Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

Loader

Who was the Albatros pilot?

Recommended Posts

alex revell

Remark 2.  The Menckhoff letter. The contention that no living historian  has seen this letter does not prove that it never, or indeed, does not exist...

I did never refuse the search for the letter but there is no positive proof for its existenc until now! The existence of this letter or letters (or even the claim about Menckhoff’s visit in the house of the Voss family) will always stay a conjecture if no further and finally successful research is done. It is only an indicator what and where to search for information. And it seems to be in a dead end currently or is there any progress since 2007?

 I don’t know what you mean by ‘the Menchkoff  letter.’ What is the recent proof of its existence, ‘until now.’  You ask if there is any progress since 2007. I’m afraid I don’t know. You are the interested party as to its existence, not me.

 

In 2007 you asked for the whereabouts of Whetton’s collection at The Aerodrome

and MikeW answered:

 

„Alex,

it got dumped into boxes, was sent to auction (without being advertised) and a dealer purchased most of it.

 

Tony Mellor-Ellis purchased some of the collection in dribs and drabs as the dealer saw fit to release it.

 

It was a sad business, as Whetton often used to borrow stuff without ever returning it.- he even had papers and a logbook from an Australian museum. Things had to get very acrimonius before the „lady friend“ was forced to return them to Australia.

 

I suggest you have a word with Tony.

 

Regards,

Mike“

Well, this is a different version to that put forward by McManus in his book. I’ve no idea which is the truth of the matter, but I suspect  Tony’s would be the more believable. On the other hand, I don’t remember ever having seen the dealer advertise items from the collection for sale and why should McManus make up such a story about the beautiful library where it was going to be housed and be available to researchers throughout the world. Unless, of course the dealer was lying, to conceal the fact that he was a dealer.

So, we have a „lady friend“ that had to be forced to return items to Australia and (allegedly) „vanished“ without any trace when she expected an financial advantage.

Furthermore, we have a researcher who (allegedly) developed a habit of not returning borrowed items.

You say allegedly twice. Not sure what you are inferring.  

And we have some contemporary historians like Alex Imrie who did not hold high esteem for Mr Whetton, obviously for very good reason.

Alex was a human being. He  sometimes held not entirely reasonable opinions and bias

Mr Whetton may have been helpful to you and may have complained about unfair treatment.

He was. I had no reason to doubt what he told me – and others, who used his help.

It does not mean that he was always truthful. Also MT has been helpful sometimes and he has frequently complained about unfair treatment. So, we have parallels here. Nevertheless, I have not the feeling you would trust him. :-)

No, I do not trust anything MT says or infers. He has admitted himself that he is a mischief maker. Alex discovered something in his later dealings with him that later revised his opinion of MT expressed in his Triplane book

 

Remark 1, There has never been the contention that more than one Albatros was involved in the fight.  ...

 

Thanks for the reconstruction but it is fact that Bowman claimed in 1942: „I then saw about six SE5s being chased back to our lines by three Huns; two green Albatri with red noses and a sky-blue triplane.“ So, this contention exists but it is a very late one.

  No comment

I have a kind of problem with Baring’s book in general. I bought it years ago for other reasons and I was very, very disappointed. The lines recorded by Baring are an important part of your reconstruction but they seem to contradict the original combat report by Rhys Davids. He wrote:

„At 6.25 saw an SE.5 being attacked by an E.A. triplane and one red-nosed Albatros Scout. Our second ES.5 formation now appeared and for 20 minutes, leader, myself, Lt. Hoidge and Lt. Maybery engaged the two and one other scout west of Westroosebeke. About 11 other E.A. awaited us higher and further east, but did not come down as there were six Spads & four Camels protecting us very well.

The other scout now vanished but the red nosed Albatros and the triplane fought magnificently. ...“

Baring’s book is magnificent. Maybe you wanted it to be what it is not.

It looks like another scout was still around for a (limited) time when the fighting with Voss started.

