With the thousands of incidents that occurred on the Russian front I would see one contradiction only as a
red flag.
A look at German fighter Ace kill claims (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter RCAFson
- Start date
red flag.
there is a saying in my kitchen.
arguing with the head chef is like rolling in muck with a pig !
eventually you realise the pig likes it ......
arguing with the head chef is like rolling in muck with a pig !
eventually you realise the pig likes it ......
Last edited:
Here we go again…
the next post like those 2 above gets this shut down.
i am quite bored of this going around and around and around !
i am quite bored of this going around and around and around !
I really don't think there's a problem. He posted a reaction image and then I responded with a reaction image. I mean, you could argue that his reaction image was causing trouble since he was making a statement about me, but it ain't a big deal.
Lets not turn this thread into one filled with cartoons, rather lets fill it with facts a documents from all sides.
One party says the Soviet records can be trusted to show over claiming, another party say it can not.
To the other party I could suggest the following: Hartmann also fought against the Americans. Please provide American documents showing he did not over claim when he fought against them, or show documents that his recollections were accurate. This should by-pass what you consider to be untrustable documentation.
Here are 2 events:
1) May 8th 1945 when according to Harmtann P-51s and Yaks tangled over Brno. Which American unit was this?
2) As a lot of the stories still around stem from the book The Blond Knight of Germany, please show which 4 P-51s were claimed by him on 24 June 1944 over Romania using American records?
One party says the Soviet records can be trusted to show over claiming, another party say it can not.
To the other party I could suggest the following: Hartmann also fought against the Americans. Please provide American documents showing he did not over claim when he fought against them, or show documents that his recollections were accurate. This should by-pass what you consider to be untrustable documentation.
Here are 2 events:
1) May 8th 1945 when according to Harmtann P-51s and Yaks tangled over Brno. Which American unit was this?
2) As a lot of the stories still around stem from the book The Blond Knight of Germany, please show which 4 P-51s were claimed by him on 24 June 1944 over Romania using American records?
exactly, thank you
Thanks. Let me note that my original comment was about one particular article and not about the whole topic of overclaiming.
Many original Soviet wartime records were thorough. Many were not thorough. Many were falsified by their creators, at different levels of command. Many contained inaccuracies, errors, misprints, typos, etc.
Many documents has disappeared. Many that are in the archives today are not the originals but copies that were made after the war.
That doesn't mean that every Soviet document should be mistrusted. But what about normal prudence and common sense?
There is no need to either demonise or idolise the Soviet wartime recording system. It was what it was - the product of the larger - socio-political system, of the general ideology and of the existing set of (written and unwritten) norms. And of the "famous" Party Line.
I have "a feeling" that some modern researchers do not take into the account the specifics of the totalitarian systems. Maybe I'm wrong.
If you mean the censoring of a certain types of records, for example, some pilot books or some combat journals - there is always a room for discussion. Such discussions can be interesting or boring, amateur or professional, mostly of a "Groundhog" type, mostly entertaining. I remember old debates, sometimes rather furious, in the Russian forums about Pokryshkin's claims. Even family members were involved.
If you mean the Soviet archives in general... sorry but that means to completely disregard the whole history of the USSR, the work of GPU/NKVD/MGB/KGB, GlavPUR, various ideological bodies, hundreds thousands political officers, etc. Censoring was the industry.
Believe or not, but millions of people were erased. Soviet official statistics in pre WWII period was in the disarray because the leadership didn't want recognise the human toll of the Great Famine of early 1930s.
And as for the individuals with names and photos, articles in studybooks and newspapers, portraits on the streets - there were hundreds and thousands. Erased, ceased to exist, forgotten - and rediscovered again later, some after the XX Party Congress (1956), others during Perestroika.
Last edited:
And the winner is..............
When we looked at the Soviet losses over Hungary, we found 1 contradiction (p.119): a date difference between a loss when looking at the official loss record and the achievement card of a pilot. We went with the loss report date. This is openly and explicitly described in Verified Victories.
As someone who has looked through these records several times, it is quasi-amusing to me when they are described as filled with inaccuracies or manipulation. These comments only let me know who has/who has not viewed the documents.
Even more so interesting to me is that those who publish historical books on the Eastern front and do their own research do not come to these dismissive conclusions.
Now back to claiming, can the dismissive party show documentation for the events put forth in post #227 using non-Soviet material? Putting something concrete on the table goes a lot further than theorizing.
As someone who has looked through these records several times, it is quasi-amusing to me when they are described as filled with inaccuracies or manipulation. These comments only let me know who has/who has not viewed the documents.
Even more so interesting to me is that those who publish historical books on the Eastern front and do their own research do not come to these dismissive conclusions.
Now back to claiming, can the dismissive party show documentation for the events put forth in post #227 using non-Soviet material? Putting something concrete on the table goes a lot further than theorizing.
Exactly
bada
Airman 1st Class
Nice discussion, different points of view, different approaches and nothing wrong about it, but what strikes me is the feel of this being a witch-hunt on Hartmann...
