Heroic Revisionism

As the "Hero" thread is about to drop off I thought to repeat a portion of Tom Cervo's post - one that Vin described as particularly interesting. "Bader said something like it when Fighter Command's "forward into France" strategy was questioned. He had a personal stake in that question, since his patrons--the men he'd helped into power, Sholto-Douglas and Leigh-Mallory--had staked their regimes on it. And it was a near total failure. The RAF tried to force the uftwaffe into a defensive battle over France, the kind fought by the RAF over Southern England. Apparently no one realized that the Germans didn't care very much about France being bombed, and fought only when they had an advantage. The forward strategy did little more than provide target practise for the Luftwaffe. And, in order to implement it, the two great fighter commanders of the RAF, Dowding and Park, were stabbed in the back. One of the hands on those knives was Bader's. Bader was wrong on every strategic impulse he had. He was wrong on the Big Wing, wrong on cannon in fighters, wrong on the forward strategy. He was indeed an inpsirational commander, but I respect him enough NOT to give him a "handicap" for his handicap. Compared to Malan, his contemporary, he suffers in every comparison. If his attitude towards rankers is taken into account, then being shot down in 1941 was a hidden blessing. Had he commanded a station in 1944 he might have faced the same near-mutiny that Alan Cobby did in New Guinea. One of his sergeants (who flew throughout the war, ending as a Wing Commander) said that it was obvious that he didn't care for sergeant-pilots, and this was in 1940-41, when they were lower middle class or upper working class. I don't think he would have lasted a week trying to command a station in 1944. Compare Bader and Malan after the war as well. When he died, prematurely, Malan was an opponent of South Africa's aparthied givernment, while Bader seemed to think that the white Rhodesians were the answer to Africa's ills." With few exceptions I would endorse Tom's assessment (my prime difference of opinion is in the matter of Bader's culpability in the undoing of Park and Dowding - his rank made him an unlikely conspirator but most certainly a tool of those who were). The comparison with Malan is very close to the mark. The point is that much of the Bader image is based on a 1954 book and a (circa) 1960 film based on the book - and subsequent studies that take a different note are apt to be denounced as "revisionist" and hence contempible. But history is constantly being revised as documents are declassified, old secrets revealed, new archives opened, and new insights perceived. The challenge is not to shoot the messenger when he arrives but to assess his message.

I hit "submit" when I meant to preview, so I apologize for jumbled format of the first post.

Revisionism gets a bad name from those who have determined their conclusions in advance, then select the facts to fit. On the other hand, though, are "revisionists" who write outrageous things because they do not understand the facts as laid out before them (who are horrified, for example, at the battle tactics of the 18th Century without realizing the degree to which such tactics were dictated by the technology of the day.

Then there are the people who begin "revising" even before the smoke has cleared away. During the War of 1812, Canada was succesfully defended against American invasion in large measure by limited numbers of British regulars, assisted by Canadian Militia (the most useful of which had been organized into line regiments, trained along "redcoat" lines (Fencible regiments)- but the bulk of the militia, when called out, was undrilled in arms and thus useful for little other than transport work. In the immediate aftermath of the war, colonial politicians (the most notable being John Strachan) virtually rewrote the history of the war so that the "saviours of Upper Canada" were the militia, with only grudging acknowledgement of units like the 49th Foot. The history of that war - at least in Canada - was not properly rebalanced until Charles Steacy and Mac Hitsman began their "re-revisionist" writings in the 1950s. We Canadians also entertain the hope that the Americans will also get it right.

I understand (I am open to education on this point) that a similar thing happened after the American Revolution, with the importance of the professional Continental Army down-played in favour of less effective militias - in part because Jeffersonian democracy was uncomfortable with professional armies, however small, and had to find excuses for minimizing the size of the army.

So "revisionism" cuts many ways. Without it, we might still think of George Custer and Robert Falcon Scott as semi-canonized heros rather than blunderers. And Billy Bishop would never be a subject for debate.

