Talk:Erich Hartmann/Archive 1

Comment
'Scored his 300th aerial victory and was thus awarded the Knights Cross.'

I have deleted the word 'thus' from para 4 in the article. It gives the impression that pilots were automatically awarded the Knights Cross because they had scored 300 victories.

84.130.121.234 16:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

What exactly did the USSR charge him with? - LamontCranston 06:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know he was first charged with a vague charge of destruction of State property - then the more spesific charge of shooting civilians. However - the Soviets didnt really need to charge him, as they held thousands of Germans for up to 10 years as POW's - regardless of wheter they had commited war crimes or not. Abel29a 23:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hartmann never shot down 352 aircraft. The Luftwaffe inflated all scores and since he was a leader of formation he had his score augmented in function to the total obtained by the pilots he led into combat.

Article found about the Luftwaffe's pratice of increasing victories which. This explains why the Luftwaffe had many high scoring aces during the war. Its mostly about Galland, but also mentions Hartmann. I also heard about this practice while watching a doucmentry on the History Channel about the Battle of Britain. I believe its safe to say Hartmann never scored 352. http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/coppens.htm

This assumption of inflated scores is incorrect; The luftwaffe ace's scores stand up to scrutiny far better than any other of the combatant nations in WW2; whilst inevitably there was alot of over claiming ( as happens in all air combat in WW2) Hartmann was the top scorer in an Luftwaffe fighter force that; - was outnumbered and therefore had plenty of targets -on all fronts, - was for the first half of the war at least tactically and technologically superior to all its opponents. - flew far more missions than Allied pilots ( Hartmann flew got his 352 in ~800 missions, Francis Grabreski, one of the highest scoring USAAF pilot got 28 kills in ~153) - did not have rest periods like Allied pilots- they flew until they were incapacitated or died. The 'points' system referred to was in fact dvised by the luftwaffe to 'even up' the gallantry awards system between the Russian Front aces -who were shooting down far more aircraft and getting far more 'gongs'- and their ertswhile comrades on the Channel coast, fighting a far tougher RAF and USAAF- hence a Russian fighter down was one point towards an Iron cross, Knights Cross etc, a B17 was 4 points, etc etc. This is often confused for actual shoot-downs, but certainly not by the Luftwaffe at the time!! Harryurz 20:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)]

It is "Staffel Kapitän" if the "Staffel Kaptain" ought to be German. 80.109.198.157 08:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed Abel29a 23:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggest all readers of this page check the writings of Col. Raymond Toliver, Validator of the U.S. Fighter Aces Association. Toliver examined the Hartmann data and concluded that "the Hartmann records are more accurate than ours [U.S.]." Gamahler 03:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet his Mustang claims dropped down from 7 to 2 quite easily. Should the reduction % be kept for all his claims?

In your dreams! When Hartmann surrendered JG52 to the U.S. Army, all their logs were “captured” and retained before the personnel was handed over to the Soviets. These are the Hartmann records that show No. 265 and No. 347 as P-51 Mustangs. Just because he fought for a despicable regime seems to be sufficient reason for clubs of professional and amateur doubters to “feel” that Hartmann’s achievements must somehow be less than what they are.--Gamahler 20:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Another very problematic claim presented in the article is that he shot down "over 200 LaGG fighters". Apart from a very rounded number the La GG was an aircraft that was being gradually phased out of service in the Soviet Air Force from mid-1943, being replaced by La-5 (a not-so-similar aircraft since it used radial engine vs inline for La-GG). Hartmann flew from mid 1942, right? So why are ALL of his victories over the Soviet fighters La GGs? And where are the Yaks? They were the main Soviet fighters of the war and he shot down none? I`ve read a story that his last victory was a Yak (9 or 3) performing acrobations over the just-liberated Prague. And Il-2 s (and 10s) were also a very common aircraft on the Eastern front (also being the single most produced type of aircraft in WW2 and possibly in history). And he shot down only 15 out of his 352 victories? Sources, please or LOL!