All current reconstructions share the same problem. We have not enough information about the involved German planes and pilots. Also a single report by a Flugmeldepunkt or in a Flugmeldebuch could result in a more detailed or even very different picture.

Yes, that’s the whole problem with many questions appertaining to the GAS: Destruction of the records by allied bombing is the excuse always given for any controversial questions due to their lack. Surprisingly, never mentioned to me iby Dr Bock in his many letters

Finally, I think we need other, „new“ traces which lead to other sources and reports. Neither the research concerning Whetton’s collection nor in Menckhoff’s family branches were successful but I am convinced there is still important unknown information out there. In the worst case anybody is just sitting in front of its computer and laughing about our efforts, and waving with an old sheet of paper and deciding to keep it a secret for some more decades. :-) 

Why do you think there is still other sources of information out there?. Have you any evidence of that? I find your contention very strange that there is someone out there ‘waving a piece of paper and keeping it secret.’ What possible reason whould anyone have for doing that. Unless, of course, he is someone of MT’s strange mindset. J

  •  

  • I am having an operation for cataracts tomorrow so I may not be able to post again for a couple of weeks.

  • In haste.

  • Alex

  • PS . Nils. Exactly!

  • PPS. Sorry about that, so many parts. I'll have to check against my document to see if they have all been downloaded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knotty

Hi Alex

Just to say I hope the eye op goes okay and you are back soon, this is a most interesting debate by all parties concerned.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
madrid

A nice conversation here, and an open question: why was Werner Voß abandoned by his wingmates, when running into 56 Squadron?

 

(May be of interest for historians in later times, how the Old Birds handle their interest: over 6 hours of recorded telephone conversation between Alex Imrie and Manfred Thiemeyer. By the way, bashing the researcher seems not to be an intelligent way to participate from an archive, Alex Imrie would have said.)

Edited by madrid
Old Birds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jasta72s

 

·         I am having an operation for cataracts tomorrow so I may not be able to post again for a couple of weeks.

I wish you a fast and full revovery after your eye operation!

 

Nevertheless, I will not wait any longer with my answers because I noticed a number of misunderstandings and misinterpretations which need comments or corrections.

 

Your comments to remark 1 with my comments:

 

Baring’s book is magnificent. Maybe you wanted it to be what it is not.

I stand by my statement but it is magnificent concerning dinners in the RFC.

 

Yes, that’s the whole problem with many questions appertaining to the GAS: Destruction of the records by allied bombing is the excuse always given for any controversial questions due to their lack. Surprisingly, never mentioned to me iby Dr Bock in his many letters

... and this lack of documents makes it easy to try to establish a purely British view to disputed questions and to dismiss German sources if they don’t fit the British version.

So, every coin has two sides.

 

Why do you think there is still other sources of information out there?. Have you any evidence of that? I find your contention very strange that there is someone out there ‘waving a piece of paper and keeping it secret.’ What possible reason whould anyone have for doing that. Unless, of course, he is someone of MT’s strange mindset. J

I wonder that you  ̶ a well-known historian  ̶  are trying to question the possibility and likelyhood of unknown German sources for this case. That makes no sense. In Germany we discover every year new, unknown material of the Fliegertruppe, especially from private owners but also at auctions, in archives and museums, e.g. Immelmanns love letters to two different girls, Hermann Thomsen’s recordings etc.pp. Therefore new evidence for Voss’ last fight could surface everytime too. It is simply a question of time.

And „waving a piece of paper and keeping it a secret,“ is not at all a strange scenario. I met such people repeatedly. They are often collectors who think a publication would reduce the financial value of „virgin“ items of their collections. Other people keep it a secret because a publication could uncover unpleasant parts of their family’s history. There are other reasons too. It would be ridiculous assumption to think that for example Rüdenberg’s writings was the last existing new (at that time) German account of Voss last mission. The case Voss was way to important to leave not many other traces behind.

