dear sirs,
i enjoyed the Korean war history by Mr. Boyne, but i must comment.
Boyne
cites the flight restrictions u.s. pilots operated under as being a
major disadvantage for them in engaging the MiGs in combat, especially
the prohibition on crossing the Yalu river into china. well, there were
stringent rules, and they were even enforced occasionally (a pilot
early in the war was grounded and sent home for crossing the river),
but these engagement rules were also routinely ignored.
my uncle
was Pete Fernandez, the third leading American ace of the war, and
according to him, if you wanted to get MiGs later in the war, you had
to cross the river and trick or goad them to come up and fight.
this
is the reason that so many kills were chalked up by a relatively small
number of pilots. those who strictly followed the rules didn't get many
kills, and getting kills was the name of the game, especially by '53.
it
was the "cowboys" like Blesse and Fischer and McConnell and my uncle
who racked up the big scores by deliberately breaking the rules. it
isn't pretty, but that's how it happened. there's an hour long history
channel documentary that airs occasionally, "aces of the Korean war," i
think it's called, and a Korea ace basically lays out the same info. i
can't remember which one, maybe it was major Blesse, or maybe it was
Fischer; do a google search for Harold Fischer, and you can find his
account of the same routine disregard for the Yalu river restrictions.
so just as we've updated our war histories to reflect the additional
information we now have from the Russian archives, we should do the
same for the mythology of strict rules of engagement, as the picture
become clearer of how things actually worked out.
thanks for your time.
ps- if Mr. Boyne does a web search for info on Russian aces in the war, he'll see that they too were operating under-and complaining about!--flight restrictions. i guess pilots always want a freer hand to fly wherever they want, it's a natural tendency... 37 101 2355 37.1064930170
Rules are for saps.
When you are in a war, the REAL rules are as follows:
1) Follow your rules until the other side breaks them or until you ascertain that Washington is full of idiots who just want to kill you with rules.
2) When the other side breaks the rules, the rules are off. Kill the bastards.
3) If Washington is trying to kill you with rules, resign & go home or ignore them and go kill the bastards. 37 108 505 37.1065163342
So maybe he's got a different perspective, opinion, or viewpoint, on this topic, shallow, or otherwise,,,. I don't believe he flew fighters in combat, and therefore, if you did, or know someone who did, chances are, you have further insight perhaps behind his opinions.
I know that I have enjoyed some of his writing, and have found it poignant and insightful.
As far as I know, he's not a big fighter expert, although he has written a book "Wild Blue" and contributes articles to Airpower and Wings. Generally speaking, and in the broadest sense he IS considered an authority on the history of air warfare.
Remember also that Television is by definition (no pun) and nature a shallow medium, and that's another reason why it's so very important to teach our kids to read,,, lest they grow up relying on CNN. God help us,,,. MC :? 37 114 1085 37.1065699479
besides, it's not just Boyne. i watched last week (Oct. 2003) on the Wings Channel an ongoing series called Fighter. the episode was entitled, "Mission: Dogfight." anyway, they ran a good 5 minutes of the one hour show (really 45 min after commercials) just on MiG Alley. They repeated all the same claptrap about the severe restrictions that American fighter jets operated under, the 10-to-1 kill ratio favoring the Sabre over the MiG, etc. (with adjustments for the Russian archives, it was still an incredible and unprecedented 7-to-1; why gild the lily?).
curiously, they did have current facts from the soviet archives confirming that "honchos," crack Russian pilots, operated clandestinely out of Chinese airbases. does the inclusion of this exposed secret of the soviets, but the neglect of the other exposed secret of the Americans, suggest a political agenda in the making of these documentaries? or is it simply sloppy research that doesn't check facts and repeats errors made previously? you tell me, because i don't know...
why do i have emotion about all this? the reason is because if working and retired regular guys like us can deal squarely with the reality in forums like this, why can't these professional researchers who make a living at the game get the same straight facts?
my other gripe is--like it or not--television is the dominant media form, especially for the youth. hence, while esoteric outlets like ours get it right, the mainstream lesson being taught to millions on the TV is a false one. such manipulation of information, whether intentional or through indifferent carelessness, runs counter to the democratic ideal of encouraging a well-informed citizenry.
the roman orator Cicero once said a people unaware of their history remain children forever. i might add that kids, as we all know, will fall for just about anything. only by arming ourselves with correct knowledge of what really happened before us can we participate as self-confident "adults" in a healthy democracy. ok, I'll climb down off my soapbox....for now! 37 130 2337 37.1066671763
yet you find revising the history to be "dangerous;" how so? what to you consider continuing to use the flawed records to be? safe & secure? (i guess those are the opposites of dangerous...)
if we are afraid to challenge the official records, especially when we KNOW they are wrong, isn't this the dangerous mentality of citizens in police states who fear upsetting the dominant interpretation of events for fear of offending the powers that be?
when the populace of communist countries has this kind of attitude, we think of them as dupes who are afraid to struggle for liberation/freedom. I'm not sure how fear & suspicion of revising flawed history in the US is any different.