The longer I`m investigating into the claims of aces from all sides, the more I`m convinced that they hardly shot down half of what they claimed.

go to http://www.luftwaffe.cz/hartmann.html and review the kill listings- there are plenty of Yak aircraft claimed there- as for the 'LaGG' issue these numbers invariably include LaGG3, La-5 and La-7 types all lumped into the same recorded category. The change in the Lavochkin LaGG abbrevation was due to the fact that one of the original LaGG designers was no longer with the programme.Harryurz 18:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok so we agree! Hartmann's kill tally included some 200 LaGG-3 fighters La GG-3 is a specific version of the Lavochkin series of fighters so this is clearly wrong! I`m changing it to "various single-engined Soviet-built fighters".

I have absolutely no expertise on Soviet flying machinery and readily defer to your input. Some twenty years ago I attended a course on “Archival Research” at the National Archives, Washington, D.C. I recall a hand-out listing an inventory of massive amounts of “captured” records of the Third Reich, including most, if not all, Luftwaffe documents that survived bombing. If some of this was later returned to the former enemy, it was microfilmed. I assume that the JG52 logs in original or microfilm are part of this collection and are thus available as copies to enterprising fact-finders through some sort of inter-library loan. Should the opportunity present itself, I will visit the Regional Archives Branch, National Archives, San Francisco, make inquiries and report back. My contribution to wikipedia was simply to support Raymond Toliver and his opinion on Erich Hartmann - and it ends there. I am convinced Toliver’s credibility and standing in the air war fraternity is impeccable. That said, thank you for your info and your courtesy.--Gamahler 04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that Toliver wrote his 1986. book without any accsess to the Soviet casualty records in their heavilly censored archives, so he had no way to actually verify the claims.

Here is a link that describes the difference between the "points" system (used for awards) and kill tally. http://members.aol.com/dheitm8612/score.htm I think it is perfectly plausable (and true, IMO) to say Hartmann did indeed shoot down 352 enemy aircraft. Besides, the claim that is score was inflated was investigated by the authors of The Blond Knight of Germany and found to be without merrit.


 * Regardless of the distinction between kills and points, I find it difficult to accept that the Hartmann/Bf109 combination v Soviets was almost 10 times better than Dick Bong/P-38 v Japanese. The WW2 German practice of rewarding pilots in direct proportion to their number of kills provided a clear, material incentive to inflate claims.
 * Here are the words of Maj Robert F. Tate USAFR, reviewing Desert Warriors: Australian P-40 Pilots at War in the Middle East and North Africa, 1941–1943 by Russell Brown (2000):
 * In many books and articles on the desert air war, pilots of the desert air forces, primarily Australian and South African, are often considered second rate. When we view them through our typical ethnocentric American eyes, we often want to downgrade their abilities in order to justify the apparent kills of their German counterparts. It is apparent that the Australian pilots had their fair share of “Stuka parties” and drew blood against the Luftwaffe on a regular basis. However, they are often incorrectly portrayed as hapless pilots forced to cower for safety in the defensive Lufbery Circle while hotshot Luftwaffe pilots had their way with them, shooting them down in droves time and time again. In our minds, how else could the top Luftwaffe aces have achieved the victories they claimed if their opponents were anything but substandard? Not only does this book demonstrate the quality, professionalism, and tenacity of pilots within the Royal Australian Air Force, but also it debunks the myth of natural German superiority. Although the Germans did have very successful pilots in North Africa, the author is able to compare some German claims to actual losses on several occasions, demonstrating the not-too-uncommon habit of German overclaiming'' [emphasis added]. The author does this not to imply that German claims were widely distorted, admitting that overclaiming occurred on both sides, but to suggest that, on occasion, things were not as they necessarily seemed.


 * I'm thinking you could probably substitute "Soviet" for "Desert", "Australian" and "South African" there. Grant65 | Talk 02:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In the case of the Western desert (although the same principles generally hold for many operations on the Eastern Front) the Allied Air Forces' sorties were tactical or ground-attacks directly subordinate to the ground Army's needs; this meant RAAF and SAAF fighter-bomber operations at low speed and low level- ideal for the available Luftwaffe pilots to ambush and build up large scores compared to the Allies. In the confusion of combat scores were inflated but rarely deliberately so; as with the Allied air claims.Harryurz 17:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From that I guess you do think Hartmann+Bf109 v Soviets was almost 10X better than Dick Bong+P-38 v Japanese. Grant65 | Talk 07:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

