The SAAF Forum

24 Min movie I have been working on for some time and hope to finish in 2013, here the intro:

Can't wait for the complete one

_________________
A plan is simply a basis for change.

Hi Tinus
Pat's story really is one that needs to be told!
Thanks for this undertaking.
Sinuhe

To put tings into perspective, I read CJ Scheepers-Strydom's account of South Africa's contribution to WW2 "Wieke van Vuur" which made it seem as if South Africa almost single-handedly chased the Germans and Italians out of Africa. Admittedly his account of the war is rather one-sided and aimed at schoolboy level readership. However, accounts by our allies of the North African campaigns brought to light that they did not think much of the South African contingent's contribution. On the contrary, Max Hasings in "All Hell Let Loose" mentioned South Africa only twice in two or three short sentences of a book comprising more than 700 pages. He contrasted and compared the South African contribution against New Zeeland's contribution as follows:

"[The Eighth Army's] New Zeeland division....was recognised as outstanding."

"Opinions about the South African component of Auchinleck's army were more equivocal. On good days it was good but on bad days it did not impress."

The other mention was the following: "The South African commander [in Tobruk] Maj.Gen. Hendrik Klopper, surrendered next morning...More than 30 000 prisoners fell into Axis hands."

Norman Davies in "Europe at War" only mentioned that historians "...glossed over the fact that in 1939-45 the war effort was made not by Britain alone, but by the British empire." He only mentioned three times, in passing, that South Africa also made a contribution.

It seems as if the international community, therefore, does not think much of South Africa's contribution during WW2. Isolated individual performances, like those of Adolf "Sailor" Malan and belatedly, Pattle, seem to be considered only in context specific texts where the feats of pilots are discussed. These performances, however, did not even warrant a mention by historians in the bigger scheme of things. On the contrary, Adolf Malan was mentioned as the leader of a section of Spitfires that mistook a flight of Hurricanes returning from a patrol for German fighters and ordered an attack on them which led to the loss of Hurricanes and RAF pilots. To all accounts he tried hard to exonerate himself of any mistakes during that particular sortie. The South African Air force contingent also seems to be associated with the exploits of the German ace Hans-Joachim Marseille when he shot down six South African fighters during a single sortie. In contrast, the Australian fighter pilot, Caldwell, is associated with downing of several German fighter aces, among others Leutnant Hans-Arnold Stahlschmidt!

Therefore, there seems to be a gap in the literature about the war about the contributions of the British dominions and especially South Africa's contribution, and the above project could be a welcome contribution to fill that gap.

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry

"Give me 20 divisions American soldiers and I will breach Europe. Give me 15 consisting of Englishmen, and I will advance to the borders of Berlin. Give me two divisions of those marvellous fighting Boers (Meaning Farmer, originating from the Boer War) and I will remove Germany from the face of the earth."

Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery, Commander of the Allled forces during WWII.

That and the ~9000 South African servicemen who gave their lives during the Second World War would beg to differ on your observations.

_________________
A plan is simply a basis for change.

In the context of WW2 9000 soldiers KIA was meaningless. For instance, in one skirmish before the final battle in Berlin in 1945, 30 000 Germans and 80 000 Russians lost their lives on the Seelow Heights. Just to put the South African losses in more of a context, the New Zeelanders lot 11900 servicemen KIA out of a total population of 1.6 million - the highest proportionate toll of any Western aly [Max Hastings] (the South Africans weren't even mentioned). The Russians, who actually beat the Germans, and whose losses therefore set the tone when it comes to commitment to winning the war, lost 34 times more servicemen in the battle of Kursk alone than what South Africa lost in the entire war.

As for the vainglorious Monty, I, for one, don't place too much value on the utterances of generals trying to whip up sentiment among young, impressionable soldiers. I myself experienced the chagrin of being made to sit in the hot summer sun at Lohathla while having to listen to the sweet nothings of some deputy minister of defence whose name I have forgotten a long time ago.

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry

I've never heard so much shit in my life. 9000 dead South Africans is meaningless? What planet are you from? What happened between the Germans and Soviets, the numbers involved is completely irrelevant, as is your experience in Lohatla. How dare you come on here, this thread which celebrates the achievement of a South African and pontificate about other Allied armies' effort and decry our own.

It is insulting to the memory of those 9000 who died and for those precious few veterans that are still alive. You should be ashamed of yourself.

_________________
A plan is simply a basis for change.

On pains of hijacking the thread, the South Africans who participated in the war did it voluntarily and for their own reasons, be it in search of adventure, to escape the aftermath of the depression/drought/runderpest, hatred for the Germans, love for the King and Queen of England, whatever. The stark reality is that their participation did not change the outcome of the war, was minuscule in the bigger scheme of things and in the opinion of historians varied from good to unimpressive.

However, for South Africa, their participation was perhaps more valuable. For instance, they gave South Africa a reason to have a presence in post WW2 affairs like the creation of the UN together with the likes of England and the USA. They ensured that the SADF got war experience and modern equipment. They ensured that we had valuable contacts in the military circles of the Western Allies and also gave us an entry in participating in the Korean War which enhanced our contacts and good standing in the military circles of those nations that mattered, until South African politics damaged and severed those contacts as time went by.

Of course there were individuals who stood out. Let's honour them. They fought for a cause that was more good than evil, after all.

It is a moot point that you are perfectly within your rights to display your ignorance and schoolboy naivety on a forum like this. I am not quite sure which part of the facts could be viewed as derogatory though. Somewhere you see something in the modern historians' view of things that I obviously failed to pick up. If there was anything that reflected unfairly on our forebears, I would not have placed it here. These are the facts, however, and if it helped to dispel your possible naivety about South Africa's standing in WW2, I am glad to have contributed to it.

