Erich Hartmann - how did his comrades regard him?

[drgondog]

Why fight a lost cause though? You have referred to 'saving what was left of Germany', surely to carry on fighting was ultimately self destructive?
Or,was it a refusal to accept the inevitable?
As we weren't there maybe we'll never know for sure.

Then we reflect on so many historical turnarounds when the odds were hopelsss ranging from Spartans to the US War for Independence from Britain to frozen Chosin, etc

 

[parsifal]

Following on from my Post 248 I have attached a table based on varleys Graphs, which gives the monthly sorties, losses and monthly loss rates (losses/sorties x 100). I have provided yearly subtotals, and a final wartime number.

For the record, my reading of varleys tables gives a total sotie rate of 387300, total losses of 10280 and a loss percentage of 2.65%

I would almost categorically state that Varleys graphs are for total operational losses, not just aircraft missing. I would say further that he may even have included aircraft grounded then subsequaently scrapped, so his figures appear to be a total loss figure for operational sorties.

 

[parsifal]

Why fight a lost cause though? You have referred to 'saving what was left of Germany', surely to carry on fighting was ultimately self destructive?
Or,was it a refusal to accept the inevitable?
As we weren't there maybe we'll never know for sure.

I dont agree with the basic premise here. I think most lower and middle ranked officers were still ardent disciples of hitler. though they could see their formations being overwhelmed, none could know that this was happening in all sectors. many believed that hitler was preparing reserves for a massive counterstrike. others believed that terror weapons would turn the tide. Others, more logically believed that hitler would not allow Russian hordes to rape and pillage the fatherland. They fought on desperately, believing hitler would negotiate peace, or somehow achieve victory. perhaps the belief of total victory was gone, but most still believed in the nazi star. Belief in hitler was deep seated and almost unshakeable until the very end.

The fear of unconditional surrender also motivated many to fight on, hoping that something would change.

The high command knew much better, but even they deluded themselves into believeing that they could fight a war of attrition that would somehow demoralise their enemies, and that Hitler would be able to break up the grand alliance ranged against him and make separate peace with one or more of germany's enemies. Throughout germany there was an air of complete detached unreality as to the attitude the world had taken towards them (which was that germany had to be exorcised of its warlike, aggressive, murderous, untrustworthy ways) did not sink in.

It was not so much a refusal to accept the inevitable, as continuing to beleieve the lies put out by Hitler. most still believed in him until the very end. a few continued to do so even after the surrender

 

[stona]

You'd fight on facing retribution from the East,the fear of which was much encouraged in nazi propaganda,and the Morgenthau plan from the West.
It seemed that losing the war meant that Germany would cease to exist.
For the ardent nazi,life without Hitler and national socialism was inconceivable. The fate of the Goebbel's family was by no means unique,just the highest profile.
The policies of the allies helped Hitler achieve his "Gotterdammerung".
Cheers
Steve

 

[Readie]

I dont agree with the basic premise here. I think most lower and middle ranked officers were still ardent disciples of hitler. though they could see their formations being overwhelmed, none could know that this was happening in all sectors. many believed that hitler was preparing reserves for a massive counterstrike. others believed that terror weapons would turn the tide. Others, more logically believed that hitler would not allow Russian hordes to rape and pillage the fatherland. They fought on desperately, believing hitler would negotiate peace, or somehow achieve victory. perhaps the belief of total victory was gone, but most still believed in the nazi star. Belief in hitler was deep seated and almost unshakeable until the very end.

The fear of unconditional surrender also motivated many to fight on, hoping that something would change.

The high command knew much better, but even they deluded themselves into believeing that they could fight a war of attrition that would somehow demoralise their enemies, and that Hitler would be able to break up the grand alliance ranged against him and make separate peace with one or more of germany's enemies. Throughout germany there was an air of complete detached unreality as to the attitude the world had taken towards them (which was that germany had to be exorcised of its warlike, aggressive, murderous, untrustworthy ways) did not sink in.

It was not so much a refusal to accept the inevitable, as continuing to beleieve the lies put out by Hitler. most still believed in him until the very end. a few continued to do so even after the surrender

Not much to argue with there. as ever you succinctly sum things up.
Maybe the higher people in the Nazi party machine knew that defeat would expose them for what they truly were.
I have been reading my Fathers war diary, he was a POW in Germany in 1944 and he comments that as the 'end' became obvious even to the lowly POW guards, they seemed almost pleased to be POW's themselves, especially as the US Troops arrived before the Russians. A remark was made about 'getting fed now'.
No blind faith in Hitler, just a very human concern to somehow survive it all.
Cheers
John

 

[Readie]

Then we reflect on so many historical turnarounds when the odds were hopelsss ranging from Spartans to the US War for Independence from Britain to frozen Chosin, etc

A bit off topic, but I'll answer your point.

