The Eagles Over Europe Project

[John Vasco]

The French (sic) campaign neglected or ignored by historians?

Have you not seen Peter Cornwell's work on that period?

[rof120]

Oh yes. It was released 2008, only 68 years after the fighting (almost all those who had been involved in it had died long ago). Not Peter Cornwell's fault - he did a very commendable job and his book is very good and very useful.

I think since 1940 about 37,000,000 books were published on the Battle of Britain, which admittedly is an important and interesting subject too, not to mention millions of books on other aerial campaigns.

Sorry John but I have an important business to attend in the next few days. Please don't wait for me to keep commenting on this.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by rof120

1. Oh yes. It was released 2008, only 68 years after the fighting (almost all those who had been involved in it had died long ago). Not Peter Cornwell's fault - he did a very commendable job and his book is very good and very useful.

2. I think since 1940 about 37,000,000 books were published on the Battle of Britain, which admittedly is an important and interesting subject too, not to mention millions of books on other aerial campaigns.

3. Sorry John but I have an important business to attend in the next few days. Please don't wait for me to keep commenting on this.

1. And your point is...?


2. Again, and your point is...? Note to self: Got a lot to catch up on those millions of books...


3. I will be interested to see your further comments on points '1' & '2' of your post I have quoted above. I've got all the time in the world...

[Larry deZeng]

See my "personal comments and opinion" Post #341 on page 35 of this thread.

Although I certainly hope Larry H. is not severely ill and recovers soon, I nevertheless feel that my prediction in #341 was spot on.

So, Mr. rof120, your first paragraph in your post of 7th March is perhaps the wildest, most unsubstantiated and totally incorrect comment I have yet to read on this forum since I joined it in 2001. Except for the first sentence, your second paragraph was equally off the mark.

I feel very sad for the numerous people who expended their time and talent on this project in that they will most like never see it completed.

L.

[rof120]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

1. And your point is...?


2. Again, and your point is...? Note to self: Got a lot to catch up on those millions of books...


3. I will be interested to see your further comments on points '1' & '2' of your post I have quoted above. I've got all the time in the world...

- I'll reply as soon as I can. Meantime:

John Vasco :

“The French (sic) campaign neglected or ignored by historians?”

Why not French ? You seem to take exception to this name but this campaign took place mainly in and over France even if some very important German operations took place in the NL and Belgium. It’s just a general habit in history to name campaigns or battles after the place or region where they, or their main part, took place. In the English books I own they often call it the “French” Campaign too. It’s simply logical. If you care to have a look inside a few British books on this subject or on the whole of WW II you’ll notice very quickly.

Besides, Peter Cornwell gave the very book you mentioned the following title: “The Battle of France Then and Now” (according to a tradition by “After the Battle” and himself). No “France (sic)”. In this particular case the title is quite wrong (which doesn’t matter) for the French Campaign (not Battle even if W. Churchill used this phrase) started first on May 10, 1940 with the all-out German offensive. As far as I know historians call the fighting starting on June 5 “The Battle of France” for it took place exclusively on and above French territory (starting along and across the Somme and Aisne rivers). The period from May 10 through June 4 is simply the first phase, or period, of the French Campaign. Both periods together (May 10-June 24) are the French Campaign.

German people call it mostly “der Westfeldzug” (a nice mouthful), the West(ern) Campaign, but often, too, “der Frankreichfeldzug”, as many German books and reviews I own show. “Westfeldzug” is perfectly all right from the German point of view for virtually all the fighting took place in the West (seen from Germany), partly Southwest (the deep French territory). British people could call it “The campaign in the South” for the same geographical reasons but they don’t. How would YOU call it, if not “The French campaign”? I suspect you admire the Luftwaffe, especially their Me 110s, so much that you adopt every German phrase including “The Campaign in the West”. To British people the vast expanses of space in the West of Great Britain are called Atlantic Ocean. By the way, French fighter pilots including Czechs and Poles claimed no less than 56 “sure” victories on Me 110s (248 were engaged in combat) plus about 20 “probable” ones, and FRENCH victories were filtered, checked and officially confirmed or rejected – the latter did happen.

You seem to have a high opinion of P. Cornwell’s book. So do I. If you care to have a look at PC’s own “Introduction” on page 6 you’ll find “the campaign in France” (5th line of text). On page 7 you’ll find “the French Campaign” (6th line). If you disagree with the phrase “French Campaign” you disagree with Peter Cornwell and his TBFTN. Page 7 too, 1st line of 3rd paragraph: “the campaign in France”. Same paragraph, 3 last lines: “… was consulted at the National Archives at Kew, the RAF narrative of the Campaign in France proving an excellent source”… (italics by P. Cornwell). Obviously, accepting “the campaign in France” but not “the French Campaign” would be unserious stubbornness and quibbling and I’m sure you’re not the type to behave like that.