 

Your comments to remark 2 with my comments:

 

 I don’t know what you mean by ‘the Menchkoff  letter.’ What is the recent proof of its existence, ‘until now.’  You ask if there is any progress since 2007. I’m afraid I don’t know. You are the interested party as to its existence, not me.

I meant Douglass Whetton’s claim that Menckhoff visited Voss’ family and wrote letters to the family. You claimed you are not interested in these letters. C’mon, that is ridiculous!

You should have the biggest interest to prove their existence because they could proof your assumption concerning Menckhoff’s participation and your reconstruction as well.

 

You say allegedly twice. Not sure what you are inferring.  

Yes, said it twice and only for legal reasons.

 

 

Alex was a human being. He  sometimes held not entirely reasonable opinions and bias

Did you take in consideration that the same could be true for you?

 

I had no reason to doubt what he told me – and others, who used his help.

To not return other researcher’s or institution’s material is shabby and unforgiveable in our branch! It is a kind of ‚core melt accident’ in research relations and reveals untruthful people. Therefore utmost distrust and carefulness is advisable here. I have the feeling Alex Imrie was right but I will correct myself if anybody is able to prove Whetton’s claims concerning Menckhoff’s visit and letters.

 

No, I do not trust anything MT says or infers. He has admitted himself that he is a mischief maker. Alex discovered something in his later dealings with him that later revised his opinion of MT expressed in his Triplane book

Discuss this allegations with MT himself.

 

Your comments to remark 3 with my comments:

 

Remark 3. It’s long been a generally accepted knowledge that many German scouts had red noses...

I stand by that statement.

I did not address that statement.

 

You are now talking about the combat on 14th September, yes?  Alex Imrie and  Dr Bock were of the opinion that it was impossible to say with any positivity if it was M or S who claimed  Crow. Hence the ‘either or’ in HITEB.  Above the Trenches  gives it as Meckhoff.  Maybe the authors had other information, I don’t  know, but I’ll stick by Alex and Dr Bock until I see otherwise.  

The Fliegertruppe had more information available than we have today. Based on this evidence Menckhoff’s claim was accepted and Schmidt’s refused. Furthermore, there is no real proof that both claimed the same machine.

 

Because your statement was a non Sequitur. A conclusion that does not follow from the premise. A statement having little or no relevance to what proceeded it. From the Latin; literally: . it does not follow.

Wow, what a glorious misunderstanding! I did not ask you for a lecture in Latin language. Everybody, even without any knowledge in Latin, can „google“ this type of information within seconds. No, the construction of your English sentence before gave me  ̶  as a non-native speaker  ̶  some headache and did not quote me correct.

 

You wrote: I don't agree that because the 56 Sqdn pilots did not mention the large M or a silver tail that it is not possible to determine that no pilot of Jasta 3 was in the fight.“

Is there any word missing? It sounds to me like: It is not possible to determine that no Jasta 3 pilot was in the fight because 56 Sqn pilots did not mention the large M or silver tail. This not the message that I intended to give and no quote from my text.

 

To the question of the M marking and the silver tail. Several reasons why 56 Sqn pilots did either not see or report it. There are any number of mundane reasons why it was not seen or reported

1 Where did this knowledge of the marking come from?  Does it confirm that M’s Albatros carried this marking in September 1917? 

2.  M could simply have been flying a different Albatros in the evening of 23 Sept. 

 

Once more my words and intentions were misinterpreted. I try to clarify and repeat: Only indivisual markings of Jasta 3’s pilots woud allow a safe differentiation and show which pilot of Jasta 3 was involved if no relaible written documents exist which name the pilot or allow a precise conclusion. Whetton’s claim is pure conjecture and CM’s crash landing no proof as well because he could have been the green or green-nosed airplane or any other forced down combattant. No report about an individual marking and even their total absence on the planes mean the same. The chance to use them for a clear decision is lost.

