TruthspeakerBader’s Spit was not clipped wing, but that, I think helped with the misidentification. At the time, the Me 109F, which was curvacious, unlike the angular and clipped wing 109E, was a relatively new shape in the sky – that day the Tangmere Wing was set upon by predominantly 109Fs.
Back to the Big Wing and why the programme did not represent this accurately, who knows why that was; interestingly revisionism tends to err on the negative, so to say that the Big Wing was a success is a positive! Still, DB himself would no doubt be delighted, bless him.
TruthspeakerAlso, MBV please note: it is not a case that the remains of Archer’s Spitfire ‘could not be traced’, for some reason Wildfire simply failed to ask the right person. As I have previously explained, Professor Bernard-Marie Dupont had to pay £1,000 to the landowner before he would release the wreckage, which, so far as I know, remains in Bernard’s care pending an ongoing and careful conservation process. Wildfire was in contact with Bernard, so why they didn’t inquire of him where the wreckage was I cannot think.
TruthspeakerRe the Big Wing.
Personally I just couldn’t believe it when the narrator came out with the line that ‘Bader was allowed to proceed with the Big Wing experiment by RAF top brass’, or words to that effect, and, worse, that without the Big Wing ‘the outcome of the Battle of Britain would have been very different’.
Firstly Bader was allowed to develop his (completely flawed) Big Wing theory by his AOC, Leigh-Mallory (LM), but certainly not by the C-in-C Fighter Command, ACM Sir Hugh Dowding. The Big Wing was completely contrary to the System of Air Defence designed and laid down by the C-in-C. Dowding’s fault was that he delegated too much authority to his group commanders and failed to intervene when things were going wrong – the scene, for example, in the 1969 film ‘Battle of Britain’, where Dowding, LM and Park have the ‘We need pilots, not big wings or small wings’ conversation never happened; it should have: Dowding should have given LM a real dressing down and made it clear that he was to behave in accordance with the C-in-C’s wishes, and not pursue the half-baked theories of a junior Acting Squadron Leader.
As to the second point, what absolute nonsense. 12 Group’s job was to cover 11 Group’s forward airfield whilst AVM Park’s squadrons were engaged, and protect the industrial midlands and the north. No-one, of course, knew when a raid might be mounted on those areas, so Bader, swanning around southern England on what essentially became free lance fighter sweeps, with his huge formation of fighters was seriously putting the 12 Group area at risk. History proves conclusively that Dowding’s System was correct, and that AVM Sir Keith Park’s handling of 11 Group, i.e. engaging with small numbers of fighters, was spot on, end of.
So why did Wildfire get it so wrong? I have no idea. I did my absolute best to make these points, even on camera which was edited out, and provided the producers with all of my extensive research on the subject, including, of course, my ‘Bader’s Duxford Fighters: The Big Wing Controversy’. The production team’s researcher appeared most impressed with the effect on morale that the Big Wing’s arrival had when it appeared over London on September 15th, and that seemed sufficient to confirm that the Big Wing was of great value, regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary.
What is so annoying is that it appears as though the programme’s consultants agree with the content, which, in the case of the Big Wing mistakes, make us look rather stupid – I am sure that Andy Saunders will agree with me on this point!
Someone else made the point that Buck Casson is no longer around to defend himself or put across his side of the story. Again, I was interviewed on camera relating the conversation I had with the man himself, in 1995, when I put to him my belief that he had accidentaly shot down Bader; Buck said “Dilip, I was an experienced fighter pilot who well knew what a 109 looked like; I shot down a 109 that day”. Buck was emphatic about this and would not be moved. This was left out of the programme; why?
Andy believes that Bader & Co knew what happened that fateful day in 1941 but closed ranks, never to breath a word. Andy has his reasons for that but I believe totally the opposite, and to be fair I had many more conversations on the matter with the actual players, all of whom are now deceased, than anyone else. As Andy himself has said previously in this thread, there are two sides to every story, but unfortunately the programme did not reflect this. Only Andy’s view regarding the cover up was put forward, and not the opposing view (which I had also stated on camera). This is very disappointing because it does not reflect a balanced presentation by Wildfire, which does the production team no justice. In life there will always be opposing views, rightly or wrongly, and both sides should always be aired. That way the viewer, or reader, can make an informed decision based upon facts and evidence, not just the most sensational and controversial theory.
