Perssonel LW's losses over Poland IX 1939?

[John Vasco]

Mirek,

I read this thread with interest.

What do you want exactly? You see, I get the impression that whatever answer you get, you then go off in a different direction.

You start off with: '...Is is possible to have quite precise estimation of personal losses sustained by LW over Poland in this period?...' Robert, Marius and RT made replies to you.

You then come back with: '...The second major flaw of your publication is to avoid feeding the number of flight (general data, statistics). It is difficult to determine whether the LW crew performed for example, only 100 Ju 87s sorties 1-28 IX 39, or for example 10.000 or more or less?...' Let's put this in context, eh? Unless every document still existed documenting every flight of every unit for that campaign, you are never going to get 100% information. That is an incontrovertible fact. A researcher/author ALWAYS reaches the point where he has to go with what he has got at that point in time. If that were not the case, then there would not be a single book in existence relating to World War 2 aviation.

You make this comment also: '...In writing history, what counts is whether someone is trustworthy and knows how to do something fairly or not...' At first glance, that comment seems fairly reasonable. If we applied that test to something like Frank Mason's 'Battle Over Britain', then it would pass with flying colours. What he produced at the time of it first appearing was considered ground-breaking. However, in the fullness of time further research has shown a lot of the information in that book to be incorrect. Not because Frank deliberately set out to be incorrect and mischievious, but because he went with what he knew at the time. I believe Frank Mason is trustworthy and he knew how to do something fairly. But that alone is not the only qualification required in writing history. Do you follow what I mean?

So following on from that, I do believe that you should not be so critical of what others have worked on, and have managed to get into print. If you have additional information, then get it out. Or get it to the author. Or put it out on a site like this so that others can update their knowledge. But if you have done nothing, then don't just sit on your arse on the sidelines and criticise the efforts of others. That serves no useful purpose whatsoever.

[Mirek Wawrzynski]

John
It is a matter of disagreement on issues of presentation of history, specifically the presentation of data and information and on this basis the formation of knowledge about the air war.

Gave a good example of Manson, I know his book about the Battle of Britain, as well as others: the Hawker Hurricane and Avro Lancaster. The overall consensus at the time of 30-40 years ago these books were very good, after 30 years longer. Sam is in these books, various faults, when I wrote various articles about foreign hurricanes (Belgium, Finland, Yugoslavia, Romania, Russia). You can not do yourself a book that there are no errors or omissions. From my own experience I know that the text you have written 5, 10 years ago, contains inaccuracies and errors. There are new information, memories, develop. Knowledge is the update. It is the norm.

If I take a book on air war over the Polish, written by Jerzy B. Cynk "Polish Air Force Fighter in Battle in September," (text in Polish), then at the end of a large book (of similar size to Manson's book about the battle of Britain), is a summary of "Evaluation of the Luftwaffe Combat Operations." Cynk provides, inter alia, that the LW has implemented over the Polish approximately 33,000 sorties. German crew dropped about 19,600 tons (over Poland and the West, the aggregated data, which fell over the Polish minimum of 19,000 tons of bombs?). It also gives flight crew personal loss: killed - 189, injured - 126 and missing - 224 (p. 411-417). Are given the loss of equipment and irreversible damage too.

For works of Marius Emmerlinga (three studies on: fighters, bombers and dive bombers), it is not given such a simple summary of data. Do not expect the author to do, for example, a list that made the JG 77 sorties and KG 3 had done it 346 and for StG 2 such flights were about 1233 (?). In some regiments it is possible to determine if the other is not. But it is possible to make such summary for each branches of LW.

I believe that if someone spent some time in the archive, it's about his work demonstrates the ability to draw conclusions and write a summary.

In three books Marius no such thing. I believe that he lacks the skills to write summaries, he as the author can not do this and so, not everyone has such powers, but it goes very well write "phone book" (please do not treat this as a negative determination, and as a statement) - which It is also useful. To write a "telephone book" and have put a lot of effort and work.

I, as a reader of his books, do not know about the overall effort of the Luftwaffe over the Polish crew. Such data in the summary is not - they are only general data loss in the equipment, there is no data the number of flights, number of tasks, the number of bombs dropped (in general) and the list of loss: killed, wounded and missing in action.

