name of the “civil” in the Service Historique de la Défense. I just don’t want to accuse anyone else: this is a problem between you and me. You mention a name: this is your problem…
Yes, yes, yes some diaries of some French units are false specially for the one from the Leo 451 simply because the French wanted to cover up this friendly fire. The take off times and the bombing times are very very wrong. I have in Fury several testimonies to prove it German troops and a Potez crew who saw the leo 45 shot down. I have found too another testimony: Général Escudier write that the Leo 45 bombed target at 12.55.
Then the Leo 45 crews wrote they went went to Sedan without fighter escort. You write it do. Or Groupes III/7 and I/3 were on mission to cover Sedan from 12.50 to 13.30 not for fun but for protection of the first French wave against pontoon bridge. Battle of 142 Squadron took advantage of this protection to see what happen there before the second British wave. I don’t write diaries are wrong because they don’t match with my conclusions. No no no. This is another direct attack and you know it if you have read Fury all evidence are there : French and German.

7) I have already say why the version 2003 and the one in Fury 2010 is different. During those 7 years, I have found lots of documents. Of course I knew the mistake about the Leo 45 in 2003. How could I write that in 2003! In 2010 this is not easy but I am historian and this is my job.

Actually I thank you very much for your attack since 2003. I really do and I mean it. By studying this combat I have understood lots of things for May and June 1940. I have found too some others subjects to study. In fact Fury is essential to my new direction of seeing May and June 40.

Excuse me, I don’t understand what you mean about that. But obviously this don’t explain the differences between 2003 and 2010. Sorry :
“Because I gave an info in this thread, saying the 2 Germans of the third Hs bailed out, and in the same aera 2 French of the 4 of Leo 451 bailed out also. It was so simple.”

8) Sorry but I repeat there is nothing new in your article at all. I didn’t find anything interesting. Sorry again :
“All my life I tried to be honest, respectful and a gentleman.”
I am sure of it : I have only one point against you : the Henschel 126 list. You could have criticised my article without mentioning this list and I would not say or write anything again and I would be in fact agree with you or accept your point of you. The problem is this list that’s all. You know and I know that this list is very very doubtful but why did you use it…

9) So please M. Souffan would you be kind enough to give evidence about the Henschel 126 losses ? Please. I try… I don’t know what is your problem about the Bloch 152 thread? I have doubt as every historian should have. In some months, those doubt will disappear for ever. Just wait and see. At this moment I do not know anything… I have a lot of doubt…

10) I don’t argue with that… In fact I give up for that one.

11) Since Betheniville airfield, my first book. A lot of time is gone now for me. When I wrote the book about Betheniville airfield, I thought that historians were very efficient when they write books. At that time, I have work in the National Archive and in the Imperial War Museum. For the Luftwaffe losses, I used books. I have tried to study n° 501 Squadron claims. I used for that purpose books. But I discover at that time that nobody has published anything about Luftwaffe losses. Therefore I began to work on that subject. Then very quick I gave up to work with book as there are so many mistakes sometimes in every sentence as your article. Béthenville airfield is good for the British description, for Luftwaffe losses this is not right and there are a lot mistakes because I was young. I repeat, at that time, I haven’t work on Luftwaffe Losses: a mistake I have now corrected…

11 bis) Thank you I will check it before publication.

I think we are now all right. Everything has been written. I have spent too many time on this thread. So for now I wait for that letter from WASt then I send my “droit de réponse” to Avions to denounce those “lies” (ou “mensonge”).

If you want to attack me or other historians, it is up to you. This is your right… But historians have to defend themselves too. This is one part of the job: a job I like very much and I thank you again very much for this article in Avions…

See you again in another battlefield…


ADIEU…

[ClinA-78]

Amen

[John Beaman]

I think enough has been said. I'm locking this thread.