Erich Hartmann - how did his comrades regard him?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


My undestanding is that for german flyers the records are incomplete, whereas for other nationaities the records are more complete. Perhaps unfairly, this will always push German claims into an area of doubt and close examination.....
 
A case of giving away Victories


Walter "Graf Punski" Krupinski (Hartmann was his wingman) final score of 197 could have been much higher, but he never claimed a probable victory or argued about a kill, always giving the victory to the other man. His chivalrous attitude and Prussian birth earned him the nickname "Graf (Count) Punski", a name that still lingers in the reunion halls and among his friends.
 
I dont understand all this talk about chivalry. Chivalry was a luxury that did not exist or shou7ld not exist during the war. Whilst an opponent remained unsurrendered, he was a target regardless of his ability to resist.

None of the protagnonists of the war could afford their service people the luxury of chivalry. The war was a war without mercy, brought about by Nazi aggression

As far as any german servicemen claiming to be chivalrous in some special way, I will never accept that. The only ones that deserve that title are the ones that rebelled against hitler, and they were mostly killed by the Nazis. The others, whilst they remained true to the oath of allegiance to hitler, are denied all rights of respect and honour, until they surrendered, at which time they were absolved of that stain against their name and could recommence to rebuild their shattered reputations as well as tyhe shattered reputation of their country.

No honour, no respect for the nazis or their supporters. Ever. Under any circumstance, and no matter what they did

Edit

Note that I am not denying their bravery or their skill, or their sense of comraderie. Germans possessed all of these things. Honour is something different, something far more ethereal. And the german armed forces lost all honour with those few words of allegiance made to hitler. it was unredeeemable until that oath was absolved
 
Last edited:
German armed forces weren't allowed to affiliate with a political party, therefor German soldiers were non-Nazi German soldiers in WWII. The Nazi political party, however, had its own armed soldiers in the Waffen-SS and these soldiers therefore were Nazi German soldiers.
 
Sory ratsel but you are wrong. All members of the german armed forces were made to swear an oath that made them extensions of the Nazi Party. They were required to swear allegiance to Hitler personally and unconditionally, which meant they were a willing party to all the acts and orders issued in the name of the Nazis. this robbed them of all honour in the war that followed and destroyed the good name of germany until after the surrender

For the record, all nations have oaths of allegiance, but never to a single individual and Germany is unique in demanding unconditional obedience. Here are the structures of the oaths, before 1934, and after 1934. The oath before 1934 is still lawful, if a little extreme, the oath after is clearly unlawful, and most that took it knew that.


Oath of Allegiance before August 2, 1934 "I swear by almighty God this sacred oath:
I will at all times loyally and honestly
serve my people and country
and, as a brave soldier,
I will be ready at any time
to stake my life for this oath."

The Fuehrer Oath (effective August 2, 1934)

"I swear by almighty God this sacred oath:
I will render unconditional obedience
to the Fuehrer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler,
Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht,
and, as a brave soldier,
I will be ready at any time
to stake my life for this oath."

Moreover, mandatory mandatory loyalty oaths were introduced throughout the Reich, rendering everyone who took them an active conspirator in Nazi attrocities.

Oath of loyalty for Public Officials:
"I swear: I shall be loyal and obedient to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich and people, respect the laws, and fulfill my official duties conscientiously, so help me God."

These oaths were pledged to Hitler personally, not the German state or constitution. And they were taken very seriously by members of the German Officers' Corps with their traditional minded codes of honor, which now elevated obedience to Hitler as a sacred duty and effectively placed the German armed forces in the position of being the personal instrument of Hitler.

(Years later, following the German defeat in World War Two, many German officers unsuccessfully attempted to use the oath as a defense against charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.)

In September, 1934, at the annual Nuremberg Nazi Party rallies, a euphoric Hitler proclaimed, "The German form of life is definitely determined for the next thousand years. The Age of Nerves of the nineteenth century has found its close with us. There will be no revolution in Germany for the next thousand years."