I do not know whether more flights carried over the Polish example, Me 109 and Me 110? Also, I do not know if, for example, the crew performed the sorties of bombers, and on this occasion dropped bombs?
However, I know the book Marius Emmerling, that he stands next to the archive and strongly supports a Federal Archives and the walls of the building that he spent investigating the fight against the Luftwaffe over Poland 15 and more years.
After so many years by now should have definite ideas, examined archives, that such information should be general in its publications, and what is not. Are given for this other very detailed information about the flight time, number of crew, etc., allocated to days or even hours, or "phone book". Such a presentation of history has its great advantages but also disadvantages. If you want to compare the effort of the Polish crew Lufwaffe a better book is a work of Cynk (he also had some historical data German).

And for that matter.

Sincerely,
Mirek Wawrzyński

[Dénes Bernád]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

You make this comment also: '...In writing history, what counts is whether someone is trustworthy and knows how to do something fairly or not...'

This critical point was not answered. I'm looking forward to reading your reply.

[RT]

I read a lot of books , whose I could judge by the facts I know, I never seen one giving a so complete batch of data that Mirek is asking for , even not 50 % , What Mirek is asking is a perfect book , wonder how to make such a book as 80 % or more of the basic data are missing, nd nat. , it is not said but ..., not biased ??

Remi

[Marius]

Mirek,
I have to say that my first 3 books are a part of a bigger series which will be continued. The fourth volume will be done the same way. Important is the German point of view here and not all possible statistical data of the campaign.
The parts 5 & 6 (and some smaller topics like Gnys, Wielun ond so on) will contain a lot of documentation with hundreds of footnotes. Maybe you will find some answers then. But I don`t believe you will stop attacking the author after that.

PHP Code:

Cynk provides, inter alia, that the LW has implemented over the Polish approximately 33,000 sorties. German crew dropped about 19,600 tons (over Poland and the West, the aggregated data, which fell over the Polish minimum of 19,000 tons of bombs?). It also gives flight crew personal loss: killed - 189, injured - 126 and missing - 224 (p. 411-417). Are given the loss of equipment and irreversible damage too. 


Mister, this is wonderful Cynk gave us some statistical data in his book he better hadn`t published. But concerning the Luftwaffe it is completely useless. Most of the data is pure science fiction.

Regards,

[John Vasco]

Mirek,

You're doing it again. Going off the subject onto another. I know English isn't your first language, but if you come onto an English-speaking board, and raise points, then stick to them. And more importantly, answer directly the responses you get to your points. The value of your postings, and what you put into them, goes down in my estimation if you are selective in your replies.

So first of all, how about you answer the point raised by Denes Bernad in post #13 of this thread.

You criticise the content of a particular author's book. Let me tell you this. The author, and the author alone decides what goes in to any of his works. By that I mean the actual content. If the publisher doesn't like it, the contract is not fulfilled and the work doesn't appear. It was for Marius to put into his book what he wanted. You may disagree with the overall content, but you should not go onto a public forum and slag off the individual for what he included, and did not include, in his book.

Let me give you a personal example. My two editions of 'Bombsights Over England'. I put into that not only what I knew of the unit each time, I also put in what I wanted to put in. I excluded certain information as I was asked not to include it by certain individuals. That was my choice, and my honesty to the individuals concerned. In my works over the years there are errors, as there are in every published work. Some of it is down to proof-reading; some down to receiving fresh information which sheds new light on a particular issue. But if anybody was to say to me: 'You should have included this, or that, they would receive a swift, short, answer. In polite terms, it's none of their business what I include(d) in any of my works. Might appear a bit brutal, but that is the situation. No way can the tail be allowed to wag the dog.

Jerzy Cynk put into his book something that you wanted. Fine. But don't hang that example around the neck of other authors.

I do think you should not denigrate another person in this way: '...In three books Marius no such thing. I believe that he lacks the skills to write summaries, he as the author can not do this...' You speak in an earlier thread about objectivity, and then set down this completely subjective view of an individual, which actually has no foundation in fact. Can you back this particular statement up with fact? Tread carefully, my friend, that could be construed as libel...

I look forward to your further reply. And do try to keep to the points raised.

[Mirek Wawrzynski]

As authors, and I know that several of the participants in this discussion by historical texts, I am aware of the independence of the author. Often, various authors (without pointing personnel) are in relation to their own work which is very powerful belief that they are the best, exceptional, and that other's can not (or are even stupid). Targeted generalizes, again without any direct attacks.