Only additional, new evidence helps to clarify the situation.

If a letter of CM faces up and he reports that he participated in this fight and describes the situation in a proper manner, like ‚I flew my red-nosed Albatros D. .... and so on) then the old claims are correct.

However, if anybody can prove with an article in OTF, C&C or another publication that Jasta 3 had no red-nosed airplanes on 23 September then we can outrule Menckhoff as candidate.

 

I’m perfectly calm. I don’t hink I commented on Wisemann’s death. I’am afraid that Puglisi good researcher that he was, was sometimes not above stretching the facts to what he wanted to believe.

Your comment did not give the impression you would be „perfectly calm“. I clarified this point already.

 

I can’t remember from this distance in time, and many questions that Alex, Dr. Bock and I discussed about the GAS, the exact format of the text or where it came from, but both believed it to be a document of reliable evidence. You should ask Alistair to search through his father’s collection for it. He has a Facebook page.

Thanks, I will try.

 

Your comment to the summary with my comment:

 

I can only say that the information in HITEB was out there in 1996. From where did you get the impression that there was rock-solid proof? I don’t recall the discussions on the Aerodrome (too many time wasters started 'questions' to be answered) but on this particular question I must have quoted HITEB

 

This impression was not only given by way too many discussions threads at different history forums but also at Wikipedia (in both, the English and German version in the past; the English Wiki corrected this claim, the German version is still keeping it). More important, also history books referred to Menckhoff’s participation in Voss’ last fight, already „Above the Trenches“ pointed to Menckhoff at page 318:

A lone Albatros Scout flown by Leutnant Karl Menckhoff, who had nearly shot Rhys-Davids down on 14 September, attempted to come to Voss’ assistance, but this too was credited to the British pilot as shot down out of control, and indeed Menkhoff was obliged to carry out a crash landing.“

There is no „possibly“ or „maybe“ etc. to find in this source and other sources or discussions.

Also your refusal to discuss „alternative pilots“ in earlier discussions gave the (unwanted?) impression you are believing your reconstruction would be rock-solid and discussions about Menckhoff’s role inappropriate. Therefore I welcomed your clarification.

 

I think that is enough for some time now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alex revell
17 hours ago, Jasta72s said:
18 hours ago, Jasta72s said:

and this lack of documents makes it easy to try to establish a purely British view to disputed questions and to dismiss German sources if they don’t fit the British version.

So, every coin has two sides.

 

Yes, because in many instances the British view is all we have. Nobody dismisses  a German source. All serious researchers into such matters are always asking for them. I repeat, the late Dr Bock never expressed to me a lack of records in answering my questions concerning the German side of things.

 

18 hours ago, Jasta72s said:

I wonder that you  ̶ a well-known historian  ̶  are trying to question the possibility and likelyhood of unknown German sources for this case. That makes no sense. In Germany we discover every year new, unknown material of the Fliegertruppe, especially from private owners but also at auctions, in archives and museums, e.g. Immelmanns love letters to two different girls, Hermann Thomsen’s recordings etc.pp. Therefore new evidence for Voss’ last fight could surface everytime too. It is simply a question of time.

And „waving a piece of paper and keeping it a secret,“ is not at all a strange scenario. I met such people repeatedly. They are often collectors who think a publication would reduce the financial value of „virgin“ items of their collections. Other people keep it a secret because a publication could uncover unpleasant parts of their family’s history. There are other reasons too. It would be ridiculous assumption to think that for example Rüdenberg’s writings was the last existing new (at that time) German account of Voss last mission. The case Voss was way to important to leave not many other traces behind.

 

I am not questioning the possibility at all. Of course new material is coming to light all the time. All I was questioning was your assertion that someone out there had the documents and was waving them about, laughing at the rest of us. You say you have met many such people. I can only conclude that you are mixing with the wrong type of researcher.