Ive yet to find the part where if your relatives are embarassed about your Nazi loyalty they can just claim that they were the part of Germany that resisted Hitler


And here is a you tube video of a group of Hitlers soldiers entusiastically taking that unlawful and monstrous oath of allegiance, just in case you still want to argue that the german armed forces were not politicised

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Azslfc2HPxU
 
Last edited:

Now it is well known that Sakai's 64 is clearly too high, the problem is that we are not sure was it Sakai's claim or if Martin Caidin, not the most reliable writerand the co-author of Samurai!, inflated the number for whatever reason. In fact IIRC it's a bit hazy how much Samurai was Caidin's product.

Many modern Russian researcher admitted freely that many Russians overclaimed badly but I have no knowledge on reliability of Kozhedub's claims.

On Johnnie, all I can say, that most of his claims were made when RAF had a more strict confirmation system in force. IIRC Pattle's (highest claiming CW ace) claims were checked and some 30 of his claims can be verified from LW records. It isn't entirely clear how many claims Pattle made because of the chaos during the retreat from Greece, but usually the number is said to be 50.

Juha

LATER ADDUM: Checked a bit on Pattle, many of his claims were made during big scraps with Italians during which RAF clearly overclaimed, so IMHO it's difficult to say anything sure on Pattle's claim accuracy other than it wasn't appr 100%.
 
Last edited:


Spot on Parsifal. You beat me to it with your post.
You have said everything that I would.
Cheers
John
 

In wich dictatoships can soldiers choose their oaths? In Soviet union? In Argentina? In Chile? In Greece? In Turkey? In egypt? And they are co responsible for their leaders crimes?(Some of them certainly are) While the british officers that commited crimes in Cyprus,India and many other places are innoncent because they had taken proper oaths?
Do not judge people with the knowledge we have today. In Immediate pre war years Hitler was not the monster we know today he was. For german people was the man that took Germany out of the extreme poverty that the alleis had put germany (US less responsible) Even for prime minister of England he was "Mr Hitler" and a reliable leader.
finally when Hitler seized the goverment(1933) german democracy was very very young. German people were not used to defy authority.
And after 1939 war was a national motive.
About the honours and chivalry the german prisoners found after their surrender. They found Forced labour( all sides), clear minefields with bear hands(french), starvation to death (Americans,Soviets,French) ,execution (ss units), death due war wounds as no help was provided,years of impisoment. In short the behavior that Hitler showed to Russian prisoners the same honors were provided to german prisoners.
In America,France or enland no one would have taken such oaths beacause of the long tradition of democracy but still their armies commited attrocities in their colonies in the post war years and no military personell was ever convicted. Even for common crimes like rape and looting.
 


Maybe a bit off topic but, I would say that no one had to remain in any country. The 1930's emigration to the new world amply demonstrates that.
One can only conclude that those who remained in any country accepted the situation there and embraced the future with enthusiasm.
Some people make excuses for the past, some don't.
Cheers
John
 
Last edited:
Hello
I don't usually agree with Jim, but now I'm in complete agreement. LW pilots had no share in what kind of oath they had to swear. One can blame Blomberg because he accepted the change of the oath but the normal soldiers had to swear the oath then in force. And that goes to the democracies too. When I swear my military oath, my CO didn't ask me "Hello recruit, what kind of oath you would like to swear?"

There were decent men even in Waffen-SS and cruel men even in Welsh Guard even if I agree that 3rd Reich was an "evil Empire". So if someone wants to discuss the criminality of 3rd Reich, I'd prefer that they open a new thread on that subject and we continue to discuss on Hartmann and on fighter jockeys in this thread.

Respectfully
Juha
 
Hello John
Hartmann was 18 years old when WWII began, quite hard to demand for a man at that age to leave his country if he didn't like the system. I wrote that without info on the H's attitude towards Nazis at that age.

Juha
 
Last edited:
Juha said:
Hello John
Hartmann was 18 years old when WWII began, quite hard to demand for a man at that age to leave his country if he didn't like the system. I wrote that without info on the H's attitude towards Nazis at that age.