By no means; I'm just pointing out that you cannot directly compare aces 'scores' in this overly simplistic way. Each theatre of war had its own unique opportunities and potential targets for certain pilots to build up different numbers of claims. Had Bong been German then he certainly would have been a top Luftwaffe ace- the fact he 'only' claimed 40 kills was due to the particular opportunities presented to him during his USAAF combat career in the Pacific.Harryurz 18:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why couldnt Hartmann/Bf 109 be 10x more succesfull then Bong/P38? Bong flew in combat full time for a year and a half, dec '42-apr '44. Then had a six month leave and then flew in a semi-combat role from sep '44-jan '45. Compare that to Hartmanns sep '42-may'45 almost nonstop flying and you have a 1 year difference in "killing" time. In addition Bong flew in the pacific - meaning long distances(max one sortie per day if that), bigger chances of missing one's prey completely - looking for an elusive enemy. Hartmann on the other hand could fly two/three sorties a day and had a whole array of enemy targets all actively seeking the germans. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me to have a 10X advantage in kills under those conditions. Comparing the two aces is like comparing apples to oranges IMO. Abel29a 13:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. When you read the combat histories of U.S. pilots like Bong or Thomas McGuire, you see long stretches where their sorties never encounter an enemy plane (particularly by 1944).  By contrast, by 1944, the German pilots couldn't help but come across waves of Allied planes on each sortie.  If you were a German (or Japanese) fighter pilot, it was a target-rich environment.  Add on to that, at any given time the vast majority of pilots (on any side) were inexperienced.  If you were good, and lucky, the opportunities awaited. Epstein&#39;s Mother 10:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope this won´t become a "why dont we got the best aces?" "discussion". A "target-rich environment" means also a "thread-rich environment" cause fighting more enemies is not better, its worse. And flying allways nonstop aint good as well. Someone said they flew until they died while allied pilots had way longer rest periods and that will reduce a pilots efficency as well it produces enormeous stress. And to the "faked statistics". Those who win the wars fake their statistics afterwards to make it look good, not those who lost it. How could they, at least all of their documents where captured by the allies and if you have a faked statistic for the masses, you allways also have a real statistic for the insiders. To be a historian means much more then to be a wikipedia-author who read one or two books (in the best case)or saw one or two tv shows, proudly presented by the patriot-society and the US Airforce. You cant believe that thousands of historians from all over the world wouldnt have rewritten these facts when there were heavy doubts or facts who speak against it.

Downed Mustangs
OK, 2, 4 or 7? The number varies between the sources, but the 2 and 4 are both present in the article. Are we going to choose one number, or present all of them with references? The article contradicts itself as it stands. I personally think that lower numbers are mostly true when it comes to aircraft losses in general, but that`s just my oppinion.


 * Hartmann shot down a grand total of 7 Mustangs. Of those, 2 were shot down over Prague in a single combat engagement, and 4 more were downed over Romania. So all those numbers are, in a way, correct :) Rig0 03:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It was 8. Hartmann made contact with Mustangs on three combat missions destroying 2-4-2. Explanation, dates and citations added Dapi89 (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC).

Convicted or not?
In the After the War section it now states:

"Hartmann was charged with war crimes (specifically, deliberate shooting of Russian civilians) and was subjected to harsh treatment during the early years of his imprisonment, including solitary confinement in total darkness. Despite this, Hartmann refused to confess to these charges, which were later dropped"

Then in the last line:

"Russia exonerated Erich Hartmann in January 1997. It was stated that his conviction had not been lawful."

So was he convicted or were the charges dropped? As far as I know he was charged and convicted of a vague charge of destruction of state property, but it's been a while since I read the Blonde Knight of Germany or other reliable sources. Abel29a 13:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess being charged guilty for the destruction of "state property" is ridicolous in a war. Maybe it was some typical sort of winner mentality in soviet russia but even in modern russia (and remember he was exonerated in 1997), this wouldn´t be logical to convict someone. I mean as a fighter pilot you have a hard job if you´re into warcrimes, exept you enjoy it to waste you´re bullets on some villages or maybe cows out at feed. I mean soviet submarines sunk civilian or red cross ships full of refugees and weren´t court marshalled so it doesn´t matter if he was charged guilty or not cause it was clear winner justice. He would be a war criminal if there were facts (and if there were facts, he wouldnt have been exonerated.