you complain that researchers bring their bias to their historical revisionism: but of course they do! all researchers bring their bias into their work. if you are looking for impartial history, a "silver bullet" type analysis that is the "right" one, and you can read & ignore all the others, then i think you have a difficult search ahead of you.
if you accept everyone is biased in one form or another, then to get a grasp on events you have to read several histories from differing points of view, & draw you own conclusions.
of course, all the above is necessary only if one's agenda is trying to figure out what really happened in a give time or place, in this case, Korea. if one's agenda is not an honest evaluation of history, but rather simply to pay homage to American fighter pilots for being great heroes, then none of these steps are necessary.
if that is where you are coming from, i recognize your right to honor these brave men, and we should leave it at that. there is no reason to raise our cybernetic voices and become defensive, rude, etc. we just are coming from a different point of view as to the uses of history.
i too want to honor the fighter pilots of Korea, but my way is different. honoring the reality rather than the mythology is just my choice, not the "correct" one.
remember the great line by the newspaperman in the movie, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance? "This is the West, my friend," he says. "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
his point was not to rock the boat, not to undermine the status quo with the real history of what happened. many folks feel not challenging the dominant myths of our society, is more important that historical accuracy. to them, social/political stability that the mythology encourages is more important than anything else. maybe this is what you meant by revisionism being "dangerous"?
i am not one of those people. i don't say they are wrong, only that my priorities are different. i believe democracy is about following the truth wherever it leads, no matter the result. your view of democracy may be about protecting the reputation/mythology of this great country we live in, no matter the result.
i am not "right" in what i do, nor are you "wrong;" we just take different approaches.
ps- to al Lowe: you make a good point. certainly, some pilots, as Mr. Boyne contends, must have been "hamstrung" because they would not cross the Yalu, but the more research i do, the more of a minority they appear to have been. i at first thought only the top aces crossed, but apparently even the fliers who weren't "shooters," (the non-MiG killers) would cross the river with the big scorers, and cover their "six" as their wingmen... usually, the big names or higher-ranking guys would fly as the killer, and lower-ranking pilots would be regulated to the protection role. that's another reason the top aces got so many kills: they pulled rank!
i wouldn't say Boyne's contention of hamstrung 4th fighter-interceptor wing was non-existent, but i would argue it was a minor factor, not the major impediment Boyne (& other "high profile" US historians) routinely portray it as...
I'm enjoying the debate underway in these pages very much! later, jose c. 37 185 4550 37.1068476896
But be aware, there are MANY revisionists who are revising history for their own political agenda.
But if you can prove something happened, or didn't happen, then I think that needs to be said.
My only caveat to that is, if you SUSPECT something, but there's no or very little proof, then leave it alone.
That's my opinion anyway.
by "jose castillo"]i have some questions about the last response. we know the usaf records on the Korean air war are flawed, that point is not even up for contention (in addition to many pilot "confessions" now available, you could check out the excellent work being done at univ. of Kansas by Stephen Sewell, Conrad crane, etc.)...Ok Jose, Fair enough.yet you find revising the history to be "dangerous;" how so? what to you consider continuing to use the flawed records to be? safe & secure? (i guess those are the opposites of dangerous...)
You seem pretty sure of yourself on this topic.
And I don't profess to be an authority on this particular topic, behind reading and subscribing to the conventional summaries.
I just want to add some general commentary, and warnings about so-called "historical revisionism."
Assume for a moment I'm totally new to this,
So, how exactly is it, that it is known that the official USAF records are falsified, grossly exaggerated, or otherwise highly inaccurate ?
I'll concede ahead of time that all war time records are susceptible to exaggeration to a certain extent. With revisionism however, there's a very fine line between correcting inaccuracies, and further distortion, and that's a huge responsibility.
As an example,
I came
across an economics paper that happened to be about contemporary Japan,
recently, that made reference to the United States Civil War as being
merely round 3, by extension of 1812, and the original US war of
independence all against England. An interesting thought, but the
writer offered little in evidence to support the assertion, in that
particular paper.
Are there more reliable, detailed, and accurate records held elsewhere that contradict those official USAF versions ?
Are you using the Russian and N. Korean records ? Do you trust their motives and agenda, at the time these were compiled ? This was a country that lied compulsively throughout the cold war.
Questioning the conventional version is acceptable, at any time.
After all it's a free country, and that's the main reason why our
popular press can be trusted, more or less.
However, With Korea now slowing fading from living memory, although it's fine to debate all this, let's tread very carefully before advertising the revised theories, as the new, and better truth.
As Al backed me up, I meant dangerous among perspectives including, the re-writing and revision of history to favor personal opinions, to support theories, instincts, beliefs, judgments, political and personal agenda's, etc, etc,,.
It's fine to have opinions, theories, and thoughts, but that doesn't qualify those as official record, no matter what, until it's passed the test of true and protracted scrutiny, and wide spread acceptance by a broad consensus of acknowledged experts, and interested parties. Perhaps this is a step towards that outcome, but it's too early to declare, the conventional version as being trash.