TruthspeakerAbsolutely, David Burke. Let it not be forgotten that Douglas Bader was knighted in 1972 not for his wartime exploits but for his tireless work to inspire other amputees – this is a massive positive that it always ignored. It astonished me that Wildfire TV visited Roehampton Hospital and interviewed a recent amputee but completely failed to make any mention whatsoever of The Douglas Bader Foundation, the registered charity founded in memory of DB, and of which Lady Bader OBE remains an active President (in spite of her Ladyship’s 86 years). And bear in mind that although the interview went unused, they did interview Lady Bader for the programme. In terms of DB’s life and times, the Twenty Twenty TV Secret Life programme, broadcast on Channel 4 in 1996 and on which I also worked, was a much better account of DB himself.
TruthspeakerI absolutely agree, which is all I, as in fairness a professional and impartial presenter of facts to the court, have ever done.
TruthspeakerNo, I think, as I always have, that Buck made a mistake and shot down DB. Unless, of course and as John Foreman has pointed out in previous articles regarding other combats, the speed of combat deceived the human eye. What I have some difficulty in appreciating, in this chaotic of chaotrc combats, is that Buck could have hit a particular aircraft and watched it, without taking his eyes off it, for all that time, ie whilst it plunged many thousands of feet before the pilot got out. If he took his eye off the a/c he shot at, even for a second, we will never know the truth. As Buck himself said to me in 1995, when I questioned him about the matter: ‘Dilip, I was an experienced fighter pilot who well knew what a 109 looked like; it was a 109 I shot down that day’. 65 years later, who are we comfortable armchair historians to argue with that?
TruthspeakerTo be quite honest I wish that I had never, ever, received a copy of Buck’s letter, or that I ever worked out what has happened! As both Lady Bader and Air Commodore Graham Pitchfork will both testify, all it has ever brought me is grief!
Typical of Bader, tho, why couldn’t he just have been shot down by a Jerry, would have been a lot simpler and avoided all this controversy!
TruthspeakerSorry, feel compelled to answer Andy’s last.
Had you responded to my original emails I would have had confidence in you doing so to that sent on August 24th, especially considering the volume and rapidity of your replies on this forum. There would them have been no need for me to paste it on this forum, as I said in my original post I had no intention of airing this dirty washing in public.
Regarding Wildfire, I was most certainly misled as to the intended programme. There is no point me even bothering to pursue this with Wildfire, however, as nothing can change what will now be broadcast. As you say, this is a private matter between Wildfire and myself; the ball is in their court regarding whether they respond, but it is too late now to make any difference anyway.
End of. All part of life’s great golden tapestry, so I am told. Perhaps we should have a pint, knock seven bells out of a combat flight simulator and then come up with a really big project? I have one in mind, but finding a sponsor could be difficult..
On a lighter note, if anyone is going to Duxford’s 70th Anniversary Spitfire Show next weekend do come and see us – Victory Books has a signing 10 am – 1 pm both days with over 40 Spitfire veterans attending over the two days, most of which have never previously signed anything – not to be missed!
TruthspeakerFirstly I want to thank Andy Saunders for responding so comprehensively (although the sarcasm in certain places was unnecessary); had you replied to my original emails over the ATB article, which you ignored, much of the conflict recently arising would have been resolved there and then. This arises out of a lack of communication which, with the greatest of respect, I cannot be held responsible for.
I am not going to pen a detailed response to every single point, simply because readers of this thread must be getting bored with what they see as a debate between two individuals over issues of little or no interest to anyone else. There are, however, just a few points that need to be made in response to your lengthy post.
1. Regarding Buck’s letter to Bader. Buck actually gave me a copy of this letter in 1987, which, as ever, is demonstrable fact. I published it in ‘The Invisible Thread’ (1992) and ‘A Few of the Many’ (1995); it was later that year, however, when I began researching the events of August 9th 1941 that I appreciated the true significance of the matter. It was not possible to reproduce the letter in full in ‘Bader’s Tangmere Spitfires’, however, without giving the game away to all and sundry, hence the edited version and which answers your question. When you called me about the matter I was not minded to discuss the issue with you, for obvious reasons, and hence my vague answer at that time.
