INTRODUCTION
Our Consultant Editor, Robin Schäfer, sets the scene for the content in this special issue.
The man to whom this issue of Iron Cross is dedicated became a legend long before reaching the age of 25, his fame stretching far beyond the German Empire. People avidly followed the exploits of the world’s most famous aviator in the press, and from the end of 1917 by reading his autobiography. It is telling that this book, selling in record numbers in Germany, was translated into English and actually published in Britain and America during the war.
Since then, Manfred von Richthofen’s story has been told in countless biographies, magazine articles, TV documentaries and movies. Some authors, like E M Cutlack in the history of the Australian Flying Corps [The Official History of Australia in the War of 1914-1918, Volume VIII, 1923], James Ira Thomas “Taffy” Jones, a Welsh ace, in his biography of Edward Mannock VC, [King of Air Fighters, 1934], and RFC veteran and writer Arthur George Joseph “Arch” Whitehouse [Years of the Sky Kings, 1959], have portrayed Richthofen as ignoble, cold, calculating, cold-blooded, inhuman - and worse. They claimed he went for ‘easy-kills’ only, fighting when terms were in his favour and only when backed up by superior numbers. Additionally, that most of his victories were over inferior ‘defenceless’ two-seaters (see page 60) and that his victory record was ‘tweaked’ to keep him in the lead. Indeed, E M Cutlack suggested:
‘The large account of victims with which he was credited in his own service would, it is said, have required heavy pruning in that of the British. Richthofen’s accredited total of 80 victims was widely declared to include some shot down by his squadron in combined attack, where the destruction of a victim was the work of several machines.’
This is an empty claim, especially if judged by British standards where overclaiming wasn’t particularly rare and where ‘out of control’ and ‘driven down’ victims were counted, or where ‘shared’ victories were credited to more than one pilot.
RFC and RAF claims, though, were sometimes submitted by pilots who had been on lone patrols, or were otherwise unable to offer verification by a third party. (In this context, the claims of Billy Bishop and Raymond Collishaw are worthy of investigation) But this is by no-means meant to dispute the claims of a majority of brave British fliers, but to make the point that such systems and practices did not exist in the German Air Service. There, every victory needed verification by witnesses in the air and on the ground.
Modern historians have forensically examined von Richthofen’s claims [James F. Miller’s two-volume study ‘Inside the Victories of Manfred von Richthofen’, Aeronaut Publishing 2016, is recommended] by seeking to set the record straight. We know that Richthofen, who always led by example, never failed to take risks in showing his men ‘how it was done’, or in keeping comrades out of harm’s way.
Long after the once supreme Albatros fighters became obsolete, Manfred climbed into the sky daily, seeking out combat with an enemy superior in both numbers and in quality of equipment. His personal courage was unquestionable, as were his skills as a fighter pilot. When - after a break of several weeks - he climbed back into the cockpit of his Dreidecker on 12 March 1918, he went on to score 17 victories until he was killed on 21 April.
At least 14 of those 17 victories were against types that were equal or superior to Richthofen’s Dreidecker: two Se.5as, three Bristol F2B twoseaters, one Sopwith Dolphin and eight Sopwith Camels. It is worth noting that if Richthofen had flown for the USA, then this score alone would have made him that country’s No.3 ace.
His men adored him, relying on him as leader, saviour, teacher and example. But was he cold and calculating? Competitive? A walking ‘weapon-system’ without emotion? In a sense, he was. After all, he was a product of his time and had trained for war from the tender age of 11. He had been raised to embrace Prussian virtues: conscientiousness, courage, discipline, obedience, fortitude without self-pity, modesty, restraint and loyalty – as well as the concept of ‘Härte’ (toughness), which in Prussian philosophy meant toughness against one’s personal weaknesses.
He was fastidiously correct in all he did: precise, moderate of behaviour, a man of few words when among strangers and always driven to fulfill his duty to King, Kaiser and Vaterland. This, on the one hand, meant he would rid himself of those he found weak or not measuring up to his standards, replacing them with better men. On the other hand, he was exceptionally loyal; a true friend to those who fought by his side and under his command.
Richthofen was no heartless, coldblooded killer. And neither was he a paragon of virtue. He was a product of his time; a smart and cunning warrior, a great leader and an intrepid aviator.
We have tried, though, to view him objectively and address common misconceptions along the way. But some questions, such as those about his lovelife, we have chosen to ignore - there being no serious evidence on which to base any reliable answer.