 

18 hours ago, Jasta72s said:

I meant Douglass Whetton’s claim that Menckhoff visited Voss’ family and wrote letters to the family. You claimed you are not interested in these letters. C’mon, that is ridiculous!

You should have the biggest interest to prove their existence because they could proof your assumption concerning Menckhoff’s participation and your reconstruction as well.

 

. I did not say I was not interested in such letters. Read more carefully. You asked it there was any new evidence since 2007. I said I didn't know. You are the person researching this particular subject at the moment and therefore directly interested in such letters. If any new evidence comes to light I would, of course, be interested in seeing it. I did not make an 'assumption' of the possibilities of M being involved in the Voss fight, only the fact that, from his account of his forced landing after the fight, that  he was the pilot shot down later by RD.

 

18 hours ago, Jasta72s said:

Did you take in consideration that the same could be true for you?

Of course.

18 hours ago, Jasta72s said:

To not return other researcher’s or institution’s material is shabby and unforgiveable in our branch! It is a kind of ‚core melt accident’ in research relations and reveals untruthful people. Therefore utmost distrust and carefulness is advisable here. I have the feeling Alex Imrie was right but I will correct myself if anybody is able to prove Whetton’s claims concerning Menckhoff’s visit and letters.

 

Of course. Luckily, I have never meet any such. At least only one. A very good friend and I'll forgive him for that.:-)

 

18 hours ago, Jasta72s said:

Discuss this allegations with MT himself

Why should I. I am not directly concerned with his later disagreement with Alex, or its reasons. I was only told of it by a third party directly involved. M will know who that is..

 

18 hours ago, Jasta72s said:

Wow, what a glorious misunderstanding! I did not ask you for a lecture in Latin language. Everybody, even without any knowledge in Latin, can „google“ this type of information within seconds. No, the construction of your English sentence before gave me  ̶  as a non-native speaker  ̶  some headache and did not quote me correct.

 

I did not lecture you on Latin. I Merely pointed out the  term which illustrates the fallacy of your statement. I did not quote anything in any of your statements incorrectly because I used only your own words throughout these posts.

 

18 hours ago, Jasta72s said:

Is there any word missing? It sounds to me like: It is not possible to determine that no Jasta 3 pilot was in the fight because 56 Sqn pilots did not mention the large M or silver tail. This not the message that I intended to give and no quote from my text.

Again I used your statement. Read it again and you'll possibly see its lack of logic.

 

18 hours ago, Jasta72s said:

Once more my words and intentions were misinterpreted. I try to clarify and repeat: Only indivisual markings of Jasta 3’s pilots woud allow a safe differentiation and show which pilot of Jasta 3 was involved if no relaible written documents exist which name the pilot or allow a precise conclusion. Whetton’s claim is pure conjecture and CM’s crash landing no proof as well because he could have been the green or green-nosed airplane or any other forced down combattant. No report about an individual marking and even their total absence on the planes mean the same. The chance to use them for a clear decision is lost.

Only additional, new evidence helps to clarify the situation.

If a letter of CM faces up and he reports that he participated in this fight and describes the situation in a proper manner, like ‚I flew my red-nosed Albatros D. .... and so on) then the old claims are correct.

However, if anybody can prove with an article in OTF, C&C or another publication that Jasta 3 had no red-nosed airplanes on 23 September then we can outrule Menckhoff as candidate.

 

 I cannot reply to this as I find it hard to understand the reasoning.

 

18 hours ago, Jasta72s said:

Your comment did not give the impression you would be „perfectly calm“. I clarified this point already.

 

I can only repeat that I was perfectly calm. Still am.

 

18 hours ago, Jasta72s said:

Thanks, I will try.

Please do so, but if his son is anything like his dad you will have to be patient for a reply.