Shot down or not
I am a bit frustrated with the available literature.

I recently purchased
 * Williamson, Gordon. Knight's Cross with Diamonds Recipients 1941-45. Osprey Publishing Ltd, 2006. ISBN 1-84176-644-5.
 * Scutts, Jerry. Bf 109 Aces of North Africa and the Mediterranean. London: Osprey Publishing, 1994. ISBN 1-85532-448-2.

We see here that a number of editors that make corrections to the article and claim that Hartmann was shot down 16 times. I believe that these edits are made in good faith because they are inline with what is documented in Knight's Cross with Diamonds Recipients 1941-45 (This may be one example of potentially more?). However I also believe that Williamson is making a wrong statement here. Most(all?) other books and articles pertaining to Hartmann state that he lost a number of aircraft due to debris hitting his aircraft coming from the plane he just shot down plus one instance when he was forced to bail out after being run out of fuel.

Now having gone through a similar sensitive discussion on over-claiming I would normally suggest that the respective article should indicate these discrepancies. However, in this instance I find the Osprey books often too technically flawed as to give them credibility. Example taken from Bf 109 Aces of North Africa and the Mediterranean, The Oak Leaves to the Knight's Cross are referred to as Eisenlaub correct would be Eichenlaub. Eisenlaub translates to Iron Leaves.

The question I have is there a mechanism to rank the credibility of sources and references?MisterBee1966 16:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He was never shot down. But at least one time he was forced to bail out of his Bf 109, nearly out of fuel and chased by several P-51s. This one should be the only one coming close to a shot down. AFAIK that was late-war somewhere over Hungary/Bulgaria/Romania. --Denniss 16:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nickname
I am wondering about his nickname. I know that his nickname Bubi was given to him when he was first assigned to JG 52 for his boyish appearance. Germans sometimes call little boys Bubi, which means little boy or small kid. The Blond Knight of Germany I believe was given to him by Toliver and Constable, the English version of Holt Hartmann vom Himmel (here my best litteral translation: "Get Hartmann from the sky") is called Blond Knight of Germany. I don't recall ever having come across him being referred to as Der blonde Ritter (Blond Knight). MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"I" versus "me"
I can't imagine that even the most ignorant German would use "er bestellte ich" in place of "er bestellte mich" - it is crazy. Carrionluggage (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The author was not German, I think that answers the question :) Dapi89 (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about this paragaph
Under their guidance Hartmann steadily developed his tactics which would earn him the coveted Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds on 25 August 1945 for claiming 301 aerial victories.

Is this correct, the war was over by then. :S--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not correct. It should have read 25 August 1944. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Flying debris
It is worth to mention about Hartmanns claim that he was never shot down and all his losses are due to collision with flying debris. But why mention about it in all other occasions? Is there any proof that he was indeed hit by debris, not by enemy aircraft? Any person with basic logic would understand that at least some of his downs were caused not by debris, but by enemy fire. Yet authors of this article proudly follow steps of doctor Goebbels in creating nazi style arian super human propaganda legends.


