Comments on: The rise of ‘Luftwaffe’ http://airminded.org/2010/01/20/the-rise-of-luftwaffe/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-rise-of-luftwaffe Airpower and British society, 1908-1941 Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:26:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Ross http://airminded.org/2010/01/20/the-rise-of-luftwaffe/comment-page-1/#comment-128282 Ross Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:19:24 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=3378#comment-128282 Brett I suspect it is phonetic. I suspect this may be true with the naming, and spelling, of new objects, in this case techology. We end up with several variations until one becomes generally accepted, though I am no linguist. I like the reasoning for the use of airpower over air power. Very clever! I agree I have yet to come across Luftstreitkrafte in primary sources but maybe it is the same reason as to why Luftwaffe is not used. I mean look at the word! I think the wording I have seen is German Air Service in the operational documents in AIR 1. Brett I suspect it is phonetic. I suspect this may be true with the naming, and spelling, of new objects, in this case techology. We end up with several variations until one becomes generally accepted, though I am no linguist.

I like the reasoning for the use of airpower over air power. Very clever!

I agree I have yet to come across Luftstreitkrafte in primary sources but maybe it is the same reason as to why Luftwaffe is not used. I mean look at the word! I think the wording I have seen is German Air Service in the operational documents in AIR 1.

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2010/01/20/the-rise-of-luftwaffe/comment-page-1/#comment-128274 Brett Holman Sun, 24 Jan 2010 03:25:58 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=3378#comment-128274 Ross: Interesting; I don't read enough official stuff to pick up on such a dichotomy, but I can see it happening. I've seen 'airoplane' as late as 1922 (Lord Robert Cecil), but it was always extremely rare, even in the <a href="http://airminded.org/2006/01/29/an-extremely-brief-guide-to-early-aeronautical-terms-ca-1909/" rel="nofollow">early days</a>. It strikes me as a personal affectation more than anything else, or maybe a phonetic spelling of 'aeroplane'. (Speaking of personal affectations, I must confess that I deliberately chose to use 'airpower' over 'air power' for no other reason than I knew I'd probably run up against word limits in my thesis, and I could save several hundred words that way!) BTW, when I said I've never seen anyone use Luftstreitkräfte, I meant in primary sources. Obviously historians have used it since then, or else I'd never have come across it! (And it's consistent, if you're going use Luftwaffe for one world war you should probably use Luftstreitkräfte for the other.) Ross:

Interesting; I don't read enough official stuff to pick up on such a dichotomy, but I can see it happening.

I've seen 'airoplane' as late as 1922 (Lord Robert Cecil), but it was always extremely rare, even in the early days. It strikes me as a personal affectation more than anything else, or maybe a phonetic spelling of 'aeroplane'. (Speaking of personal affectations, I must confess that I deliberately chose to use 'airpower' over 'air power' for no other reason than I knew I'd probably run up against word limits in my thesis, and I could save several hundred words that way!)

BTW, when I said I've never seen anyone use Luftstreitkräfte, I meant in primary sources. Obviously historians have used it since then, or else I'd never have come across it! (And it's consistent, if you're going use Luftwaffe for one world war you should probably use Luftstreitkräfte for the other.)