Hugh
I agree with your assessment of Douglas Bader who was undoubtedly very brave but of limited intelligence and understanding.
There was an hagiography written by Laddie Lucas who was I believe his brother-in-law which first caused me to doubt his ability in the post war world.
He was I believe employed by Shell? and I was left with the impression that Bader's work for the company was actually performed by some unfortunate Bean Counter. I think the words used were that he (Bader) looked at the "Broader Picture."
There was on T.V. recently resentment expressed at his behaviour in Colditz, causing Red Cross parcels to be witheld.
This of course has nothing to do with W.W.1
You forgot to add in your American attack that America gained its independence by the use of a British born General (G.Washington) and British settlers against the German King George 3 and his Hannovarian troops.
This also has nothing to do with W.W.1
I didn't agree with your assessment of Luke. I just thought what a nuisance to those in authority he must have been. Compared to Rickenbacker he pales into insignificance.
Kind regards.
Peter S.

Well, you are absolutely wrong about the anti-revisionists on this forum having pre-formed conclusions. History revisionism is a worldwide problem that began in 1958 as a method for the Illuminated Ones to make the New World Order more palatible. It takes all kinds of tactics to bring them out into the light.
In the very near fu;ture, you'll find that professional historians are with revisionism or totally against it. And, yup, I can tell you where to find this for yourself with minimal research, but only via EMail. OK?
Not being up to date on WW-II, I do not understand why cannon did not work on fighter aircraft. Seems to me it was a great step up from rifle caliber machine guns.

[Barrett]

I guess we could indulge in Clintonian arguments about the shades and nuances of the noun "historian" (let alone "revisionism") but here's one author's perspective:
Revisionism, in the literal sense, is not at all undesirable. In fact, I think it's important if we're to advance our knowledge of our own past. At risk of moving to too elevated a plane, I recall the biblical scholar who described the built-in resistance to new versions of the scriptures based either on more complete papyrii (papyryses?) or more precise translations.
If I discover more complete data regarding something I wrote 20 years ago (which still happens), I'm all in favor of revising it. If, OTOH, somebody focuses too narrowly on that data, or twists its interpretation to misrepresent the conclusion, that sort of revisionism is not only propaganda, but intellectually dishonest.
the really twisty road to history occurs when we start revising the revisions. Ferinstance: assume that SOMEWHERE there's a German account describing Bishop's still-unproven VC action? Whoa! Then we're undoing the previous undoing of a legend. Tricky stuff indeed...
My money's still on Al to unearth the proof.

I think Hugh's message is overall quite on target.

"Revisionism gets a bad name from those who have determined their conclusions in advance, then select the facts to fit. On the other hand, though, are "revisionists" who write outrageous things because they do not understand the facts as laid out before them (who are horrified, for example, at the battle tactics of the 18th Century without realizing the degree to which such tactics were dictated by the technology of the day.)"

I've seen this at work in the field of Near-Eastern archaeology, where the "revisionists" have gone beyond the concept of reviewing what has been scientifically uncovered and documented to the point of belittling and attacking those who choose to see the same data and artifacts in a different light. Because these revisionist tactics are tolerated, er, um, applauded by a certain faction of academia, they have grown in quantity. Unfortunately many people fall for the false precept that quantity of a lie or misdirection makes something true. This is the type of misunderstanding that led to so many people in the USA believing for so many years that the way Washington's troops beat the British redcoats was because our guys hid behind trees and bushes instead of standing in those ridiculous long lines. Yes I know that last sentence has nothing to do with WW1- on the surface- but it does illustrate a point made about WW1. Namely that there ARE people who have made up their mind ahead of time and revise history to promote a certain agenda. Note the historical revisionists of Japan who try to change the blame game and ignore the crimes in China etc.

Now on to WW1- a case in point. Last night I watched "The American Experience" episode on the Lusitania and the mystery surrounding its sinking. Far more interesting to me are the consequences of the sinking, and the eventual bringing of America into WW1. Revisionists still focus on the errors of the Captain, or the manipulation of the event as a propaganda tool to get America closer to joining the fight. Yet overlooked by everyone in the room with me was the interesting comment about Britain's "illegal" stranglehold blockade against food getting to Germany- which resulted in Germany's feeling it necessary to expand the U-boat scope of operations which led to the sinking. Now where are the revisionisty outcries? Well, Germany must still be the bad guy. I'm not saying they were or they weren't- I just think it is a fascinating area to explore and develope for enlightenment.