 * Erm? What are you trying to prove/disprove? Can you explain?Foamking (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Fighting style
I think more citations on this is needed to pass as G.A. Dapi89 (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A quick comparison vs. Bong and McGuire fighting styles should suffice. McGuire loved the outside deflection shot, and Bong ran up the tailpipe. Any questions? Please see relevant pages for additional details.Foamking (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Lost in translation
Can somebody translate & include "Bubi"? Thanx. Trekphiler (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Bubi", "Bub" or "Bübchen" is the hypocoristic form of "young boy" in the German language. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Congratulations! This article has been promoted to Good Article status. It passed all the criteria; it is excellently written, very well sourced, and has appropriate pictures for the sections. A little bit more, and it will become a Featured Article. Cheers, Ṝέđ ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ  Drop me a line §  13:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Luftwaffe method of calculating victories
No mention of this, but the "score" for Hartmann, and other "aces" has been a subject of controversy for years.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 04:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only controversy was on the the soviet side as they didn't want to accept the large number of his victories. They even kept him as POW in jail for a long time for destroying 300+ soviet aircraft so his number can't be so wrong. I remember one soviet "expert" claiming he shot down only 80 aircraft .....--Denniss (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Denniss. I think if you do your research properly mrg3105, you'll find that the only official Soviet (note:Soviet) "source" that denies this is Dimitri Khazanov, a dedicated marxist historian. Dapi89 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I noticed a comment left by you on Misterbee 1966 talk page about "you recon Hartmann was innocent of war crimes", and base your assertion that "spent 10 years in the camps for nothing?". Don't be so damned stupid. He was a Luftwaffe fighter pilot and was not responsible for any war crime. You can't be naïve enough to believe there was any truth to that crap. Dapi89 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sure the Soviets were a little bit upset they lost 340+ of their aircraft to a single german pilot. According to T/C they charged him with things that hppened at the other end of the front. AG North sector, where the JG 54 was deployed. The prosecution argued that the ammo he used iun aerial combat killed people at its descent to earth.

They just wanted to uase him in the East German armend forces and nothing else.--78.54.169.156 (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Kill count
The intro section says that Hartmann scored 345 out of his 352 victories against the Red Air Force, but later on it lists him as having shot down 8 P-51's. Something doesn't add up Masterblooregard (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct! That's why you should have a look at the footnote. I pointed out that the sources are inconclusive, Most likely 7 versus the USAAF and 345 versus Soviet Air Force is correct, but when reading Toliver and Constable you get the impression that 8 Mustangs is correct. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dimitri Khazanov
I don't have his book or his article anymore. But I have found some websites about this so called "historian" which expose his claims that Hartmann lied about his kills as a fraud. I have added them under a new section: "kills". Dapi89 (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work
GOod work on this article. Here are a few of my comments. Most are minor style points:


 * There are one or two "orphan" paragaraphs sitting on lines by themselves that perhaps should be integrated with a bigger block of text to tighten the section- such as :
 * "Hartmann once famously described dog-fighting as "a waste of time"."


 * The "Criticism of Khazanov" footnote perhaps needs a full reference- such as its source and publisher and a date, rather than just a weblink.


 * Just for information: on Hartmann's fighting technique- what was his favorite method of approach- get high above allied fighters then dive from superior height, or did he spiral up from the bottom unseen? or a mix?


 * Should the Major Günther Capito incident go in the "Summary" section? It seems out of place- too much detail on one incident in a career summary area- and would better fit in the "fighting technique" section, which could mention his aggressive spirit and keeness for the fight, and thus work in the Capito incident as an example. Also his order to Capito was so the Red fighter could be sandwiched. This would allow more fighting technique to be discussed. Mentioning that he never lost a wingmanis finein summary, but the quote on Capito seems out of place as far as career summary. Also in the summary section it might be nice to sum up what made Hartmann stand out, over and against say comparable American or Japanese aces. His kill count was high to be sure, but what made the man special? What can be said about him to truly "sum up" his career? His keen mind? quick reflexes? dedication? technical grasp? bravery? How does he compare with other German aces for example?

These are just a few comments for what they are worth.Enriquecardova (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Khazanov; I didn't put that in because not many people would know who that is.

I think the summary section is right to include Capito. The reason being it was a significant (false as it turned out) achievement of Hartmanns. I believe this is relevent to his career summary and not in the main text - it is almost trivia. I think the quote supports the fact that Erich himself said this was true, and that he had lost a wingman. This gives the author more credibility, as it might seem as if it is another historian out to attack Hartmanns record. I think that the quote regarding dogfighting does need a citation. I will try and find one. The problem with comparisons is that there was so many German aces, and many of them had different styles. I would find this too difficult to do. Critical analysis is rare on this subject, even more so when comparing German pilots to other German pilots. This is something only a expert could do, and even then it is open to bias.

