Terry Posted 30 December , 2004 Share Posted 30 December , 2004 At one time I checked in to the website www.theaerodrome.com on an almost daily basis. It was and is quite an amazing and comprehensive site. However in more recent times, it appears to me that more and more it is concentrating on the German side of things - pilots, aircraft,etc. - to the exclusion of the Allied efforts. I realize that what pops up on the computer screen is what is of interest to the contributors, but has anyone else noticed the trend? The other thing that frustrated me was the whole "German victory totals are 100% correct while the RAF claims are totally wrong" arguments. Obviously we all know the weaknesses of the RFC/RNAS/RAF claiming system, but to hear some contributors tell it, the entire British/Dominion war effort was a big lie. There; rant over, I feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Pope Posted 30 December , 2004 Share Posted 30 December , 2004 It's all a symptom of the apologist mindset widespread today. The bad guys weren't really bad, the good guys weren't all that good, blah blah blah. Nobody wants to offend anybody! How you kill millions of people without creating grounds for offending is a mystery to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeW Posted 30 December , 2004 Share Posted 30 December , 2004 Terry, regarding the "balance" of theaerodrome.com, it simply reflects the demographics of the contributing membership - by far the majority being from the States. You only have to compare the content of the two journals "Over The Front" and "Cross & Cockade International". In general, most Americans are interested in three subjects: 1) The German Air Service 2) The United States Air Service 3) The Lafayette Escadrille They are not even particularly interested in Americans that served with the British forces. Stewart Taylor, famed Canadian researcher, once told me that he was an invited editor for one issue of Over The Front, he produced an issue that had a lot of features abourt Americans in the RFC, RNAS and RAF, and was widely castigated for producing a "rubbish" issue. Moving on to the "Rubbishing" of British scores, you have to admit some of "our" claims are way over the top - well RFC are, I always feel the RNAS was more gentlemanly about it!!!. Most serious American researchers such as Rick Duiven and Greg Vanwyngarten just poke a bit of fun at us (or at me) over this, they admit the German's were not perfect. But, as always, there are going to be the idiots appearing there and we soon get to know who they are. I was browsing the aerodrome's archives last night, and found that the quality of information to be obtained there now is far superior to what it was 5 or 6 years ago. Having said that, the reputable authors Brad King and Lucien Morareau used to be regulars, we could benefit from their return. I think it's the British, Australian, Belgian, French and Canadians' duty to stick in there to keep the Americans honest. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Pope Posted 30 December , 2004 Share Posted 30 December , 2004 Hah! We're gonna "keep the Americans honest"? Lots of luck there, pal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted 30 December , 2004 Author Share Posted 30 December , 2004 Thanks for your thoughts fellows, and Mike, I fully agree with you regarding the interests of American enthusiasts. They are totally enthralled with all things Germanic, at least militarily. I have never been able to fathom why a medal collector would be more interested in Iron Crosses than in Commonwealth medals (but that's just me!); but I guess that to each his own. Total agreement on "our" scoring system. It was full of holes, looking at it from ninety years later. However, it was what they used, so that's that. Certainly there was a different approach to waging the air war. Finally, the one major thing about US interest in the air war of 14-18 that I can't understand is the incredible interest paid to the Lafayette Escadrille and lack of even minimal interest in the much larger American involvement with the RFC, RNAS, and RAF. The Lafayette organization was a very tiny cog in a great big machine, but it sure grabbed the attention of the folks back home! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Roberts Posted 31 December , 2004 Share Posted 31 December , 2004 I've noticed the German emphasis on theaerodrome, but as Terry says, it's market driven in that the emphasis seems to come from the forum contributors rather than the website authors. But is there not an anti-American bias in the UK? Not just the current knee-jerk anti-Bush bias at present but the "Yanks go home", "Overpaid, oversexed and overhere" attitude in WW2. My father grew up in WW2 and was very anti-American. I put it to him once that his generation owed a lot to the Americans, and he just said that they were perceived as being vulgar. Maybe they are by Brit standards - but I wonder if some of our attitudes are based on snobbery. Having said that, the thread on 'theaerodrome' on Billy Bishop (a Canadian) was a total hatchet job. I'm sure Bishop opened himself to criticism, but the thread came to the conclusion that the number of his independently confirmed victories was not 72, not 50, not even 13, but zilch. What do Brit/Canadians think? I don't have access to original documents like some of you, so my opinions would only be second hand. But with regards to his VC: he was originally going to do the mission with his mate Willie Fry, who at 3.30 a.m. told him to get lost and went back to sleep. If Bishop had been planning a deception, would he have taken a mate with him? I suspect he embellished or possibly invented the action report; it was swallowed by others eg his CO Jack Scott and latched onto by the press and the propangandists, leaving Bishop with a reputation to live up to and a taste for fame. My opinion, therefore, is that the truth fell somewhere between the hero and charlatan theories. Hope I haven't opened a can of worms here! Hope this thread doesn't go on for five pages like theaerodrome one! Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pete Wood Posted 31 December , 2004 Share Posted 31 December , 2004 Verified claims are not that common, are they? The BB saga has been going on for years, and (apart from a few die-hards) most people, I think!, accept that his claims are on the 'high' side. I am having similar problems investigating my Great Uncle's victories http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/england/wood3.html . He claimed 18, was credited with 13, but I am struggling to make positive identities - even with those that crashed. The problem, it seems to me, is that often more than one plane attacked an enemy plane. If a plane was shot down, often more than one pilot claimed it. The OOC situation just makes things worse...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Roberts Posted 31 December , 2004 Share Posted 31 December , 2004 Pete So you're no longer cloaked in anonimity.... See you all in the New Year Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pete Wood Posted 31 December , 2004 Share Posted 31 December , 2004 Pete So you're no longer cloaked in anonimity.... See you all in the New Year Adrian Yep. We thought it would make it easier for forum members, should they so desire, to direct their comments at me (and not my company/staff). Happy New Year to the aero nuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now