In my first post I mentioned that I immediately warned Larry for the immense quantity of facts and data on the 1940 French Campaign. I think he realized how terribly right I was but only belatedly : he didn’t believe me at first. So the quantity of work to be done by him was much larger than he had bargained for: the Polish campaign, however brave the Poles and fierce the fighting were, was short and aircraft losses relatively few (a few hundred ones). The Battle of Britain had been thoroughly researched long ago, including by his right hand Peter Cornwell, and, like everybody, he strongly underestimated the air fighting during the French Campaign with an actual total of lost aircraft from all countries much higher than in the Battle of Britain (BoB: 2,910 AC from both countries, and a few from Italy, were lost according to the same P. Cornwell) : well over 4,000 AC were lost in the Fr. Camp., and the subject had been hardly researched thoroughly yet, according to his philosophy (and he wanted to collect and publish every possible detail on every loss including all details on crew members). As German people use to say, “das war eine harte Nuss zu knacken” – it was a hard nut to krack.

On page 6 too (bottom of first column) P. Cornwell, who had accepted this task when asked by “After the Battle”, admits to have been “little appreciating the sheer enormity and complexities of the task ahead.” These are more or less my own words when I warned Larry but his project was even much more enormous and complex – probably unrealistic, which is a great pity.

About 10 days ago I emailed my first post in this thread to Larry. He didn’t reply and I think he’ll never do. Clearly he’s very ill for when he was more or less in good health he would reply immediately or at least very quickly.

Crossing fingers for him.

[John Vasco]

rof120,
First of all, I would venture to suggest I know Peter Cornwell better than you.

So, in terms of the title of 'BoFT&N', of course I mentioned it to him and we had a chat and a laugh about it.

The undeniable fact, however, is that not only France was attacked on 10th May 1940. Other countries on mainland Europe were also.

"...I suspect you admire the Luftwaffe, especially their Me 110s, so much that you adopt every German phrase including “The Campaign in the West”..." If you ask anyone who knows me, you will find out that over the decades I have a realistic hard-nosed approach to research. It is grounded in seeking out facts, and the supporting information. And then to present it for public consumption without fear or favour. I take no side whatsoever with regard to research. The last three sentences of the Preface to my book 'Sting of the Luftwaffe' states: "This work seeks neither to glorify what took place, nor to take sides on any issue. It is simply the photographic record of young men. This is their silent story, not mine." Make of it what you will. On a personal note, I am 100% thankful that we survived the onslaught in 1940 (and the lesser onslaught in the following years) and were ultimately victorious in 1945, in concert with other nations.

My interest in the Bf 110 evolved from my first research work on Erprobungsgruppe 210, which unit had predominently Bf 110s. That, and undertaking joint research work on the Bf 110 in 1940 with Peter, led me to the point I am at today. Nothing more complicated than that.

I agree with you re the size of the EoE Project. I warned Larry about it when he visited me in October 2006. I fear for this Project ever reaching complete fruition, as I believe you do also. I e-mailed Larry a couple or more weeks ago and like you, have had no response. I'm with you in hoping for the best for him.

I hope the foregoing explains things in better detail for you.

[rof120]

e: The Eagles Over Europe Project
________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by rof120

1. Oh yes. It was released 2008, only 68 years after the fighting (almost all those who had been involved in it had died long ago). Not Peter Cornwell's fault - he did a very commendable job and his book is very good and very useful.

2. I think since 1940 about 37,000,000 books were published on the Battle of Britain, which admittedly is an important and interesting subject too, not to mention millions of books on other aerial campaigns.

1. And your point is...?

- Is obvious. It’s a great pity that no COMPREHENSIVE story of the aerial part of the Fr. Campaign was written before all the survivors passed away. Obviously it was the French’s responsibility to do the job. I understand the French Defence historical branch (Service historique de la Défense) in the Château at Vincennes (close to East-Paris) published some documents and books. I have to admit that I don’t know the details on these yet. They also made recordings of numerous survivors talking on their experiences. A great big book like Peter Cornwell’s should have been published in France itself decades ago – 1960-70 would have been a good time frame, 1970-80 would have been allright too. 2000 was too late already for those who were aged 20 in 1940 were 80 years old in 2000, 85 if they were 25 in 1940, and many of them were no longer among us.