To put some oil on the fire:
can we have the same discussion about the raf for example and let's remove some English victories from the records:
To put some oil on the fire:
can we have the same discussion about the raf for example and let's remove some English victories from the records:
Attachments
If we use the logic that the records are censored, why not assume German records are censored too?
They used censorship and propaganda so we could say that Hartmann was merely a tool for propaganda and that all his victories were made up by the German government in order to create a national hero.
Obviously that's not true, which is why using the idea the Soviet records are censored is too far fetched.
L Luft.4 has read an incredible number of Soviet documents and while I have read a lot myself, it's nowhere near the same as him.
So I agree when he says
They used censorship and propaganda so we could say that Hartmann was merely a tool for propaganda and that all his victories were made up by the German government in order to create a national hero.
Obviously that's not true, which is why using the idea the Soviet records are censored is too far fetched.
L Luft.4 has read an incredible number of Soviet documents and while I have read a lot myself, it's nowhere near the same as him.
So I agree when he says
It feels like people who discredit the documents are people who haven't seen them.
Good post
B
bada , interesting that once again destruction is the criteria!
And it is the correct criteria for verifying claims. HS-73 did this, HS-85 did this, we do this in modern conflicts as well just like we did back in WW2 and Verified Victories did this along with Drei "Falken" der II./JG52 auf der Krim im Luftkampf um die Kertsch-Halbinsel 1943-1944 and Theo Boiten's NachtJagd series and many many others. To assess the validity of claims, you have to strive to get the most precise information on enemy losses.
And it is the correct criteria for verifying claims. HS-73 did this, HS-85 did this, we do this in modern conflicts as well just like we did back in WW2 and Verified Victories did this along with Drei "Falken" der II./JG52 auf der Krim im Luftkampf um die Kertsch-Halbinsel 1943-1944 and Theo Boiten's NachtJagd series and many many others. To assess the validity of claims, you have to strive to get the most precise information on enemy losses.
bada
Airman 1st Class
And that's the point we disagree, as the most claims were made in good faith... an aircraft leaving combat smoking like a Trabant, with a fire, with parts beaking away was considered a victory, it doesn't mean the plane (and pilot) was lost. But the pilot making the claim mostly got his victory from the Command.
If we go by the definition that each victory is an enemy plane lost, then, all the victory lists , from whatever side, are simply not valid and the whole history needs to be rewritten.
How we see it, is based on the personal approach to the definition of "victory". And from what i see in this this thread here, is persons having different approaches to the definition, arguing and trying to convince others, that their approach is the best.
There are several types of lies: the normal lies, the government talk and statistics...and i know statistics rather well, and their end result depends how you turn them...how you approach them.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Just watched a video by the "Fat Electrician" on Major Bong. Granted he is more jingoistic entertainment than scholarly fact, but he brings up the possibility that Major Bong deliberately under claimed.
HS-73, HS-85, 8th USAF summary, RLM regulations, the document posted by Bada and all the others I referenced in past posts state destruction as their criteria. It has to be destruction.
One can use their personal opinions for setting the threshold, or they can opt to use original materials to find the real threshold.
HS-73, p.3 "the enemy craft must have been destroyed in order for a victory to be scored. Enemy craft probably destroyed, possibly destroyed, or merely damaged are not counted".
Destruction is the threshold for a victory. This is exactly why it is very difficult to verify a victory and why so much information is required to do so (as one example we have only 246 claims in Verified Victories, and this book is 215 pages long).
Yes, this does mean that victory totals are FAR from being set in stone, even 80+ years after the fact. But you have to remember that victory verification goes both ways: we were able to verify claims for pilots which they did not have in their 'official' total but mentioned in their memoirs (ex Liftpert's Bf 109 in Feb 1945).
One approach is personal opinion, the other is using actual documentation. The latter is being used by actual historians including the many referenced in previous posts.
A quote from the late Nachtjad historian Emil Nonnenmacher: "Claims should be regarded as no more than that. Claims are not shoot-downs. To regard them as such is madness".
One can use their personal opinions for setting the threshold, or they can opt to use original materials to find the real threshold.
HS-73, p.3 "the enemy craft must have been destroyed in order for a victory to be scored. Enemy craft probably destroyed, possibly destroyed, or merely damaged are not counted".
Destruction is the threshold for a victory. This is exactly why it is very difficult to verify a victory and why so much information is required to do so (as one example we have only 246 claims in Verified Victories, and this book is 215 pages long).
Yes, this does mean that victory totals are FAR from being set in stone, even 80+ years after the fact. But you have to remember that victory verification goes both ways: we were able to verify claims for pilots which they did not have in their 'official' total but mentioned in their memoirs (ex Liftpert's Bf 109 in Feb 1945).
One approach is personal opinion, the other is using actual documentation. The latter is being used by actual historians including the many referenced in previous posts.
A quote from the late Nachtjad historian Emil Nonnenmacher: "Claims should be regarded as no more than that. Claims are not shoot-downs. To regard them as such is madness".
