German military pilots in Malaya/Singapore 1941 helping Japs WW2

As has been stated here, it is very common for pilots to misidentify aircraft in combat. 

That’s one thing.

Likewise, as I have said repeatedly here, I can understand a corporal thinking (or wanting to believe) that the victorious Germans were aiding a supposedly inferior enemy who was about to conquer them.

So lets go back again, to the original post and the mention of the Singapore Germans in the book “WW2 in colour by Stuart Binns and Adrian Wood”.

In what context was it presented?

A corporal isn’t exactly on the command staff, so anything he wrote isn’t the product of accurate Intel from H.Q.

Did the authors mention the corporal’s comments as an attempt to illustrate the mental state of the soon to be defeated garrison?

Or do they expect the reader to think they are presenting some new hidden piece of history?   If so, we have a problem.

As I said, even primary source information can be wrong…no there were not a sizeable number of German pilots flying for Japan….but it would be useful to study the rumors and apparent paranoia among British troops there.

Oh dear. All sources still require due diligence to ensure they can stand up to scrutiny. 

Mind you, I write this on a web site where many individuals think a ‘hanger’ is a place you put ‘planes’. 
 

Primary sources being absolutely reliable of course, such as RAF combat reports involving He100 or He113 fighters, and Luftwaffe reports of combat with Spitfires when they were actually Hurricanes.

The Francillon book is very well regarded.

He compiled the list from wartime documents, but he does not specifically ID them since it isn’t the main focus of the book.

Getting back to the original point of this thread, a letter from the corporeal mentioning Germans in Singapore would be considered a primary source, he was there, historians use letters and diaries all the time in their work. The trouble is, in this case the guy living in the event (the fall if Singapore) is spreading nonsense.

No one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever backed up that allegation.

I don’t know what the authors said in the book where you read the corporal’s comments. If they included it without comment or to show that UK troops were under stress, fine.

If they took his comments at face value, believed what he wrote and included it to juice up their book, (GERMANS HELPING JAPAN IN ASIA!!!) than that’s a great example for my comment of not believing everything you read…even it is from a primary source.

You cannot assume anything when it comes to research. The references, preferably primary ones, should be given. It then allows the reader and enquirer to look at the evidence collected by the author. 

Many recent authors – thought not all, simply provide a bibliography that will often refer to other books or magazines the author has consulted and that are themselves often unsourced. 

The page number I provided in the Japanese Aircraft book (566-570) is a section listing all the (sometimes contradictory) allied code names. That information was presumably sourced from period documents.

Being a book on actual Japanese types, he does not spend much time discussing the fictitious types. I cited Gunston’s book simply because of his popularity in the U.K. and his book is easier to source than the esoteric Francillon book. The Francillon book mentioned was part of the famed Putnam series, so we can assume it was well researched.

In the context of my original comment, the mention of German types allegedly in Japanese service, was meant to illustrate the errors and rumors can become “fact” in wartime. Hence the corporal’s comments about Germans fighting in Singapore.

As quoted above, Gunston isn’t claiming anything other than that a work published at the time (title cited) included a reference to a Japanese version of the He111, and that the compiler of what sounds like the definitive work on Japanese aircraft (author and title cited) refers to sightings identified as German aircraft in Japanese service. The page numbers covering the number of types suggest they get very short thrift. 

I suspect that the original reports were at least in part disbelief that the (insert period racial stereotypes here) Japanese simply couldn’t be outfighting the great British Tommy without German assistance. Plus, let’s face it,  not many of us here have tried to identify an aircraft while it is trying to kill us, which isn’t going to improve the chances of correct ID.

Fundamentally, the allies  were extrapolating from incomplete data and biased reports, and we all know what that does to the conclusions. 

I think a good publisher would insist that an author provides references for any factual work that they offer for publication. Good academic practice, no?

You’re one who asked if a publisher had provided any references but OK, I’m sure you’re right.

dhfan. It’s not that I didn’t like your suggestion, rather that I had more urgent things on my mind. I’m glad you answered your own question satisfactorily. 

Since you didn’t like my suggestion, a quick google finds that “Plane Speaking” by Bill Gunston was published by Patrick Stephens in 1991.

Available from Abebooks and presumably other places.

Not sure, dhfan. Simply working from the information given early in the thread. 

Stephans is presumably Patrick Stephens, the publishers.

Did Stephans or Gunston provide reference’s for their claims? 

Has anyone else ever heard this allegation…or was it just a local rumor in Singapore?

No comments to my post?

Anyone…anyone?

Remember, don’t believe everything you read.

Oracal…

The questions about the origins of some Japanese aircraft are well known.

​​​​To pick one….

In his book, “Plane Speaking” ​​​​(Patrick Stephans, 1991) the late Bill Gunston amusingly wrote of how little the allies knew of Japan’s Air forces early in the war. 

He mentions that Rene Francillon in his epic work Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War (which should be in the library of any one who claims to be a serious enthusiast) noted that FW 190, Fw 200, Ju 87, Ju 52/3M, Me 109E and Ju 88s were reportedly seen in Japanese service.

The reports were given enough credence that they received Allied.type code names (See pgs. 566-570 of Francillon).  So this claim is not a recent bit of imaginary history by a writer looking for notice.

Gunston also notes the popular British annual of the period, Aircraft of the Fighting Powers, even illustrated a Japanese Heinkel OB-98, a He 111K with radial engines…with a retouched photo.

And it’s fun noting while they did not use many aircraft from their ally (most notable exception being  Bucker Jungmann trainers), they did use several American designed aircraft built under license… the DC-3, Lockheed twins, North American trainers and very surprisingly, Beech 17 Staggerwings, as well as reverse engineering the one-off huge DC-4E prototype. Some of these are surprisingly relatively unknown to many enthusiasts given the age of Francillon’s work.

Also, I’ll point out that sharing some intelligence is far different than the having Germans in direct combat which seems to be the point of the original post.

If there were Germans in direct combat in Singapore, I’d guess we would have heard about it long ago.

Not to mention the obvious fact that by early 1942, the Germans had their hands full in Europe and Russia, I doubt if they could spare many pilots to aid an ally half a world away.

Japan did have a very comprehensive report on the 109 and her pilots did test fly the 109 and Fw190.

Where was it given that “Reports of the Japanese flying Messerschmitts etc”? 

The Germans assisted the Japanese during the fall of Singapore by, amongst other things, supplying intelligence material they had acquired and decoded after they captured a British steamer in 1940.

With all due respect with the authors and Corporal Wyatt, in the “fog of war” a lot of people reported seeing things that weren’t there.

Reports of the Japanese flying Messerschmitts etc.

Also, in the early days of the war, the allies couldn’t quite believe the Japanese were doing what they were doing…it went against the idea of “Western superiority”… so Japanese aircraft were allegedly copies of axis or allied types. Not to mention pretty racist stereotypes about the size of Japanese soldiers and.that their pilots were all nearsighted.

With that, it doesn’t take a lot to believe that the beleaguered troops in Singapore, about to meet  a surprising and sad end, were willing to believe the Japanese were aided by their victorious German allies.

They might accept a loss to the Germans, after all they had conquered Western Europe, but a defeat by the ” inferior” Japanese was unacceptable.