Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

[Karl Heidenreich]

Since childhood I have a great admiration for this man, a real teutonic warrior with a great survival history. I learned about him because of the Me 262. However a great pilot, an ace, and a hero:

Walter Nowotny

A FW 190 ace, a Me 262 pioneer.

Almost all of his kills were over contested and/or hostile territory (soviet).

258 kills.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Nowotny

[Karl Heidenreich]

The greatest non German ace of all time is a Finnish pilot called Ilmari Juutilainen. Ninety four (94) kills against the soviets. It seems he was never shot down and fought over contested/hostile territory (soviet, I doubt there was something more hostile than that).

1. 94 kills
2. All over contested and/or hostile territory
3. Never shot down, so 94 clean kills

The seconf non German ace of all time is Japanese: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa. He claim 87 kills whilst there could be argued for 100 kills. All of them achieved without being shot down (until he finnally died, as a passenger in a transport attacked by two F6F.

So, again, we have an axis ace with:

1. 87 kills.
2. All over contested and/or hostile territory.
3. Never shot down, so 87 clean kills


So, we have from the Axis side top scoring aces as Hans Joachim Marseille, Walter Nowotny, Saburo Sakai, Ilmari Juutilainen and Hiroyoshi Nishizawa. All of them with "clean" kills.

[Karl Heidenreich]

The allies had a great ace, too: Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedub

It was a soviet aviatior that won the Order of Lenin three times in adition as Hero of the Soviet Union. Credited to be the ace of aces of the allies. Sixty two downed planes, two less than Saburo Sakai. The problem lies in what seems a curious issue: some said that he shot down two P 51 that mistaken him for a German. Anyway, if true, he shot down two P 51 in a sole action (Hartman had four P 51 in a single action).

The allied ace of aces, Kozhedub he helped in Korea but didn`t fought. He became a Marshall of the Soviet Union.

[mkenny]

They got tremendous tanks that required several enemy ones attacking simultaneosly to knock them out..........
they got tremendous planes
they built the most modern battleship of all the WWII ......
they produced the best generals of the XX Century.............
military minds that could be placed side by side with Alexander, Caesar, Frederick the Great, Napoleon and Lee........

A brilliant piece of objective reasoning.
How anyone could claim you are biased is beyond me!

[Karl Heidenreich]

The greatest Jet Ace of all times: Kurt Welter. German. Using what has been described as a "defective" aircraft: the Me 262. He outranks post WWII israeli and vietnamese air aces.

Using a FW 190 he shot down three P 51 and two B 17 in one day!

He was never shot down but flew over his missions over his nation, Germany.

His record shows 25 Mosquitos and 2 four engine bombers shot down while flying the Me 262. Some of these claims, however, are being on dispute by other two German Me 262 aces: Franz Schall and Heinrich Bär.

Anyway, up to 2010 the Jet ace of aces is still in the hands of a German WWII ace (for 65 years), maybe will be forever.

WWI greatest ace: Richtofen
WWII greatest ace: Your pick
Jet Ace of all time: Welter

Best regards,

[Karl Heidenreich]

mkenny:

A brilliant piece of objective reasoning.
How anyone could claim you are biased is beyond me!

By the way, have you find the quote? Or have you done the comparison of the strenght of German crack units at the Eastern Front 1943 to Western 1944? We are still waiting.

Have you something to say about Marseilles, Nowotny, Welter, Sakai or Ilmari Juutilainen and Ivan Kozhedub?

[boredatwork]

History must be made objective, not subjective.

The problem is all of us are human, therefore who amongst us is really qualified to say with certainty where "historical truth" lies? I certainly wouldn't qualify myself to make such an absolute judgement.

Napoleon lost at Waterloo, but still is regarded as the great (or greatest) contemporary military genius. But when it comes to Germany then all things got mixed up: nazis, Holocaust, black legends, etc. etc. etc.

Napoleon was possibly the greatest contemporary military genius - that doesn't mean he didn't make mistakes. No objective evaluation of Napoleon would be complete without a throrough evaluation of both where he performed spectacularly against the odds and where he fought plodding, below average battles. Only in evaluating the "complete Napoleon" against complete evaluations of his peers can he properly be placed in a suitable ranking.

Likewise examining the circumstances under which the WW2 german armed forces succeeded (or failed) is not about "diminishing their achievements" or due to some politically correct revisionism, but rather you can only answer the question "how great" if you're prepared to evaluate the *complete* performances of all of the participants involved and the various circumstances involved.