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry

I totally agree. I was conscripted and forced to be in Namibia and eventually in Luathla to help fight a war with the aim of hanging on to a piece of land for reasons that only the politicians of the time could understand. I can assure you, Boetmanne like myself and my fellow comprades are still the bliksem in when we talk amongst each other about the senselessness of the Bush War. We were imbued with the idea at school that we are going to Namibia to fight communism, bleh!

This brings me back to the thread about the Pat Pattle movie: Discuss Pattle's reasons for going to war as a fighter pilot in WW2 as part of the background/introduction.

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry

Koffiepit, you are a fool to insult 9000 men and call their sacrifice meaningless.

Who the hell do you think you are?

And as for your assertion that that xyz amount of Russians and Germans died in Berlin, or Kursk..... well, put your brain in gear and think about it.
Germany invaded The Soviet Union, who fought back until they burned the Reichstag down.
We sent volunteers, due to the scars of the Boer War, 11000km to fight in a war that wasn't ours.
Of course the main protaganists who's countries were being scorched, attacked, and defended tooth and nail were going to have far higher casualties.

If you can't tell this difference, then perhaps you're beyond help.

Perhaps you should go and denigrate the loss of any Australian, NZ, British, Canadian, or American soldiers as well?
After all, according to your logic, if you added all the dead from those countries, and then multiplied it by 10, you would get the figure that the Russians lost.
So I suppose according to you, compared to the Russians, the rest of the Allies war dead don't count for much either.
Go on some websites and try that argument.
You also completely fail to understand the importance of the North African campaign, and South Africa's contribution to it, in the context of the Mediterranean Sea, Suez, and the oil fields in the Middle East, and the later campaign in Italy to open a second front, and remove Germanies most important European Ally.
But then that's no surprise from you.

Who cares about Lohatla or Namibia? What is it in context to this conversation?
I was very fortunate not to have soldiers with your attitude under me when I served, from what I can tell.

And yet another thing you are wrong on, like almost everything else in your posts here.
You may want to check to see whether NZ was indeed the "Western aly"(sic) with the highest proportionate casualty or KIA ratio.

Or maybe you'll just continue being slapgat, like you intimate your attitude was throughout your "service".

Sorry Dean, but this is as insulting a bunch of rubbish posted as I've seen on here.

Bit late, refer to your first post.



You served in uniform? You would then know that one of the fundamental concepts of a fighting force is that there are no individuals, it is a team. Whilst the exploits of those who excelled should be celebrated, they would never have achieved their feats if it were not for the collaborative effort. Out of the millions of servicemen who served (in all armies), only a tiny fraction are recorded in history as heroes. There are undoubtedly people who excelled but will never be recorded as having done so. Every one of those men who died serving their country, their mates, was a hero - why do you think it is called the Supreme Sacrifice? Using your flawed logic, it appears that the majority's effort was of no consequence?



You contribute absolutely nothing of value to this thread and I treat your comments with the absolute disdain that they deserve. How arrogant to presume that you have even the remotest insight into my knowledge of military affairs. If you cannot see the numerous occasions where you have been derogatory in this thread, then you are a bigger fool than I first thought and an utter disgrace to the uniform that you claimed to once wear.

You are dismissed.

_________________
A plan is simply a basis for change.

Please guys, I know it is the silly season, but please all chill ...

Guys! While we may not agree with everyone's opinions, there is no need to go ballistic over it.....there is more than enough drama and fighting in SA let alone the world for us all to be concerned about

Lets all calm down...agree to disagree and move on

Peace to EVERYONE and their families

Ok, I do Agree that we should chill.
While the South African's effort in WW2 has now been brought into question, I would like to ask, or maybe make a statement, in regards to our contribution.
Firstly, I'd like to state that my father joined the war effort as a volunteer in 1941, age 17/18, married my mother and left for Egypt, only to return in late 1945. He was a tank driver who took part in the battle of El-Alamein(1942) and all others that followed, including the battle of Monte Casino. He was in the Pretoria regiment of the 11th Armour brigade of the 6th British (South African) Armour division.
My question is with regards to the sacrifice made by SA in this war: Is it correct to calculate our losses in WW2 by considering the whole SA population or should we not perhaps look at only the "white" population. I would sagest that only the white (English and Afrikaans) population should be used in this calculation, as very little if any black people from SA took part in this war. There surely was some colored units but I do not know if they took part in the war effort in North Africa and Italy.
If the 9000 casualties are calculated from only the white population, will our contribution not be more realistically reflected?

_________________
Da-di-da-da-da

2,4 million white people in SA in 1939.
None of the other groups served in a combat role.

Out of that 2,4 million, you had a large proportion of the populace that remembered the horrible deeds committed by the British Empire in the last couple of years in The Boer War.

It is perfectly understandable why the majority of them could not have cared less about a war Britain was involved in.

Helmoed Romer heitmann gives a figure of 350 000 South Africans who went to war, with 12 000 dead. This probably includes people like Pattle who served with the British.

Also, don't forget the contribution made by SA to the overall war effort, not just casualties.
The South African Marmon-Herrington armoured car was integral to the war in North Africa, being the only armoured car available in sufficient numbers.
Over 5700 were built. Compare that total with German armoured car production 1939-45. You may be somewhat surprised.
South Africa also produced 600 artillery pieces, but more importantly, an enormous amount of ammunition for the Allies.

Don't forget the 38 training schools and 2 operational flying units that trained airmen for the Allies, in complete safety away from the war.
South Africa produced 33 347 piolts, of which 12 221 were for the SAAF.
Under the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, this was the second highest, second only to Canada.

The air war was a primary, if not the primary reason, that won the Second World War for the Allies.