Now I've mentioned the Lusitania, but this is a WW1 "aero" forum- Hugh, forumites, what exactly ARE the revisionist controversies that need clarifying? Let's LIST them- this could be very interesting!

Very Best Regards,
Mark Daymont

Peter: George III was born in England. In those days there was no such country as Germany, but only a large number of petty kingdoms, like Hannover, which were amalgamated into what we call Germany today, in 1871, after the Franco-Prussian war.
It was a former officer in the English army named Gates, who defeated Howe at Saratoga in 1777. Howe looked down his nose at Gates, whose uniform was shabby, and said,"You look like a midwife to me." Gates answered: "I am, sir, I am. I have just delivered you of your army."
Until recent times, Americans have always gone into wars unprepared and under equipped and poorly trained, but we eventually fought our way against odds to victory, when the militia elements and the draftees learned how to fight. That militia became the National Guard, which fielded about 12 divisions in WWI in France, and those doughboys put up just as good a fight as Regulars. Just finished a book called "The Lost Battallion" in which the Bn commander, Major Whittlesly, having been ordered to fight up a cul de sac only to get surrounded by Germans. He was ordered not to surrender-no matter what. He did stay and fought, but lost over 500, and came out of it with about 150 men who were starving on their feet because the rations did not get to them in time. The major was promoted to colonel on the spot, but because he was National Guard, 77 Division staff wanted to courtmartial him for obeying an illegal order not to surrender, when it is within regs to surrender when further resistance becomes nonproductive. Which brings me to authority and Frank Luke and your statement about him being inconsequential to Rickenbacker because he bucked authority in the name of captain Grant, who was told to stop harrassing Luke by Pershing himself, and by Group commander Hartney. Billy Mitchell and staff even came down to the 27th to watch Luke and Wehner knock down some balloons at a specified time. As to record, Rickenbacker had 26 credits over an 180 period, while Luke was at the front 63 days for 18 victories. Rick got a plane every 6.9 days and Luke every 3.5 days. If we gave Luke 2 credits for balloons as the Germans did, Luke would have had 32 credits vs 30 for Rick (he got 4 balloons). Even Grant woke up to his abuse of authority, after Luke died, and put him in for the DFC, the MOH, and a 1st lieutenancy, which were signed off by Hartney, Mitchell and Pershing.
I don't know what your references about authority and his so called lack of repect for it are, but I'd like to know what your sources are.
VBRs Billy H.06/Feb01/0330

Barrett: 4.0 for your insight: there is nothing wrong with revision, if it is a revisitation for the purpose of correction. We need honest revisionists who can unearth the implausible in history, or have located other sources for consideration. But the term has got a bad connotation in recent times because some so called revisionists, like Irving, who tried to tell us that the Holocaust never happened, are pathological liars, or buck hungry, or politically motivated, or mentally unbalanced, etc. History is what happens to people, nothing more. When Clinton lied to the world about Monica, et al, he was a false revisionist unmasked by a prosecutor-revisionist who came up with that blue dress to give the lie to Clinton, who only admitted to the falsehood on his last day in office. VBRs Billy H.06Feb01/0400.

[rammjaeger]

Billy Haiber,

what is your source for that claim:

"If we gave Luke 2 credits for balloons as the Germans did"

???

To be honest: I saw never this way of crediting balloon victories in the Luftstreitkräfte. Did I miss something?

VBR
Hannes

Actually a good long debate involving common belief vs facts, old tales retold vs modern re-examination of circumstances, ran on this Forum several months - along the lines of "What would you have done ?" and exploring both the causes of trench warfare deadlock (several) and the possible alternatives to it (almost none, given the prevailing technology). I assume it is now in the Forum Archives - unless the glitches that have bedeviled Scott somehow wiped it out.