When I wrote in 2008 a question about the Luftwaffe losses over the Polish, it interested me as much data (personal loss, and equipment), published in the 60's have been adjusted, corrected. It turned out that these data from around 50 years are still "current and valid" in this part of the story does not have progress!
One of the people writing about the Luftwaffe is Marius Emmerling, but may also be, and others, and conduct some research. A lot written about the Luftwaffe over the Polish example, Jerzy B. Cynk, which is contemptuous of Marius Emmerling. Accusing him of various inaccuracies, fantasies, etc.

Emmerling: “Mister, this is wonderful Cynk gave us some statistical data in his book he better hadn`t published. But concerning the Luftwaffe it is completely useless. Most of the data is pure science fiction”.

By contrast, cited Marius Emmerling evades responsibility to correct, improve those, according to him, completely useless data from work J.B. Cynk (and Cynk took them from the summary reports Lufftwaffe).

Picking up a book Marius Emmerlinga notice, that the author in his works he creates his own myths, gives an untruth, and perhaps even deliberately resorts to manipulation of the facts?


Strong to justify this complaint. So to work.

In the case of the first book Marius Emmerlinga, except in 2002, wrote him a long letter pointing out the various bugs, that I noticed in the book of 2002 (vol I Jagdflieger). I understand that he need not respond to my letter.

When I read the second book (Vol. II, Kampfflieger, p. V) that until recently Polish historians write about Warsaw as a city open in September 1939, that such a statement gives rise to my astonishment. I know a number of Polish papers, documents, reports. I do not know any Polish publications (eg authors: Drozdowski, Grzelak, Lipiński, Porwit, Rómmel, Tomaszewski), where is the "Warsaw - Polish capital - was opened city in September 1939." An open city, as I remember, was in Paris in June 1940.

Emmerling (vol II, p. V) "Therefore, the bombing of Warsaw in 1939, is for the Polish terrorist bombing "open city", that is, for the most civil, and for the Germans were preparing to storm the heavily defended" fortress ".

I did not know, again, that Warsaw in September 1939 was declared an open city. Furthermore, it had its own active air defense (only reduced amount of A/A batteries since 7 IX 39) from 1 to 28 September.

According Emmerlinga concept presented in this book attacks on Warsaw in September 1939 have not been any terrorist raids! Case of German air attacks on Warsaw terrorist act by the mere invention of Emmerling Polish historians (this is a Polish science-fiction and mitomania). Poles as invent themselves, while the German papers have not confirmed.

Emmerling (vol II, p. V): "In Poland, but also multi-duplication of the bombardment of propaganda" for civil purposes, "including" women, old people and children " by A. Kurowski, J. Pawlak, J. B. Cynk and other Polish, and foreign authors, no one has a detailed examination of the operations carried out by Kampfflieger or even verification of published theses (...) ".

He continues, "I admit frankly that I felt a kind of "disappointment" when after having several conversations with the German pilots who formed the crew of aircraft came upon one that would answer this, as the so-called bombs thrown. "Civilian purpose and what kind of feelings he was accompanied. Former officers of the Luftwaffe (in this example, the commander of squadrons) to questions of this type respond to the express indignation. In addition, in the German archives found no documents, in which she would be talking about the need for bomb attacks on civilian targets "(Emmerling, vol II, p. IV).


Next Emmerling: "Luftwaffe air attacks on Warsaw, were used to support the action of ground troops. Despite the many painful and unnecessary civilian casualties, we should not forget that, in light of the international law of war (certainly this case) was the reason for the Germans. "

These statements contradict the German orders of 22 September 1939 issued by Wolfrma Freiherr von Richthofen on 22 September 1939 "Luftangriffe der Planung auf Warschau".
Richthofen writes, inter alia, in section "5 Beantrage dringend letzte Möglichkeit von Brand-und groß angelegten Terrorangriffen als Versuch auszunutzen (...) ".

The term "von Brand-und Terrorangriffen" means the fire and terrorist attack done from the air (as I understand it in German).

Germany in those days, were preparing to assault on Warsaw. Before the German artillery and aircraft had to break the spirit of resistance of defenders. Germany smoothly and professionally introduced this plan into action then, especially 24 and 25 September, which was used on a large scale terrorist artillery fire and air.