Sorry to be disagreeable. Dapi89 (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Into the Luftwaffe
This is I think an inaccurate section title. Surely he was already in the Luftwaffe during his training? Perhaps it might be better titled "Combat record" or something similar. --FactotEm (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would choose "Luftwaffe career". Dapi89 (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Behind enemy lines
This whole section just seems wrong. It begins with a lot of background detail that really is not essential to the narrative, a problem that dogs the whole section; ends without really finishing the story; and tags on an irrelevant detail about the number of kills. I would suggest that the following might be better...


 * On August 19 Hartmann was in a flight of eight German fighters that engaged a mass of Russian Yak-9 and Lavochkin La-7 fighters. He shot down two enemy aircraft, but was then forced to make an emergency landing when his fighter was hit by debris. Captured by Soviet ground troops, he faked injury so convincingly that he was put on a stretcher and placed in the back of a truck.[18] Under cover of a Stuka attack, he over-powered the single guard and escaped into a large field of giant sunflowers, where he hid until nightfall. After dark, he followed a Russian patrol heading west to the front. As he approached a German position, a sentry challenged him, then fired a shot which passed through Hartmann's trousers. When Hartmann's Crew Chief, Heinz "Bimmel" Mertens, heard what had happened, he took a rifle and went to search for Hartmann.[19]

...but then what happened?

I would also suggest moving the last sentence, about the increasing number of kills and the award of the Knight's Cross, into the next section. That section might then be better titled "Knight's Cross and Oak Leaves". --FactotEm (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, he didn't find him as Hartmann turned up at German lines. It can only be assumed Mertens did not find him, and returned. Dapi89 (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Toliver & Constable (which seems to be disproved of by the FAC reviewers) the story has a side note. Hartmann went missing after he crash landed behind enemy lines. His exact fate was unknown at base and Mertens set out to find him. It took Hartmann a few days to return to base while Mertens was searching for him. The book gives the impression that Hartmann actually returned before Mertens did. The story is used as an example of the deep affiliation, friendship and trust shared between them. Quite often the book mentions that it was Mertens that worked all night and slaved over Hartmann's plane in order to keep it in perfect working condition. Hartmann also attributes his success to the flawless state of his aircraft. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Maths
At the end of 1943 Hartmann's tally stood at 159 kills. In Jan-Feb '44, he claimed another 50 kills in 60 days (though I have since edited this to read in the 1st two months of '44). That brings his total to 209. Yet you then go on to say that his tally reached 202 on 2nd March. Whichever way this reads (1st two months of '44, or Jan-Feb '44, or even 60 days into '44, which brings us at most to 1st March), the numbers do not add up. Can you clarify? --FactotEm (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem. Simple maths: from 1 January - 2 March is 61 days. The source is a rough estimate. Exact dates is a bit difficult, as Hartmann's log book was stolen by US soldiers. Dapi89 (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Total kills for 1944
This sentence kinda got thrown into the middle of a section that deals with early 1944. It seems odd to give the tally for the first two months of 1944, then the total number of kills for 1944, followed by his tally on March 2nd 1944. I'll keep it here until a suitable spot can be found for it...

Throughout 1944, Hartmann claimed 172 victories, a total surpassed only by his friend Wilhelm Batz. --FactotEm (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

War crime charges
Can we take the edit war over the issue whether or not the charges against Hartmann were justifiable or not to the talk page please? This looks like another edit war kicking off. My personal view on the matter is that I find the wording as it stands now (made by 216.52.210.40, I wish he/she would register before editing) very neutral and free of POV. Why can't we leave it as it is now? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about the initial edit was POV. He was convicted of war crimes. This was reversed by the Russian government, who admitted that they were unlawful and in Philip Kaplan's words "false" - which they are, by definition. Dapi89 (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have protected the article to allow discussion and consensus-building here in talk. Let me know if you need any help. --John (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As you know Dapi I am not a native English speaking person so I confess that I may miss the subtle differences in your argumentation chain or English wording, so I apologize beforehand. Independently of the wording we seem to have general consensus on Now, if the point that you're (Dapi) trying to make is, that the war crime charges were a means to pressure him into signing up with the Volksarmee, then we should add a sentence to the lead section. This is easily cited. I think that would reflect Hartmann's view on the matter correctly. To merely state that he was convicted of false "war crimes" has a meta message associated. Yes I understand that the cited source uses this wording, but taken out of its original context does make it POV. At least this is my interpretation. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Hartmann was accused of war crimes
 * 2) Hartmann was sentenced to 25 years of hard labor
 * 3) Hartmann's view on the matter was that he felt that this was a mechanism used to pressure him into serving with the East German Volksarmee
 * 4) Hartmann's conviction was later overruled