 

18 hours ago, Jasta72s said:

This impression was not only given by way too many discussions threads at different history forums but also at Wikipedia (in both, the English and German version in the past; the English Wiki corrected this claim, the German version is still keeping it). More important, also history books referred to Menckhoff’s participation in Voss’ last fight, already „Above the Trenches“ pointed to Menckhoff at page 318:

A lone Albatros Scout flown by Leutnant Karl Menckhoff, who had nearly shot Rhys-Davids down on 14 September, attempted to come to Voss’ assistance, but this too was credited to the British pilot as shot down out of control, and indeed Menkhoff was obliged to carry out a crash landing.“

There is no „possibly“ or „maybe“ etc. to find in this source and other sources or discussions.

Also your refusal to discuss „alternative pilots“ in earlier discussions gave the (unwanted?) impression you are believing your reconstruction would be rock-solid and discussions about Menckhoff’s role inappropriate. Therefore I welcomed your clarification.

 I can't answer for the different opinions given in the various forums. Many were from people who were not researchers, only interested in the subject of WW1 aviation.   Their opinions were almost always from the different books they have read. Nothing wrong with that of course,they are fully entitled to their opinions and conclusions, but as firm evidence it stops there - an interested opinion, but not based on primary research. I'm sure they would be the first to admit that.

Wikipedia is hardly a reliable primary source  of historical research for a serious historian. ATT, like any book is not infallible. You mention that there are no 'maybes' or 'possibly'  in that account. There should be. When there is doubt, it is the responsibility of any writer of history - hard enough to do anyway - to not present  definite, unproved  statements as fact. 

It has never been proved that M was the pilot of the Albatros who was in the fight with Voss. M never claimed to have been - for what ever reason - and none of the 56 Sqdn pilots claimed it or saw the manner of its going out of the fight. It could  well have been M. He could have had some technical trouble and pulled out of the fight, only to be seen later by RD and forced to land. If he had admitted to have been the pilot in the fight with Voss, he may well have thought that to give the reason for his leaving the  main fight would be open to misinterpretation by his fellow Jasta pilots. Who knows, at this length of time. Is it even important in the overall main scheme of things. They were all brave young men. Surely that's enough.

 

17 hours ago, Jasta72s said:

.I stand by my statement but it is magnificent concerning dinners in the RFC.

All I can say about that remark is that you either haven't read the book or have failed to understand it. Anybody who cares to read the book will see the evidence that disproves your rather silly statement.

 

My apologies to all for the order of my comments. I would prefer to post a comment directly after the main point made, as I did before, not using the quote option.  I do this with emails and it works fine, but this does not seem possible on the forum. I tried before by copying the entire document into a file, answering each point and then pasting it as a reply, but this meant breaking it down into smaller sections. Any advice on this would be helpful and much appreciated.

My thanks to all those who have expressed concern over the result of  my eye operation. It is much appreciated. The op was a success, but the eye needs to settle down and reading and writing is difficult and slow. After six weeks I will be able to correct this with glasses.

Alex

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreyC
16 minutes ago, alex revell said:

 After six weeks I will be able to correct this with glasses. 

Alex

 

All the best for that!

GreyC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alex revell

Thanks GreyC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jasta72s

Nobody dismisses  a German source.

Nobody, indeed? That is simply not true! There are enough discussions when German accounts were dismissed or even nonsense claims made with wishful thinking like your Australian friend who claimed once that Dilthey was not in the air when he reported a victory or remember a more recent book when a well-repected US historian dismissed one German source after the next to make his own agenda work. 

 

 

I am not questioning the possibility at all. Of course new material is coming to light all the time. All I was questioning was your assertion that someone out there had the documents and was waving them about, laughing at the rest of us. You say you have met many such people. I can only conclude that you are mixing with the wrong type of researcher.

Nonsense - I made no such“assertion“! It is only existing in your imagination. I spoke about collectors and not about researchers but misreading my statements is your way  of discussion with me since many years. Every researcher will meet collectors at some point if he is taking his task serious and these people have often different motifs.