There are relatively numerous French books on the subject but each book covers only a little part of it, like some excellent monographs on aircraft types published by Éditions Larivière (Docavia series) and by Lela Presse. They contain good summaries of war operations too. As usual all over the world most books are devoted to fighters and fighter units. I feel nobody will ever be able to change the general fascination mostly for fighter aircraft and fighter boys. Let us accept this as a fact of life.

In my eyes there is a special case : both little books published 1941 and 1942 by “Capitaine Accart”, who 1940 was a captain (corresponding a Flight Lieutenant with the RAF) and led a fighter “escadrille” of 12 fighters, of which a maximum of 9 flew at the same time (more or less corresponding an RAF fighter squadron with 16/12 AC). His escadrille was the by very far top-scoring one among 52 others with twice as many victories as the next ranking unit (n° 2) and he was one of the top-scoring Allied fighter pilots although he was very seriously wounded on 1 June 1940 and spent the rest of the campaign in hospital (23 days, half the total time). He was an extremely clever, brave, generous and modest man. He very nearly was killed twice by rear-gunners of German bombers or recce AC. The 2nd time he actually received a machine-gun bullet, fired at short range, exactly between his eyes. He survived by the skin of his teeth to become a very high-ranking 4-star general (French star system with 2-5 stars) in the 1960s and 1970s with the French Air Force, NATO etc. He never received his 5th star because he disagreed with de Gaulle (then the French President) on a strategic matter. He was one of very few French men having said “No” to de Gaulle directly into his face. He left the AF and retired.

In his first booklet, “Chasseurs du ciel” (Hunters of the Sky, 1941) he reported mainly his personal part and his unit’s part of the fighting. The second booklet, “On s’est battu dans le ciel” (There was Fighting in the Sky), gives general explanations on the air war, especially combat by fighters, its rules and possibilities and what was not possible (roughly: giving every single French infantryman (there were well over one million of these) his very own, personal fighter aircraft and pilot to protect him 24 hours a day against the naughty Stukas – the bitter irony is mine not his). His explanations on tactics and strategy are “smack on target” and mostly still valid today. This is an excellent fundamental text on aerial warfare. In both booklets some inaccuracies are the result of inevitable poor information at the time on German AC etc. – these matters were still hush-hush. Everybody who wants to research the 1940 French Campaign should read, among other things, this remarkable booklet, sold on the Internet for about 5 euros.

2. Again, and your point is...? Note to self: Got a lot to catch up on those millions of books...

My point is obvious again. It is perfectly all right that so many books were, and will be, published on the Battle of Britain (many are good to excellent – not all of them), quite a few in foreign languages including many in French or in German. I feel French authors writing on the BoB ought to write on the Fr. Campaign instead – but they couldn’t use those millions of books already published in English on the BoB… They often betray that they just copied some English sources, mostly a few books (or only one) when they use the English word “Mark” for German hardware, like “Panzer Mark II” (or Mark III, IV). You’ll never find “Mark” in this meaning in a German text, except possibly about English or American hardware. German people write simply “Panzer I, II, III, IV” and so on. One of those misguided, phoney French “historians”, who is very famous and very successful, writes mostly nonsense and wants us to believe that RAF Bomber Command used Mosquitoes and Lancasters 1940. This is just a small sample.

The aerial part of the French Campaign was in no way a sideshow, as almost everybody in the world believes. The total losses of aircraft from all waring parties were higher by more than 1,000 than in the Battle of Britain but in less than half the time (35 days of actual fighting in the 46 days of the campaign as compared to 83 days from July 10 through September 30, October not being really part of the actual BoB). In the French Campaign Germany lost 1,460 aircraft (according to P. Cornwell’s figures), which is about the same figure as in the BoB but in half the time at most, so the fighting was much harder and much more bitter for the Germans over France than over GB.

The point? It’s a shame that no comprehensive book tells this story, at least the French part of it, which quite naturally was much larger (except possibly for British bombers) and above all much longer (totalling the famous 46 days) than the British part (very little after the end of “Dunkirk”-Operation Dynamo on June 3).

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Del Davis

Another 8 months have passed and still there is nothing published. Can we expect to see something in 2019?

Three more months and not a word...

I know someone who has been bounced off another forum for daring to question the progress of the EOE Project.

In fact, I know of TWO. No names, no pack drill, though...

Don't any of you dare say it will never come to fruition...

[ouidjat]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

I know someone who has been bounced off another forum for daring to question the progress of the EOE Project.
In fact, I know of TWO. ...

Nooooo, really ?

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by ouidjat

Nooooo, really ?

Yeeeeessss. Really.

I kid thee not!