Most written popular history tends to be synthesis work using existing secondary sources rather than original research using primary source material. This makes it very easy for populist historians to regurgitate earlier assumption gleaned from these secondary sources, when perhaps the source material wasn’t available, as fact. There is also the “Liberty Valance” effect whereby if the truth is less interesting than the legend, they print the legend. Lastly you have to take into account what the viewpoint of the Historian is, because they select the facts to support their argument. I suppose the only way around this is to read extensively around the subject and form your own opinions.
-
-
Agree Tim.Most of the history I have gleaned is from autobiographies plus biographers (perhaps in some cases a bit snowy).
Love the autobiographies as they give a human point of view and written in the most near the event.Comment
-
You are right Tim.
In the case of Goering there was a concerted post war campaign to portray him as some kind of incompetent buffoon, encouraged in no small part by certain German survivors to cover up their own shortcomings.
Goering was, of course, a highly decorated WW1 pilot and consummate politician; President of the Reichstag, The real number two to Hitler, not only commanding the Luftwaffe but also in charge of the German economy, etc., etc. He was also one of the most rabid of the Nazis.
I want to be clear that I am no fan of Goering or anything he did or stood for, quite the reverse, but many of his post war portrayals do a disservice to history. Just because we don't like someone or what they stood for does not mean we should ignore them or shout them down. That is not a good way to learn the lessons of history.
At Nuremberg, Goering was the only Nazi leader to make an intelligent defence. Of course, he denied or 'justified' everything he had done, what else could he do? He did, however, make coherent arguments and raise questions about the entire process which are still discussed today. None of that makes him any less the disgusting human being he really was, but we should not ignore it.
The cannon armament question is just a case of poor research many years ago. The CEARs describing the armament of downed Bf 109s have been available for years. The German production figures, clearly showing E-1s leaving factories until the end of August have also been available. Many of the delivery figures are available, as are the recollections of men like Steinhilper which I quoted.
There was a documentary made many years ago in which no lesser luminaries than Douglas Bader and Bob Stanford-Tuck discuss the relative merits of the Spitfire and Bf 109. It's been years since I watched it, but, playing with Airfix 1/24 models they demonstrate the tactics used by the two sides. At one point Bader comments on the armament, saying that the Bf 109 had particularly powerful armament, a cannon firing through the spinner. That armament was introduced with the F series (which had just one 20mm motor cannon and two MG17 machine guns, even the Germans thought that it was under armed! A very few pre-production Bf 109 Fs may have made it into the last days of the BoB. The problem is, that when a man like Bader says something like that the vast majority of the audience, who know next to nothing about Luftwaffe aircraft (why would they?) take him at his word. Bader's faulty memory becomes the new truth.Comment
-
A couple of thoughts on this. It seems only human nature to exaggerate the armament of the opposition, thereby a)having a good excuse for being shot down (if you lost), and b)enhancing your own skill and daring (if you won! Also when Bader, Gibson, Brickhill et al were writing soon after the events, they didn't necessarily have access to the amount of data (e.g. Luftwaffe records) that more modern researchers have at their disposal but had to rely on the claims made at the time. They were also subject to the Official Secrets Act which constrained what they could write, very obvious in Gibson's Enemy Coast Ahead.
PeteComment
-
I honestly believe that Bader was simply correctly remembering the centreline armament of the Bf 109 F, which was a subject of considerable interest and debate among Allied pilots, and transposing it to the BoB period of a few months earlier. When a Bf 109 F was inadvertently delivered to us in July '41, by Rolf Pingel, Bader took a great interest in it. I have copies of some of his correspondence about it, essentially saying that there was no point in allowing Farnborough have it for months making their assessment, he or one of the other Wing Commanders Flying could fly it for an hour and work out everything they needed to know! It's typical Bader, he certainly didn't lack self confidence.
Human memory is terribly fallible. I don't for one second think that Bader was being dishonest or disingenuous. He was just making a mistake recalling events which had happened thirty odd years earlier. That his honest mistake is then taken as 'proof' of something that didn't happen is hardly his fault.
When I see things like this I always ask myself how sure I am of my own memories from thirty or forty years ago :smiling3:Comment
-
Not exactly on topic, but here you go. This is Bader's initial letter to 11 Group about the Bf 109 F.
Comment
-
I wonder if that memo from Bader is suggesting that he be the one to test the 109F?
PeteComment
-
Definitely.
He says that 'an experienced pilot' could acquire the relevant information quite quickly and then suggests that Wing Commanders Flying should be given the opportunity to fly the 'Friederich' just above where he signs the letter 'D R S Bader Wing Commander Flying'.
Any Wing Commander Flying was necessarily and experienced pilot.
As far as I know he never did fly Pingel's Friederich, which remained in the hands of the RAE test pilots until it crashed and was destroyed.
Comment
-
Determined yes. But my father met Bader on a few occasions after the war and said he was a down right snob who did not like anyone who wasn't a pilot or bowing down in front of him in his presence. And this was confirmed by a few other people who were groundcrew and pilots (one very famous pilot) i met at a 26 Sqn reunion some years backComment
-
They were also both heroes of mine, until I read more about them. Similar to Alan’s comments about Bader, I’ve heard several stories about Gibson, told at the History festival by aircrew that served with him. Very telling when the last dambuster veteran invariably referred to him as “the arch unwedded” or simply Gibson. When asked what he was like he said “I don’t know, I was only a sergeant so he never knew I existed.....
Leonard Cheshire, on the other hand, has always been referred to in a positive light.Comment
Comment