2. With regard to me not publishing the story in 1996, I agonised over this decision for some time. My publisher, Haynes PSL (Peter Nicholson & Alison Roelich), were aware of the whole thing, as was Air Commodore Graham Pitchfork, who I took into my confidence, and Richard Smith, a friend who is a freelance journalist for the national newspapers who, to his great credit, never breathed a word but who could confirm, as can Graham, everything I say. The matter was also discussed with my great friend Air Vice-Marshal Johnnie Johnson, and Group Captain Sir Hugh Dundas; both urged me not to publish for Buck’s sake, and in my new book a scan of Sir Hugh’s letter, dated April 1995, is published in full. So, proving that I made the connection in 1995, and the reasons why I didn’t publish in 1996, is easily evidenced. I also spoke directly with Buck himself, Mrs Casson, and Lady Bader, who is still alive and would testify to this. So please, don’t try and make out that I am jumping on a bandwagon, because nothing could be further from the truth.
3. With regard to ‘Spitfire! Courage & Sacrifice’ (Victory Books, 2006), this is the first time that the whole story, so far as it is known to me, has been published, and this includes the (evidenced) reasons why I did not publish in 1996. So far as my research providing the basis for the programme is concerned, that is true, or so I thought. I believed that Wildfire were making a programme called ‘The Search for Bader’s Spitfire’, which included a detailed study of Bader himself (from my research), the story of our respective efforts to find the Spitfire and independant investigation into friendly fire. Unfortunately the end result is nothing like, as per my previous post, and even the title has changed (to ‘Who Downed Douglas Bader’). You are right, my research has not formed the basis of the programme being broadcast this evening, but it certainly did so far as the programme I was led to believe by Wildfire was being made. Had I known then what I know now, I would not even have signed up as a consultant.
4. So far the only accurate coverage has been in the Daily Express, which permits me a comment to negate your claim that Bader & Co knew what had happened. As you rightly say, there are two sides to every story, as I, with 22 years policing behind me, know only too well. Unfortunately this is not put across by the programme, only the sensational angle, and it is to this that I object. Graham Pitchfork and I can provide ample evidence to prove that Buck and Bader were not estranged after 1945 as you have suggested, and details were made available to Wildfire but not used. Sensationalism makes for better TV I suppose! You have good reason to believe what you do, and so do we.
5. I spent 22 years policing and dealing with liars every day, so it is an area I feel rather experienced in! I knew Air Vice-Marshal Johnnie Johnson, Group Captain Sir Hugh Dundas, Air Marshal Sir Denis Crowley-Milling, Sir Alan Smith and Squadron Leader Buck Casson for many years. My relationship with all was a close one (and still is with Sir Alan, who thankfully remains with us), and I can say with 100% certainty, so far as I am personally concerned, that there was no cover up.
6. With regard to Archer’s Spitfire. As it was not Bader’s the wreckage was actually of little interest to us – had it been Bader’s the intention was to create a travelling exhibition to promote the Douglas Bader Foundation. My French friend, Professor Bernard-Marie Dupont, kept the wreckage, for which he personally paid the landowner £1,000. What happened to it thereafter I have no idea. I still have the propeller blade, front, back and head armour, oxygen bottle and both compressed air bottles. Perhaps Bernard could enlighten you? Why you were ‘unable to find out’ when making the programme I cannot imagine, because this was explained to Wildfire who had Bernard’s contact details.
7. As for us all sharing the same computer server or whatever it is, purely coincidence – and at least we will agree on that!
8. To conclude, my grievance is that your findings were rushed into print with what I consider to be indecent haste after Buck’s death, and with no regard for his widow’s feelings. Anything else is really inconsequential compared to this point, which is what influenced my decision 10 years ago and ever since. It is one that I will never regret. You must remember that my relationship with these particular veterans and their families was and is a very close one indeed.
Regards
Dilip
TruthspeakerBader programme etc
Hello everyone,
I have just returned from a very enjoyable couple of days carp fishing with my son to hear about all the nonsense that has been bandied about on this thread over the past few days, with my personal name included and affected. For the record this is Dilip Sarkar speaking! I am sorry to go on at length, but as anyone and everyone seems to have an opinion, it is necessary for me to put the record straight.
Unfortunately tempers are running high about this whole business, and whilst I can understand why certain friends of mine, who are affected themselves for one reason or another and who feel a degree of loyalty to me, have gone off like a frag grenade on this forum, personally I wish they hadn’t. It was not my intention to air this dirty washing in public, but as Mr Saunders fails to respond to privately sent personal emails, I have no option but to post my last email to him on this site for all to see. It was sent on August 24th, it is now August 27th and no response has been received. Moreover, Wildfire TV, the productin company responsible for the programme, have likewise suddenly gone silent.