Juha
Click to expand...

Hello Juha,
The choice to remain in any country is an adult decision. 18 is old enough to choose.
If one accepts the political situation in your country then stay, if not you must leave or, seek to change it.
Any clear thinking person would accept, maybe even welcome, this choice.
There is grave danger of steering into murky waters on this subject and sensitivities are high.
Regards
John
 
Exactly. but yes back to Hartmann. Little story about him before he recieved an award personally from Hitler:

Erich Hartmann and I had partied heavily the night before and were drunk as heck, despite the fact that we were to receive our awards from der Fuhrer. Hartmann knew him from before, because as you know he was decorated three times by Hitler with the Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds. I was getting the Oak Leaves along with Hartmann on March 4, 1944. Hartmann was making some funny comments about him, mimicking him, and he tried to stand still without falling over. I was in not much better shape. We only started to sober up as Hitler, after handing us the awards, began describing his plan for "Panzerfest", which was a way to immunize the army divisions against enemy tank attacks. He asked us about Lemberg, where we had come from and were our brave soldiers were fighting those Russian tanks and were dying terribly. He told us about the war in Russia, and you had the feeling that you were listening to a complete madman. I thought he was a raving lunatic, and by the time the meeting was over, Hartmann and I needed another drink, and Hartmann kept saying, "I told you so."

theres at least two gentlemen who didn't subscribe to Hitlers Ideologies. Oath or no Oath.. they only had a deep love for Germany.
 
I want to say one more response to this detour that we have made, and then ask that we move back on topic. I am not saying that the average German had much choice in this matter. If they refused to take that wretched oath they probably would not live long. I have often wondered if I would have refused the oath....truth is I doubt that I would have. Just the same there are consequences arising from the actions and decisions that we make. Just like the driver that has a few drinks before heading home.....though he is drunk at the accident and not in control of his destiny, he is still held responsible at the time of the accident, because at the time he got drunk, he had choices, however unpleasant that may have been. when he decided to get drunk and then drive, he lost his honour, if he was lucky enough to make it home alive thats all he loses.

Unlike the drunk driver the choice not to takle the oath was much harder to say no to. But once through the journey, unlike the Drunk Driver, the German servicemen had the opportunity in post war Germany to redeem their honour. Most did.
 


The difference between the oaths that we swear, and those that the germans willingly swore was in the unconditionality of the oath. And once through that barrier, it had a number of knock on effects. Because they swore to unbconditionally support hitler, they became implicated in all actions that he sanctioned....they had given their word to do anything he wanted them to do. And thats the critical difference between what was going on in Germany, and why all German servicemen lost their honour when they gave that oath.

I have no doubt that there were cruel men in the Welsh Guards, and not cruel men in the SS. But that only serves to prove to me that you have no real clue of what honour, and legality actually is.

The difference is that under the British system, a man had the right to refuse an illegal order with some hope of being exonerated. British and American oaths are about upholding their constitutions (and yes the british have a constitution even though it is not written down). Any order issued that is contrary to that basic rule of law is illegal, and can be refused legally by personnel receiving it. Put another way, British service personnel, retained their right to honour, German personnel gave theirs up....mostly willingly. There were instances where British personnel chose to give up their honour, and commit some pretty heinous crimes, but these were crimes of choice. British personnel retained their right to refuse such orders, or choices, and thereby could retain their honour if they so chose. There are no instances in British justice where a servicemen could argue that his oath to serve queen and country made him commit a crime. Not so for the germans. They were often forced by their oath to hitler do carry out the most horrofic crimes. They had sold their honour for 30 pieces of silver......, Under the german system, there was no such thing as an illegal order, unless that order was to disobey Hitler. Hitler could, and did, order his men to do anything. And because these men had lost their honour, they often were enthusiastic supporters of those orders.
 
wow your still on this? I think your lumping all Germans into the ' SS ' catagory. thats simply not the case and its sterotyping. Your also comparing a Dictatorship to Democratic goverments. thats like comparing John Kennedy to Nikita Khrushchev. Its been proven time and time again that not all Germans agreed with the goverment at the time. civilian or military. Some decided to fight for Germany for the love of Germany Her people. right or wrong. some for other reasons. just like in every other country in the world in any time frame.

can we please get back to fighter pilots now.
 