  

 

I did not say I was not interested in such letters. Read more carefully. You asked it there was any new evidence since 2007. I said I didn't know. You are the person researching this particular subject at the moment and therefore directly interested in such letters. If any new evidence comes to light I would, of course, be interested in seeing it. I did not make an 'assumption' of the possibilities of M being involved in the Voss fight, only the fact that, from his account of his forced landing after the fight, that  he was the pilot shot down later by RD.

I don’t believe your claim that you did not have any new knowledge since 2007 and you made a wrong claim up again! I am not researching this particuar subject at the moment because my running project is Max Immelmann. I replied to this thread because my book was mentioned. However, I won’t miss to look in depth for this specific topic of CM’s participation after the next book’s publication. So, stop your misleading speculations!

 

Of course. Luckily, I have never meet any such. At least only one. A very good friend and I'll forgive him for that.:-)

I stand by my comment over not returning other people’s material if it a habit.

 

 Why should I. I am not directly concerned with his later disagreement with Alex, or its reasons. I was only told of it by a third party directly involved. M will know who that is..

Oh, you drop a smoke screen! You are arguing with him since at least a dozen years and you felt the need for a rant here again. 

 

I did not lecture you on Latin. I Merely pointed out the  term which illustrates the fallacy of your statement. I did not quote anything in any of your statements incorrectly because I used only your own words throughout these posts.

That is one more a ridiculous claim. 

 

 I cannot reply to this as I find it hard to understand the reasoning.

I can not see any reasoning with this statement.

 

 I can only repeat that I was perfectly calm. Still am.

If you can make yourself believe that then it is OK for me.

 

Please do so, but if his son is anything like his dad you will have to be patient for a reply.

I am patient. there is nothing pressing me. I have enough more urgent tasks.

 

 I can't answer for the different opinions given in the various forums. Many were from people who were not researchers, only interested in the subject of WW1 aviation.   Their opinions were almost always from the different books they have read. Nothing wrong with that of course,they are fully entitled to their opinions and conclusions, but as firm evidence it stops there - an interested opinion, but not based on primary research. I'm sure they would be the first to admit that.

Wikipedia is hardly a reliable primary source  of historical research for a serious historian. ATT, like any book is not infallible. You mention that there are no 'maybes' or 'possibly'  in that account. There should be. When there is doubt, it is the responsibility of any writer of history - hard enough to do anyway - to not present  definite, unproved  statements as fact. 

I agree.

 

It has never been proved that M was the pilot of the Albatros who was in the fight with Voss.

I agree. One can not repeat that often enough. :-) 

 

Edited by Jasta72s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alex revell

Jasta 72s

 I see no point in continuing this discussion. In  your last post  you have consistently misrepresented my points.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jasta72s

I can tell the same about your last post and earlier one's too. So, indeed, a further discussion with you is fruitless. 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DavidOwen
39 minutes ago, alex revell said:

Jasta 72s

 I see no point in continuing this discussion. In  your last post  you have consistently misrepresented my points.  

 

27 minutes ago, Jasta72s said:

I can tell the same about your last post and earlier one's too. So, indeed, a further discussion with you is fruitless. 

 

  

Time perhaps Gentlemen to shake hands, agree to differ and move on?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knotty

Oh dear chaps, call it an honourable draw and shake hands as per David’s advice, don’t want the mods to close the thread down as it poses some very interesting points which other Pals might want to contribute to in the future.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alex revell

David and Knotty

But gentlemen, it was never a competition in the first place, at least not in my view. I know only too well Jasta 72s (why do people not post under their own name?) from the past and was careful not to post anything that could be construed as a personal attack against him or his view on the subject, whereas I am now accused both of a having a ' rant' ; and of being  liar, in that he did not believe me when I said I had not had any new information since 2007. That is also indirectly saying that I am a dishonest researcher/historian, who would withhold  any new information I might have. A personal insult, to which I would strongly object if his opinion  was of any relevance to me.