[Karl Heidenreich]

boreatwork:

The problem is all of us are human, therefore who amongst us is really qualified to say with certainty where "historical truth" lies? I certainly wouldn't qualify myself to make such an absolute judgement.

True. But there are things that we know: that Krakatoa exploded in 1883; that the US put a man on the Moon in 1969, that Michael Schumacher made his last world championship in 2004 and that kind of things.

Things as the one we are discussing, obviously, is more complex than "just" that. However, why is so difficult to accept a fact that is so clear without trying to put arguments? At the end, as I had say innumerable times, the US was part of the group of nations that won the war. Period.

Napoleon was possibly the greatest contemporary military genius - that doesn't mean he didn't make mistakes. No objective evaluation of Napoleon would be complete without a throrough evaluation of both where he performed spectacularly against the odds and where he fought plodding, below average battles. Only in evaluating the "complete Napoleon" against complete evaluations of his peers can he properly be placed in a suitable ranking.

Likewise examining the circumstances under which the WW2 german armed forces succeeded (or failed) is not about "diminishing their achievements" or due to some politically correct revisionism, but rather you can only answer the question "how great" if you're prepared to evaluate the *complete* performances of all of the participants involved and the various circumstances involved.

I repeat: I do believe that you analyze things in a very objective way, more than me we can be sure of. Nevertheless there is a problem: if everybody is like you then discussion can and will avoid a lot of passion and can be more inteligent, agreed. But, again, it´s just you. You are inteligent enough to have noticed that there IS a political correct revisionism in the air, in this forum, which is what the problem is about, and that`s why I am so adamant (or ugly as Genda puts it). I will surely lie down if some objectivity is shown on the other side, and that has happened many times.

I think that`s it. By the way, two of my favorite TV series were Twelve O`Clock High (stupendous musical score; I also have the movie with Gregory Peck) and Baa Baa Black Sheep.

[mkenny]

You are inteligent enough to have noticed that there IS a political correct revisionism in the air, in this forum, which is what the problem is about, and that`s why I am so adamant (or ugly as Genda puts it). I will surely lie down if some objectivity is shown on the other side, and that has happened many times.

Objective?
You?
How can you claim objectivity when you consider one side had the best tanks, the best ships, the best aeroplanes , the best Generals ect ect ect. ?

Or have you done the comparison of the strenght of German crack units at the Eastern Front 1943 to Western 1944?

Hmmm.........{sarcasm alert} how do you pick the best of the best? Find the cream of the cream?

I did not know I was doing any comparison. Perhaps you are under the mistaken impression I am here to do all your research?
I realise you struggle to find relevant data but hey, you should at least try!

[Karl Heidenreich]

mkenny;

Good to hear from you.

[boredatwork]

Things as the one we are discussing, obviously, is more complex than "just" that. However, why is so difficult to accept a fact that is so clear without trying to put arguments? At the end, as I had say innumerable times, the US was part of the group of nations that won the war. Period.

The German aces were the *highest scoring* aces of all time. - This is a fact beyond resonable doubt. You compare one pilots kill totals with the other and the one with the most *scored* higher (acknowledging of course that there is reasonable room for error in all airforces' awarding of victories) No one disagrees with you on this.


The German aces were the most *skilled* pilots in WW2.
The Germans had a higher percentage of very skilled pilots than their allied counterparts.
The German aces were *much* more skilled than their allied counterparts.
On average German pilots in the war were more skilled than those of the other nations.

All of these statements however are opinion and not so clear cut hence open to *reasonable* debate. You can probably make a very strong case for #1 though not without reasonable arguments to the contrary remaining. On the otherhand very strong cases could be made against 3 & 4. All that is being argued is the premise that kill totals proportionately reflect skill is flawed as one kill does not necessarily take the same skill as another kill and therefore aren't a sufficiently objective measure to make a convincincing case on their own.

You are inteligent enough to have noticed that there IS a political correct revisionism in the air, in this forum, which is what the problem is about, and that`s why I am so adamant (or ugly as Genda puts it).

I've certainly noticed some pro-allied biases on the forum but I've also noticed pro-german biases as well. Again I'm probably not impartial enough to judge but I've always thought in general they've balanced each other out.

In many ways this reminds me of the movie Return of the King - if you're an elf you're arguing that all the factors behind each achievement should be considered while if you're a dwarf you're sticking to your guns that the Mumak should "still only count as one!"