Jim, don't dictate how a Moderator should do his job, especially Adler.

We're asking things to be civil and not turn into sarcastic name-calling, which happens too frequently in threads such as this.

Some sarcasm or irony should not in my opinion stop the discussion.
Click to expand...

and unfortunately, it does, hence the warning to be civil.

...as a rule the german supportes get banned...
Click to expand...

And for the record, people are banned here based upon not following the rules or acting un-civil towards anyone. We will not tolerate it. Getting kicked out because you support Germans is nonsense.

Now back on topic.....

While the German claims are incomplete the process for claiming was stricter. The Allies may have better records but awarding a claim may not be so strict. Its all subjective.

and somebody please explain why its so important...at this late stage?
 

Im not lumping all germans into the one category, but this whole detour arose because of your repeated references to German honour and chivalry. My beef is that no German soldier , by definition could possess honour, or attract honour, whilst serving hitler, and fulfilling the terms of their oath to him. Does not mean Germans were not heroic, or effective. Does not mean that they were cruel or without principal. does not mean that the allies were not, as individualos, capable of dishonourable acts. It just means the German armed forces were men without honour, because of the circumstances they found themselves in. The very raison detre for your attempted rebuttal...that we were fighting for democracy whilst Germany fought for a dictatorship, is a demonstrable symptom of this lack of honour. you dont need democracy to have honour, but its harder to achieve withoin a dictatorship. I am not even trying to argue that I am any better than the average German, but i will argue that the system my fathers fought for were honourable, whilst those of the germans were not honourable.

I am happy to move on and back to topic, but if people will continue to try and slip through the net and argue in this place that the germans were fighting for honour and mention chivalry and the german Army of WWII in the same sentence, they are going to get the same response from me

To finish, consider these words from William Wordsworth on honour


SAY, what is Honour?--'Tis the finest sense
Of 'justice' which the human mind can frame,
Intent each lurking frailty to disclaim,
And guard the way of life from all offence
Suffered or done. When lawless violence
Invades a Realm, so pressed that in the scale
Of perilous war her weightiest armies fail,
Honour is hopeful elevation,--whence
Glory, and triumph. Yet with politic skill
Endangered States may yield to terms unjust;
Stoop their proud heads, but not unto the dust--
A Foe's most favourite purpose to fulfil:
Happy occasions oft by self-mistrust
Are forfeited; but infamy doth kill.
 



Well said Parsifal. I completely agree with you.
My thought about the German honour and chivalry and the repeated attempts on this forum to change historical views is that its all smoke and mirrors.
We always end up saying virtually the same thing.

To finish, consider the definition of chivalry.

kindness and courteousness especially towards women or the weak.

John
 
Hello Njaco
IMHO the German claim verification process wasn't necessarily stricter that those of RAF and USAAF late in the war, simply more byrocratic. Early in the war it had been stricter than that of RAF but after war turned against Germany and Germans were on retreat sending papers to Berlin from Air Fleets for final confirmation didn't produce much more accuracy to claim confirmation process.

Why its so important? IMHO it isn't that important but because some people give much importance to the number of kills it'd be fairer, especially to those careful claimers if we could rank the pilots according to their real results not according to what was thought during the war on the base of rather uncertain wartime info

Juha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

When did Erich Hartmann lose his only wingman Günther Capito?
Replies
9
Views
1K
CHen10
Erich Hartmann and his victories and overclaims over Hungary
15 16 17
Replies
326
Views
17K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
A
How did B-17 and B-24 formations avoid shooting each other?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
5K
Peter Gunn
Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
11
Views
744
Jabberwocky
J
G
How many Night Fighters did Bomber Command shoot down?
Replies
2
Views
2K
mig2830
M
Menu
Log in
Register