Absolutely. History records many examples of this.
The difference between a languid and benevolent empire like the British one, and a brutish one like the Nazi's dreamt of is that we encouraged and developed the countries we arrived in. More importantly, when the time was right we gave independence and protection to these fledgling nations.
Cheers
John

 

[stona]

benevolent empire like the British one, and a brutish one like the Nazi's dreamt of is that we encouraged and developed the countries we arrived in. More importantly, when the time was right we gave independence and protection to these fledgling nations.
Cheers
John

You are kidding right. There was nothing benevolent about the British Empire if you were on the wrong side of it,unless you fancy being strapped to a cannon and blown to bits.
For "encourage and develop" you could easily substitute exploit. A Jamaican slave cutting sugar cane on an 18th century plantation would struggle to see how he was being encouraged and developed by his benevolent masters.
This is not the place or forum to discuss this as it is inevitably a political debate but I couldn't just leave a contentious post like yours,even if trolling,to go unchallenged.
I'm saying no more.
Steve

 

[Tante Ju]

Why fight a lost cause though? You have referred to 'saving what was left of Germany', surely to carry on fighting was ultimately self destructive?
Or,was it a refusal to accept the inevitable?
As we weren't there maybe we'll never know for sure.

Because choice was made between unconditional surrender, and unconditional surrender. German already knew what it means to have unconditional surrender from 1918.. this rooted deep in nation pschycology, and strongen by propganda also. Allied plans for post war Germany was known - divided mini states, without any industry etc. These were serious plans, only changed after ware.

So there was really no choice given... Szun Ce already thousends year ago: always let enemy seeming way to escape - otherwise he fights till death, having nothing to loose. and a desperate enemy, a dangerous enemy! And perhaps hope in negotiated peace. After all - no Allied or Soviet boots on German soil until March 1945.. I do not believe even top nazis believed in "final victory" - propaganda slogan or not - but they probably believed they can make cost too high and negotiate peace.

 

[parsifal]

I should also say that these higher considerations of national survival are not the major reasons why the common soldier or airman fights, even when losing. The nationalistic motivations, the thought of king and country are motivations to join in the first place. Once you are in battle however, its questions of unit cohesion and survival that are the primary motivations. A man is motivated by his will to survive, and his loyalties to the unit that he is attached to. This is why there is all that hype about unit elitism and sybolism....they are symbols to make you feel you are special, and that you must fight at all costs. often the two issues, survival and unit loyalty, go hand in hand together. You want to survive, and you dont want to let your mates down, but often your own personal survival is linked to the units survival. How do you maximise the units survival....you keep fighting as effectively as you can. Only in the quieter moments of reflection might you consider these higher issues. If the higher issues like national survival become patently unsustainable....like the country is literally being overrun might you consider saying to yourself "this is ridiculous, why am i fighting....the country, my mates, my family, and myself would be better off if I stopped fighting!", which is what most Germans did at the finish

I would correct one historical innaccuracy raised in the preceding discourse on this issue. Germany did not unconditionally surrender at the end of the 1st world war. She laid down her arms, after a negotiated peace. this led directly to a resurgence of german militarism and the rise of the Nazi Party....the belief that germany had been defeated by a jewish led 5th column that had stabbed her in the back and that victory could have been achieved but was denied by international conspiracy along racial lines. Total fabrication, and a direct reason why, the second time around, the allies determined that there would be no mistake, no negotiated settlement, no chance for more lies to be generaratewd within Germany itself about robbed opportunities. this time there would be no mistaking who won and who lost, this time the fight would be taken right into the heart of the reich itself.

Thank the lord for the unconditional surrender terms. It changed Europe, and it changed Germany forever. The world is rid of one less problem because of it.

 

[drgondog]

A bit off topic, but I'll answer your point.

Absolutely. History records many examples of this.
The difference between a languid and benevolent empire like the British one, and a brutish one like the Nazi's dreamt of is that we encouraged and developed the countries we arrived in. More importantly, when the time was right we gave independence and protection to these fledgling nations.
Cheers
John

John - in no way am I disparaging the Empire - but King George did not 'give us' anything, and the Empire retained a short memory of the woes of 3000 mile logistical chain in 1812-1814? Nor do I recall much in the way of protection to our 'fledgling nation' - lol

Maybe we were the poster child for the inevitable and Canada was one of the first beneficiaries of the 'new policy'?