 * The points above are indeed the facts. So the war crimes charges were falsified, were they not? The shooting of civilians by Hartman was a falsehood.
 * I must also point out this is not really about what Hartmann thought, or anyone else, including the ignorant IP, who probably had not heard of Erich Hartmann before stumbling across this page, and therefore knows nothing about the subject. For the anon to accuse me of POV and the writing of POV, when it conforms to all the known knowledge of this case and is cited, is extremely annoying.
 * The key factor here is the admission by the Russian government that the convictions were unlawful. Something which the anon is not taking on board. It seems this is the case with you also. So how can there be a “meta message”.
 * I notice he has now intensified, not tempered the wording of his original edits to a more specific and unverifiable wording; from a conviction posthumously overturned by a Russian court as false to (a conviction posthumously voided by a Russian court as a malicious prosecution), using brackets which look ugly in an intro. To my mind, if anything is POV this is. How is “malicious” less POV than “false?”
 * All I said was what the source said, it was false – in that it was untrue, designed to force Hartmann to do Soviet bidding. This has been established by any and every book about this pilot. So it isn’t POV. No “meta” message here. Dapi89 (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I would feel comfortable if the sentence reads something like this:


 * In an attempt to pressure him into service with the Soviet friendly East German Volksarmee, he was convicted of false/unjustifiable War Crimes, a conviction posthumously voided by a Russian court as a malicious prosecution. Hartmann was sentenced to 25 years of hard labour, and spent 10 years in various Soviet prison camps and gulags until he was released in 1955.

This puts the false war crimes into context and reflect to the truth to my understanding at least. What do you think? MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Dapi89 (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added the agreed, ''In an attempt to pressure him into service with the Soviet friendly East German Volksarmee, he was convicted of false/unjustifiable War Crimes, a conviction posthumously voided by a Russian court as a malicious prosecution. Hartmann was sentenced to 25 years of hard labour, and spent 10 years in various Soviet prison camps and gulags until he was released in 1955'' to the article. Dapi89 (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Allegiance to Weimar Republic
Why does the sidebar section titled "Allegiance" state that Hartmann's allegiance was to Nazi Germany up to 1945? The Nazi party first came to power in 1933, while Hartmann was apparently born in Germany in 1922. The German government in power from 1919 until 1933 was that of the German Empire, now known as the Weimar Republic. Even if Hartmann lived abroad in China, his allegiance and citizenship would have been to the German Empire until 1933, when he was eleven years old. Somebody should add to the "Allegiance" section that from 1922-1933 Hartmann held allegiance to the German Empire, because as it stands the assertion is impossible. I don't know how to edit sidebars.

71.203.97.200 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand:


 * Hartmann did not enter military service until 1940 - his allegiance starts then.
 * He served until 1945 - self explanatory (the end of the war)
 * After his release from the USSR, he returned to military service in the West German armed forces.


 * Allegiance means military service alone. What Hartmann did as a civilian does not count. Dapi89 (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So when all those kids "pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States" at school every day in the U.S., they're all in the military? Allegiance is nearly synonymous with loyalty or commitment to a group or cause, and since we're talking about nationality here, that means allegiance to the nation of one's citizenship. In Hartmann's case, it was the German Empire until '33. Quit baiting me like a bear in a pit.


 * 71.203.97.200 (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You have completely misunderstood the point. Dapi89 (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Title
We can all agree that he deserves the title: "King of Aces."--LandonJaeger (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Missions Flown
1,404 - nearly all on the Eastern Front? Uh, that's approximately the number of days in the whole war on said front. Sounds fishy - no one in their right mind would let their top ace fly without at least the OCCASIONAL weekend!! Aadieu (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please add serious comments only. German pilots flew between 7 and 10 sorties a day after 1943, it was common. All is cited and be very good sources. Dapi89 (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)