In particular, the city suffered heavy losses and civilians Sept. 25, 1939 on this day as a result of an all-day air attack of the German city burned on many points, knocked down hundreds of buildings, loss of dead among the civilian population could reach about 10,000 civilians and tens of thousands wounded. Strongly affected the city center - heavily damaged.

Emmerling except that, intentionally or not, introduces the Polish reader confusion, falsifying history. For example, the following passage: '(...) That in the light of international law of war (certainly this case) was the reason the Germans " (Vol II, p. V).

This finding demonstrates the serious gaps in knowledge of the author. Under international law - the Hague Rules of 1923, Article 23 - there is a clearly written that: it is prohibited to air bombardment to terrorize civilian populations, destroying or damaging private property not having a military character, and to inflict wounds niekombatantom.

In Germany September 24-25 just quite consciously, systematically attacked the town with heavy artillery and aviation, as well as the objective of selecting a non-military purposes, including the main focus of these attacks was directed at the center of the city center - or civilians. At that time, Polish troops occupied positions on the outskirts of Warsaw, and the civilians were inside. In this case, it was a will to resist the destruction of the besieged, as the Germans did very well, with minimal losses.

In the case of German attack (including terrorism) in Warsaw is known about losses caused by the siege in September 1939, the loss of civilian deaths, an estimate of around 20-25.000 killed, tens of thousands wounded. The biggest losses among civilians caused the attack on Sept. 25, when it killed up to 10,000 civilians, tens of thousands were injured. The Polish descriptions, memories, documents, and that day is described as the most tragic, most dreadful - hell).

In the case of material loss of the city, they look like this:
"Warsaw was before 1 September 1939 - 18,495 buildings, of which the defense has not damaged any more - in 2645 (14.3 percent). Buildings damaged (from light to severe) was 13,847 (74.86 per cent.) Fully buildings were destroyed in 2007 (10.85 percent). Very serious loss and damage suffered heart of the city...".

There are several hundreds of photos of destroyed civilian buildings such as on Nowy Świat, Świętokrzyska. Distribution of damage in the urban area, especially in the center of Warsaw shows that the Luftwaffe pilots were involved in the deliberate killing of civilians from the air. They had done the orders of their commanders.



I understand that someone may not like much that I, as a Pole, I dare to question the truthfulness and sincerity of the German airmen and documents drawn up by the administration of the Third Reich, to which the person arrived Marius Emmerling.

I can not help it, the facts are such, and not others, and attempt to hide or twist the story by Marius Emmerlinga is amusing, but naive.
Germany, Sept. 25 attack on Warsaw, started the air war on terror. And these are inconvenient facts, carefully avoided by Marius Emmerlinga. But what for? I do not know?


Conclusions

1st The author is entitled to rely on the information on the one hand and write on the basis of the documents, the relationship of one party (eg books Emmerling).


2nd The author is entitled to take the opposite party as the source of fantasies, and making up nonsense, and what they write for stupidity. For example, such views expressed in relation to Emmerling J. B. Cynk, J. Pawlak and other Polish authors.


3rd The author has the right to believe that only he just writes the truth only on the basis of the documents on the one hand, and the other authors fantasize, and their documents, relationships are just nonsense.


4th The author has the right to stretching the facts to their own vision (such as the Luftwaffe over the Polish vol II).

With this approach, the author has no right to claim that someone finds his style as an impartial and objective. There is also the right to expect that sooner or later someone was caught by "the straightening bananas."

Well, and then we meet in this forum and so you are discussing.


Proposes to close this discussion, which carries a total of nowhere. Too bad for her time.

I think the critical point has been discussed in some way (as wanted Denes and John). These are not only my attention to the inaccuracies that I found in the books M. Emmerlinga. I will not be edited his books to him or for him sitting in the archive.


Sincerely,

Miroslaw Wawrzyński

[Brian]

Hi guys

Whenever I contribute to one of these heated discussions I usually stir up more trouble! However, as the author of some 25 books on WWII aviation I believe my contribution may be valid and useful - if only to take the heat out of the insults being exchanged.