]]> By: Ross http://airminded.org/2010/01/20/the-rise-of-luftwaffe/comment-page-1/#comment-128270 Ross Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:57:54 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=3378#comment-128270 I think there is an interesting dichotomy here when using terms to describe the Luftwaffe. Whenever the term is was first used, and Brett may be tight in his assumption here, there is a separation in its use. It seems that when describing the force that is associated with air raids etc in the media then Luftwaffe seems to used verbatim. However, in official reports, even during the war then German Air Force, or GAF, is commonly used in official correspondence. Why this is so I suspect it is for administrative clarity in report writing. It seems that many terms were translated in reports to aid clarity possibly because of language issues. However, in modern histories I agree with Chris that we should use the contemporary term in its proper context and understanding. So using Luftwaffe from 1935 onwards is not an issue. As the to the use of Luftstreitkrafte Corum uses it consistently in his works. As to the term Aeroplane it is interesting to note that in Haig’s diaries he uses the term Airoplane. Maybe because there is a lack of standardisation with a new piece of technology at this time. We also encounter the practice with the term Air Power or Airpower, the later I think is more commonly an Americanism too. I think there is an interesting dichotomy here when using terms to describe the Luftwaffe. Whenever the term is was first used, and Brett may be tight in his assumption here, there is a separation in its use. It seems that when describing the force that is associated with air raids etc in the media then Luftwaffe seems to used verbatim. However, in official reports, even during the war then German Air Force, or GAF, is commonly used in official correspondence. Why this is so I suspect it is for administrative clarity in report writing. It seems that many terms were translated in reports to aid clarity possibly because of language issues. However, in modern histories I agree with Chris that we should use the contemporary term in its proper context and understanding. So using Luftwaffe from 1935 onwards is not an issue. As the to the use of Luftstreitkrafte Corum uses it consistently in his works.

As to the term Aeroplane it is interesting to note that in Haig’s diaries he uses the term Airoplane. Maybe because there is a lack of standardisation with a new piece of technology at this time. We also encounter the practice with the term Air Power or Airpower, the later I think is more commonly an Americanism too.

]]> By: Jakob http://airminded.org/2010/01/20/the-rise-of-luftwaffe/comment-page-1/#comment-128005 Jakob Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:36:10 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=3378#comment-128005 Alan: That looks right, but in the balkanised world of Nazi power politics OKW was used as another planning staff for the Heer rather than as a joint planning organisation. Whether this is the origin of the conflation of Heer/Wehrmacht I don't know. Brett: Nifty! Alan: That looks right, but in the balkanised world of Nazi power politics OKW was used as another planning staff for the Heer rather than as a joint planning organisation. Whether this is the origin of the conflation of Heer/Wehrmacht I don't know.

Brett: Nifty!

]]> By: Erik Lund http://airminded.org/2010/01/20/the-rise-of-luftwaffe/comment-page-1/#comment-128001 Erik Lund Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:53:34 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=3378#comment-128001 Just to totally non-sequiturise, I'm not sure that "tank" is a codename. It appears to originate in a plant that went from making tank (engines) to making tanks, and the thought might have been that they were making military tank (engines), before all that stuff about water-supplies in Mesopotamia and markings on crates got started. Just to totally non-sequiturise, I'm not sure that "tank" is a codename. It appears to originate in a plant that went from making tank (engines) to making tanks, and the thought might have been that they were making military tank (engines), before all that stuff about water-supplies in Mesopotamia and markings on crates got started.

]]> By: Alan Allport http://airminded.org/2010/01/20/the-rise-of-luftwaffe/comment-page-1/#comment-128000 Alan Allport Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:23:32 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=3378#comment-128000 Oh, I just noticed that this is mentioned in the OP itself. I really ought to try reading before commenting. Oh, I just noticed that this is mentioned in the OP itself. I really ought to try reading before commenting.

]]> By: Alan Allport http://airminded.org/2010/01/20/the-rise-of-luftwaffe/comment-page-1/#comment-127998 Alan Allport Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:07:39 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=3378#comment-127998 I suppose related to this is the informal use of the word "Wehrmacht' to describe the German Army, when (so far as I understand anyway) that term actually described the German armed forces as a whole - land, sea, and air - with the Army specifically being the 'Heer' (hence OKH being subordinate to OKW). Or have I got that wrong? I suppose related to this is the informal use of the word "Wehrmacht' to describe the German Army, when (so far as I understand anyway) that term actually described the German armed forces as a whole - land, sea, and air - with the Army specifically being the 'Heer' (hence OKH being subordinate to OKW). Or have I got that wrong?