Also, If you take off on that mission, you'd better be awfully confident of the revised version that you're peddling, lest another expert gets locked onto you're six and blows you away with some facts that may have been entirely overlooked in your argument. :wink:
There's always someone out there, who may know something, we don't.
We've seen this before, recently, right here, on this forum, on a closely related thread. :wink:
Take care.
MC 37 196 3719 37.1069361632
I think we all may "in violent agreement."
"Revisionism" is a value-laden word, which implies that the "revisionist" has an axe to grind.
Studying Soviet records to get a more accurate estimate of USAF claims is a perfectly worthwhile, non-controversial part of "ongoing historical research." John Lundstrom has done similar work on the Pacific War, piecing together Japanese records, comparing them to US claims. The records examined are not public propaganda statements, but (presumably reliable) combat unit archives.
It's an accepted fact that, in total, fighter claims (all countries, all wars) are overstated. Let's try to get the best answers.
As for trying to change official USAF or other "authoritative" sources, that's a "whole 'nother ball game."
By way of example ...
When we entered WWII, we only counted air-to-air victories where the target was shot down in flames or the enemy pilot bailed out. Damaged planes that bellied in later were not counted, nor were planes on the ground. Only planes that were piloted counted as well.
Gunners in bombers were never granted kills because so many guns were bearing on any fighters attacking a bomber formation.
So, German V1's didn't count, nor did planes destroyed on the ground. Later in WWII, however, planes destroyed on the ground DID count. So all those guys who might have been aces if their ground kills were counted were robbed.
Case in point, many people want Pappy Boyington's score revised downward. Almost all the people I have read on the subject are fans of either Joe Foss or Marion Carl. Think they have an axe to grind? Or what?
I say that if they want to revise Pappy Boyington's score, then they need to look closely at ALL the aces' scores, not just his. Point is, if you're going to apply revisionist policies to Boyington, do it to everyone and then there is no concern for "bias." If you don't want to do that, then shut up and live with history.
I agree with the Marine Corps.
Pappy's score is 28, unless you want to revisit ALL scores. If so, have at it, and let the chips fall where they may. Until then, 28 is correct. And before you chime in here, I am NOT one of those people whose mind is made up already about the result of revisions.
History is recorded and credit has already been assigned. Let it stand unless the whole list is to be reviewed.
Otherwise, the "top ace" in each category (i.e., Marine, ETO, PTO, etc.) will always be just a "target" for those whose father or friend was number two. 37 223 2036 37.1071972241
by "Greg_P"]I don't believe in revisionism ... unless there is proof that the specific instance in question is recorded incorrectly in that country's armed services history.By way of example ...
When we entered WWII, we only counted air-to-air victories where the target was shot down in flames or the enemy pilot bailed out. Damaged planes that bellied in later were not counted, nor were planes on the ground. Only planes that were piloted counted as well.
Gunners in bombers were never granted kills because so many guns were bearing on any fighters attacking a bomber formation.
So, German V1's didn't count, nor did planes destroyed on the ground. Later in WWII, however, planes destroyed on the ground DID count. So all those guys who might have been aces if their ground kills were counted were robbed.
by "Greg_P"]If it wasn't for the fact that the truth about his AVG claims came out, no one would be asking for his score to be revised. The sad truth is, he didn't have as many air-to-air victories as he claimed. As for his score as a Marine Fighter pilot, he claims he got 22. Foss got 26 while flying as a Marine, that makes him the top MARINE ace, if you count Boyington's 6 from the AVG. Yeah, his total is 28, if you don't discount the ground kills that he counted as aerial kills, but he wasn't a Marine then. He was a mercenary.
Case in point, many people want Pappy Boyington's score revised downward. Almost all the people I have read on the subject are fans of either Joe Foss or Marion Carl. Think they have an axe to grind? Or what?
by "Greg_P"]
I say that if they want to revise Pappy Boyington's score, then they need to look closely at ALL the aces' scores, not just his. Point is, if you're going to apply revisionist policies to Boyington, do it to everyone and then there is no concern for "bias." If you don't want to do that, then shut up and live with history.I agree with the Marine Corps.
Pappy's score is 28, unless you want to revisit ALL scores. If so, have at it, and let the chips fall where they may. Until then, 28 is correct. And before you chime in here, I am NOT one of those people whose mind is made up already about the result of revisions.
History is recorded and credit has already been assigned. Let it stand unless the whole list is to be reviewed.
Otherwise, the "top ace" in each category (i.e., Marine, ETO, PTO, etc.) will always be just a "target" for those whose father or friend was number two.
Given time, I'm sure that anyone who's claims are
"hazy" will be investigated. Research in this area is an ongoing
process. It takes time and can not be done over night. As much as there
are pilots whose claims were questionable, there are also those who are
above reproach.
Myself, I don't have a stake in this argument, I'm neither for nor against Boyington, Foss, or Carl. But I say if someone finds proof that someone maybe "embellished" their claims, you correct it where and when you can.
And for those unaware, there
are many questions about Robert "Butcher Bob" Hanson's score too, but
as he was KIA, not many historians talk much about it. I expect though,
that if any real proof surfaces in the next few years, his score of 25
may be closely scrutinized too.