Of course, everyone who buys/reads a book, particularly on our chosen subject, has a right to criticise, but surely only constructive criticism is acceptable and useful. Negative criticism is just that - negative.

I totally agree with John, a top researcher and author - it's the author's prerogative as to what he wishes to write about and how he presents his work. It is not his 'duty' to present tabulations of facts and figures if he decides against this style, and he shouldn't be criticised for his decision.

When I published 'Spitfires over Israel', the main criticism I received came from a prominent American/Jewish author, who accused me of giving the Arab countries too much coverage!! He didn't want to accept that I was trying to maintain a 'middle-of-the-road' stance and provide a balanced view of events as seen by a non-Jewish writer, even though I had a Jewish co-author.

When I wrote 'Spitfires over Sicily' I was criticised by another prominent American author, who complained that my book lacked credibilty as I hadn't included USAAF involvment. He wasn't impressed when I advised him that the title of my book gave a clue to the substance! I hadn't intended to write about the invasion of Sicily (Operation Husky) but just about the involvment of Malta's Spitfires in the invasion.

And when I wrote 'Buffaloes over Singapore' I received a discouraging review from yet a third American author, who implied the book was full of first-hand accounts (ie accounts of pilots who actually did the flying and fighting) which somehow degraded the account provided by me! In my opinion, one brief sentence from someone involved is worth far more than anything I can write!

But I'm fairly thick-skinned and providing I can convince a publisher that I have a good proposition, I won't be swayed by the few adverse comments I have received.

So I would say to those involved in this heated exchange, the author will write what he believes to be correct, and if the reader is not happy with that, go out and write your own 'version' of history.

Cheers
Brian

[Marius]

Mister Mirek Wawrzynski,
I cannot answer to all the nonsenses you wrote. Just two short examples why you are completely wrong.

1.

    These statements contradict the German orders of 22 September 1939 issued by Wolfrma Freiherr von Richthofen on 22 September 1939 "Luftangriffe der Planung auf Warschau".
 Richthofen writes, inter alia, in section "5 Beantrage dringend letzte Möglichkeit von Brand-und groß angelegten Terrorangriffen als Versuch auszunutzen (...) ".
  
 The term "von Brand-und Terrorangriffen" means the fire and terrorist attack done from the air (as I understand it in German).

You see in the sentence "Brand- und Terrorangriff" only. Much more important is the word "beantrage". This means "I propose".
I wrote in "Kampfflieger" (page VII) that the question of terror attacks was discussed, but wasn`t realized. At the same page (VII) you will find a project of an order (Weisung) to destroy Warsaw on the 11.9.1939. It wasn`t realized.

2.
Even if 100 Polish historians would write the attacks on Warsaw were terror bombings, they all would be wrong.

Under international law - the Hague Rules of 1923, Article 23 - there is a clearly written that: it is prohibited to air bombardment to terrorize civilian populations, destroying or damaging private property not having a military character, and to inflict wounds niekombatantom.

Warsaw was not a civilian target because of the military in the town.
By the way the Hague Rules of 1923 were not ratified (adopted). So you must go back to the Hague Rules of 1907, but it makes no difference. You are writing about a military defended place, of course a military target then.

If you will tell us Mr.Emmerling is falsifying anything you have to proof it. Where are the hard facts?

Regards,

[Marius]

By contrast, cited Marius Emmerling evades responsibility to correct, improve those, according to him, completely useless data from work J.B. Cynk (and Cynk took them from the summary reports Lufftwaffe).
 
Picking up a book Marius Emmerlinga notice, that the author in his works he creates his own myths, gives an untruth, and perhaps even deliberately resorts to manipulation of the facts?

The useless data from Cynk... A few examples:
1.
J.B.Cynk wrote on page 390-391: according to German sources the bombing attack on the 17th September 1939 was cancelled, but this is not true.(!!!). Warsaw was strongly bombed in the morning and in the afternoon by Luftflotte 1.

My comment: there was no bombing attack on Warsaw on the 17th. I call this a MYTH.

2.
Something different from "terror bombings". Page 413-417: German aircraft losses. The author means for example on page 416 that 150 of 250 (under 60%) damaged aircraft were wrecked.(!!!)
On page 417 total German losses in accidents were 25% of 240 aircraft.(???)

My comment: all these figures are pure fantasy without any documentary evidence.

Hope this helps.
Regards,