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2010/01/20/the-rise-of-luftwaffe/comment-page-1/#comment-127984 Brett Holman Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:04:37 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=3378#comment-127984 We're switching back and forth between the issues of 'what did they call it then' and 'what should we call it now' here! On the latter, as I said I generally prefer the contemporary terms but a foolish hobgoblin etc. On the former, I wasn't criticising the contemporary terms in the post, but I will now. One of the Air Ministry's problems in dealing with the rise of the Luftwaffe in the 1930s was the assumption that it was a mirror image of the RAF, more or less: it would grow slowly, concentrating on institution-building as Trenchard had done; it would allow plenty of reserves instead of putting everything in the shop window; it would have a strategic bombing priority; and so on. Wrong. So they were caught on the hop. Calling it the German Air Force (and well before that, the German Flying Corps) could be a linguistic symptom of this way of thinking: they're like the Royal Air Force, only German. Calling it the Luftwaffe at least makes the foreignness and potential strangeness of the enemy a bit more obvious. Jakob: The version on <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=cbshAQAAIAAJ" rel="nofollow">Google Books</a> has a handy word cloud, and if anything Luftwaffe seems more common than German Air Force! Perhaps the title was chosen with an eye to American readers? We're switching back and forth between the issues of 'what did they call it then' and 'what should we call it now' here! On the latter, as I said I generally prefer the contemporary terms but a foolish hobgoblin etc. On the former, I wasn't criticising the contemporary terms in the post, but I will now. One of the Air Ministry's problems in dealing with the rise of the Luftwaffe in the 1930s was the assumption that it was a mirror image of the RAF, more or less: it would grow slowly, concentrating on institution-building as Trenchard had done; it would allow plenty of reserves instead of putting everything in the shop window; it would have a strategic bombing priority; and so on. Wrong. So they were caught on the hop. Calling it the German Air Force (and well before that, the German Flying Corps) could be a linguistic symptom of this way of thinking: they're like the Royal Air Force, only German. Calling it the Luftwaffe at least makes the foreignness and potential strangeness of the enemy a bit more obvious.

Jakob:

The version on Google Books has a handy word cloud, and if anything Luftwaffe seems more common than German Air Force! Perhaps the title was chosen with an eye to American readers?

]]> By: JDK http://airminded.org/2010/01/20/the-rise-of-luftwaffe/comment-page-1/#comment-127982 JDK Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:40:34 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=3378#comment-127982 PS. Grover, Leroy and Kermit. Three names you won't find in East Grinstead. Maybe <i>Sesame Street</i>? PS. Grover, Leroy and Kermit. Three names you won't find in East Grinstead. Maybe Sesame Street?

]]> By: JDK http://airminded.org/2010/01/20/the-rise-of-luftwaffe/comment-page-1/#comment-127981 JDK Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:31:42 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=3378#comment-127981 Ah, the delightful works of Grover Loening and Leroy Grumman. One of my favourites, and I was able to crawl all over Kermit Weeks' example in Florida in preparation for a planned book on the type. The thing about the J2F Duck was that it didn't try to raise and lower its pontoon, so it was what it was, whereas the blasted Blackburn B.20 flew as a flying boat and in the circuit and on the water was a single float floatplane. That's just not right. More seriously, you've rightly touched on the transferring of period acronyms from one force to another. Another example that comes up as a result of US bias is some writing is the W.W.II RAF forces 'fighting in the MTO or ETO' etc. Ah, the delightful works of Grover Loening and Leroy Grumman. One of my favourites, and I was able to crawl all over Kermit Weeks' example in Florida in preparation for a planned book on the type.

The thing about the J2F Duck was that it didn't try to raise and lower its pontoon, so it was what it was, whereas the blasted Blackburn B.20 flew as a flying boat and in the circuit and on the water was a single float floatplane. That's just not right.

More seriously, you've rightly touched on the transferring of period acronyms from one force to another. Another example that comes up as a result of US bias is some writing is the W.W.II RAF forces 'fighting in the MTO or ETO' etc.

]]>