Regards,

Bill

 

[Readie]

You are kidding right. There was nothing benevolent about the British Empire if you were on the wrong side of it,unless you fancy being strapped to a cannon and blown to bits.
For "encourage and develop" you could easily substitute exploit. A Jamaican slave cutting sugar cane on an 18th century plantation would struggle to see how he was being encouraged and developed by his benevolent masters.
This is not the place or forum to discuss this as it is inevitably a political debate but I couldn't just leave a contentious post like yours,even if trolling,to go unchallenged.
I'm saying no more.
Steve

Steve,
I was generalising in order to answer a point made, agreed to be way off topic.
I'm not interested in any political debate on this forum and its not 'trolling' whatever that is supposed to be...
Cheers
John

 

[Readie]

John - in no way am I disparaging the Empire - but King George did not 'give us' anything, and the Empire retained a short memory of the woes of 3000 mile logistical chain in 1812-1814? Nor do I recall much in the way of protection to our 'fledgling nation' - lol

Maybe we were the poster child for the inevitable and Canada was one of the first beneficiaries of the 'new policy'?

Regards,

Bill

Well said Bill.
Mistakes were made of course but, the legacy of the British empire is one of benefit.
Regards
John

 

[Readie]

Thank the lord for the unconditional surrender terms. It changed Europe, and it changed Germany forever. The world is rid of one less problem because of it.

Spot on Michael, We are all only here because of that.

Regards
John

 

[Readie]

Better get back to the planes chaps before we upset the moderators.
Regards
John

 

[parsifal]

John - in no way am I disparaging the Empire - but King George did not 'give us' anything, and the Empire retained a short memory of the woes of 3000 mile logistical chain in 1812-1814? Nor do I recall much in the way of protection to our 'fledgling nation' - lol

Maybe we were the poster child for the inevitable and Canada was one of the first beneficiaries of the 'new policy'?

Regards,

Bill

The relationship between the United States and Britain is a peculiar love hate relationship if ever there was one. Most of your liberal democratic institution have roots in the earlier, less well developed democratic institution of britain, except you guys improved and refined the model. Your legal system is based on British legal principals rather than European....a man is presumed innocent and must be proven guilty, whereas in Europe, if you stand accused, you are guilty until proven inncent. Your ideas on propriety and acceptable behaviour, concepts of right and wrong are based on Anglo-Saxon principals, rather than Gallic, Hispanic or Germanic principals. The fact that the british attempted to rob you blind and attempted to deny you liberty is a bit of a problem, and one that you had to fight for.

Britains empire was for British power and prestige, and for non-whites exploitive. Thats no different to the US attitude to non-whites. Its cause for great conflict in our western societies to this day. But as the 19th century wore on, the British white mans burden, at least to the other white dominated dominions changed perceptably from parent child relationship, to a venerated parent, young adult relationship for the young dominions. It was less harmonious for the non-white possessions like India, but in my opinion still more benevolent than the other European nations. Britain was just slightly more mature in her dealings with native populations than the other colonial powers, but not by much, and not because of any superior intellect or motivation.....they were just a bit more clever at keeping the natives passive for longer i guess.

 

[Ratsel]

parsifal, whats that chart for? allies?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Get back on topic.

If the thread has run its course, I will close it.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Before you lot continue to play the race card (and quite what all this has to do with Eric Hartmann is beyond me,) you would do well to remember that it was the Royal Navy who led the way in putting an end to white slavery, by non-white nations, in the Mediterranean.
Edgar
P.S. Sorry, wrote this while the boss was trying to pull this back on course. To drag it right back, I suspect that, as with other top men in their profession, some were quite happy with them, while others loathed them. Talk to those who knew Bader, and you'll find a 50/50 split, even Johnny Johnson has his detractors.

 

[parsifal]

parsifal, whats that chart for? allies?

It shows British Bomber losses according to Varley, and confirms the loss rate is 2.7% or thereabouts.

Trying to get back on topic, I believe hartmanns motivation wa consistent with what I put in the posts about motivation. He believed in his country, but even when faced with hopeless situations continued to fight. he showed outstanding and noteworthy concern for the welfare of his comrades. Even though he did not much believe in the hype of the nazis I believe he still believed in their competency as the national government, ergo, it motivated him to continue fighting because he believed, or at least hoped, they would find a way out of the corner that germany had been forced into.

 

[parsifal]

Before you lot continue to play the race card (and quite what all this has to do with Eric Hartmann is beyond me,) you would do well to remember that it was the Royal Navy who led the way in putting an end to white slavery, by non-white nations, in the Mediterranean.
Edgar
P.S. Sorry, wrote this while the boss was trying to pull this back on course. To drag it right back, I suspect that, as with other top men in their profession, some were quite happy with them, while others loathed them. Talk to those who knew Bader, and you'll find a 50/50 split, even Johnny Johnson has his detractors.

I agree, this is completely off the rails, partly my bad, lets get back on topic