[VeenenbergR]

mkenny: I must admit there is some logic in your last remarks......but still the Germans have a marked superiority in making or producing the top ranking fighter or tanker Aces.
Even if they used the scores of top ranking Aces in debates to decide who was the true killer.... the top ranking Ace at that moment.

Besides they also produced the top ranking U-boat Aces of all time.........(and that against very skilled and capabel anti U-Boat defenses;
very unlike US U-boat captains against the almost defenceless Japanese surface fleet)

Question: which German Ace is the Ace under all aces? Rudell? Rall? Hartmann? Wittmann? Kretschmer? Schnaufer? Or the gunner on the Bismarck which blew up 42.000 tons of Hood with ONE shell?
Or the almost unknown Soviet U boat captain sinking the most casualty rich ship disaster in all history.......The Wilhelm Gustloff: over 9000 dead.
Or the US captain dropping the atomic bomb? Killing more people than anyone else with one push of a button......

[lwd]

...
However some guys, like Bgile and lwd, have the tendency of trying to underate everything that smells axis, specially German, and more profound if it´s Historical Given Fact.

Not really. Speaking for myself I see many overrating some German equipement and personel. I try to put it in the correct persepctive.

My purpose to bring Marseille in all these is just to prove that:

1. We have a German ace with 158 kills.
2. All of them kills achieved without being shot down, so no "division" per downing: 158 clean kills.
3. All of them kills against western pilots, so no "Joseph Stalin" murdering his own people.
4. All of them kills over hostile or contested territory

Then, I do believe we have an "ace" that satisfies the totality of argumentative restrictions operating against any non-allied ace with more than 40 kills.
....

Even if the above is granted we still have the problem of it being a single data point and I'm not sure at all that all 4 points are correct. His death on the otherhand may well point to the effect of fatigue as it was the result of pilot error.

[lwd]

The greatest non German ace of all time is a Finnish pilot called Ilmari Juutilainen. Ninety four (94) kills against the soviets. It seems he was never shot down and fought over contested/hostile territory (soviet, I doubt there was something more hostile than that).

1. 94 kills
2. All over contested and/or hostile territory
3. Never shot down, so 94 clean kills

The seconf non German ace of all time is Japanese: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa. He claim 87 kills whilst there could be argued for 100 kills. All of them achieved without being shot down (until he finnally died, as a passenger in a transport attacked by two F6F.

So, again, we have an axis ace with:

1. 87 kills.
2. All over contested and/or hostile territory.
3. Never shot down, so 87 clean kills


So, we have from the Axis side top scoring aces as Hans Joachim Marseille, Walter Nowotny, Saburo Sakai, Ilmari Juutilainen and Hiroyoshi Nishizawa. All of them with "clean" kills.

[lwd]

The greatest non German ace of all time is a Finnish pilot called Ilmari Juutilainen. Ninety four (94) kills against the soviets.

Depends I guess on what your definition of "greatest ace" is. Let's see:

It seems he was never shot down and fought over contested/hostile territory (soviet, I doubt there was something more hostile than that).

The never shot down is a plus. How many planes if any did he have scrapped after landing? I'd classify at least some of the Pacfic battlefields as more hostile. Then there's the question of what percentage of the time he was flying over hostile or contested territory. I thought a lot of the Finnish air combat was in direct defence of Finland vs Soviet bombers.

1. 94 kills
2. All over contested and/or hostile territory
3. Never shot down, so 94 clean kills

How certain are we of the 94 kills? Certainly they were't all over hostile or constesed territory (not that claims over the same tend to be less accurate than claims over friendly territory). Then he's flying vs the Soviets who for some reason seam to have produced the most shot down planes of the war.

The seconf non German ace of all time is Japanese: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa. He claim 87 kills whilst there could be argued for 100 kills.
So, again, we have an axis ace with:

1. 87 kills.
2. All over contested and/or hostile territory.
3. Never shot down, so 87 clean kills

Japanese kill claims are rather problematic from what I understand they didn't officially give credit to individuals. This makes the number 87 very suspect. It could indeed be more or less. Again I suspect it was not all over contested or hostile territory.

So, we have from the Axis side top scoring aces as Hans Joachim Marseille, Walter Nowotny, Saburo Sakai, Ilmari Juutilainen and Hiroyoshi Nishizawa. All of them with "clean" kills.

And your point is