 I was also accused of misquoting his points, whereas  I was careful - and fair - to quote them directly from his posts.

My comment about Manfried Thiemeyer was  only to reiterate what he himself confessed to be - a mischievous time waster. I did not 'rubbish' him as was suggested by another forumite.

The snidey little remark about my 'Australian friend': This is Russ Gannon who has been compiling an account of the air war on a day by day basis for  the last thirty plus years. Russ is a painstaking researcher, who  uses all the sources he can find, British and German: hundreds of combat reports, diaries, personal accounts, official reports etc. Unusually, but importantly, he also has extensive records of  the day by day situation of the war on the ground, from official and, importantly, regimental histories, which enable him in many cases to  accurately pinpoint locations in question. His careful conclusions regarding both German and  British views of actions and aerial victories are well worth reading on the Aerodrome site and I can recommend them.

I did hope that in those  intervening years to which Jasta72s referred, he might have matured and mellowed, able to discuss a subject without degenerating into personal abuse.  Regrettably, I was mistaken.  

This is my last comment on this particular question. I must admit that I am annoyed with myself for even having wasted  the time to write and post this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
madrid
5 hours ago, alex revell said:

 

My comment about Manfried Thiemeyer was  only to reiterate what he himself confessed to be - a mischievous time waster. I did not 'rubbish' him as was suggested by another forumite.

 

 

"What he himself confessed to be - a mischievous time waster" sounds like fake news. Do you remember Neal? Have a look at his seven volumes of „Aviation Awards of Imperial Germany“:

 

To Manfred Thiemeyer - with many heartfull thanks for receiving me in your home and for the opportunity to see one of the most outstanding collections of World War I Aviation history that exists today.

 

Dein

Neal O’Connor

Zülpich 25.7.90

Edited by madrid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jasta72s

Dear Gentlemen,

 

I understand your intention to reconcile the opponents very well. Thank you for this attempt! 

 

Sadly, the trenches from the past are too deep. It is not true that AR tried to avoid any confrontation this time but I won’t complain. I had little hope from the very beginning and waited a long time before I joined the discussion because I did not forget that AR once called me a „Nazi“ in an old discussion, what I still consider a totally unjustified and heavy insult, even if done in rage. Oops, I forgot you are always perfectly calm. ;-) No Mister, you are not an innocent victim and at least equally guilty in this long-lasting argument. I could go on and on and also dissect your latest claims here but it is, indeed, a waste of time, unnerving the other forumitees and not contributing anything to the topic. I stand with all my comments. This discussion will not answer the question - as I predicted - and only give us a reminder that there are some unsolved puzzles existing.

 

Nevertheless, if I should get more vital information about the above mentioned question then I won’t miss to post it here or rather with an article in an English-speaking journal.

 

By the way one can like or dislike MT but statements like „he himself confessed to be - a mischievous time waster“ are slander if no proof is provided! One should know that.

 

Very best regards from Dresden,

Hannes

 

PS: People like me do not post under their own name if they have made bad experiences like a „zillion“ crazy Chinese „business offers“ and virus attacks. There are even cases where people hijack and use the e-mail addresses of others with names. So, everybody with his real name can only hope that he is not becoming a victim of Internet criminals.

 

PPS: The price for the Menckhoff-book was kept low (32 €) in Germany to allow people with a smaller pocket it’s purchase too. A repricing and transports costs seem to influence the price in the English-speaking regions. I did not foresee such an increase of the price and it was not my intention, even if my little number of private copies gained some value now. ;-)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David Filsell

For heavens sake Mr Jasta, get a grip on your  yourself. You have turned valuable debate into a pi..ing contest which is totally valueless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alex revell
15 hours ago, Jasta72s said:

AR once called me a „Nazi“ in an old discussion, what I still consider a totally unjustified and heavy

That is an absolute  straight forward blatant lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...