It is not possible to have an opinion on this matter – regarding either the historic aspects in debate or the conduct of the aviation professionals involved – without reading my ‘Bader’s Tangmere Spitfires’ (Haynes 1996), Andy Saunders’ ‘Who Downed Douglas Bader’ (After the Battle magazine), and my new ‘Spitfire! Courage & Sacrifice’ (Victory Books International, May 2006, and which includes my full investigation and explanation as to why I was unable to publish in 1996), and the following email. Once all this evidence has been fully considered, then, and only then, can the reader enjoy an informed opinion and be in a position to fall on either side of the fence. Unfortunately, however, the majority of viewers who will watch the programe tomorrow evening will not be fully informed, which is frustrating for my side of the fence.
I am not a forum surfer, don’t get the time, more’s the pity perhaps, so have had to join this forum to make this post in an effort to provide users with the full facts. It is also important for readers to know why we are so unhappy with the programme concerned. When I agreed to the commission to work on the programme as a consultant, it was because I was told that the film would be a detailed look at the life and times of Douglas Bader, interwoven with the story of my 1996 investigation, expedition to France and discovery of the Casson/Bader connection, coupled with Andy’s more recent efforts. The end result, however, is nothing like. Our 1996 expedition is not mentioned at all, and nor is my original work on the friendly fire aspect. The programme therefore gives the incorrect impression that Andy Saunders, and he alone, is responsible for all of this. Moreover, as I appear (fleetingly!) on the programme to just give a general comment about Bader, and not in any way with regard to the Spitfire search or friendly fire theory, as my name appears on the credits the impression is that I condone and endorse the programme’s content. This I most certainly do not – Wildfire even have their concluding statement regarding the Big Wing horribly wrong, even after hours of talks on the subject with me and sight of my extensive research into the subject. Had I known that this would be the end result, I would never have signed up as a consultant in the first place.
So, for those who are interested I hope that this post clarifies my position once and for all.
Personal email sent by Dilip Sarkar to Andy Saunders on August 24th, 2006; the message was ignored: –
Dear Andy
I have been alerted to your remarks about me on the FlyPast Forum, which I have read with interest. I am not a subscriber to the forum, but for the record: –
1. I did not ‘rubbish’ your ‘findings’ when the ATB article was published. What I disputed was your conclusion that the Mont Dupil site was the site of Bader’s crash, and that Bader & Co knew what had happened that fateful day back in 1941. If you refer back to the emails I sent you at the time, to which you did not, however, reply, you will find this to be the case.
2. The reason I did not publish my investigation in 1996 was entirely due to my very great concern for the welfare of Buck and Dorfy Casson, both of whom were elderly and infirm. I also felt it ethically wrong to visit a plague of locusts upon Buck as the result of him being so kind as to provide me with the vital piece of the jig-saw – a piece of PRIVATE correspondence to Douglas Bader, which, unlike a combat report, was not in the public domain. This was discussed at great length with Buck Casson, Johnnie Johnson, Sir Hugh Dundas, Sir Alan Smith and Sir Denis Crowley-Milling, not to mention Lady Bader and Keith Delderfield of the Douglas Bader Foundation, and Air Commodore Graham Pitchfork, and ample evidence exists to prove this point. The welfare of the Cassons, and not fame and fortune, was the motivating factor so far as I was concerned.
3. It was extremely frustrating, nonetheless, not to publish the Casson theory in ‘Bader’s Tangmere Spitfires’, having to satisfy myself with merely a reference to friendly fire being a possible explanation. It was always my intention, however, to publish my findings, and I firmly believe that I was the first person to make the Casson/Bader connection back in 1995, when no one remained alive to be hurt by the revalation – and by that I mean Buck and Dorfy Casson. Dorfy was extremely upset back in 1995 when I revealed my findings to Buck, and she naturaly fiercely guards Buck’s memory.
4. You are fully aware that Winston Ramsey called and invited me to contribute to the After the Battle revelation on the Casson/Bader subject, but I declined on the basis that although Buck was by then deceased, Dorfy was still alive and not likely to take publication well. We are, of course, talking about an old lady, the widow of a gallant Battle of Britain pilot, who deserves our respect and consideration. This was explained at great length to Winston Ramsey, with whom I pleaded not to publish at that time but do the decent thing and at least wait until Dorfy had departed this mortal coil. This Winston, I understand, conveyed to you, so you are fully aware, so far as I will always be concerned, as to the reasons why I did not publish the story back in 1996 and refused to be involved with your intention to reveal all in After the Battle and subsequently the Mail on Sunday.
5. After you published your article in After the Battle I again had talks with Graham Pitchfork and we agreed that I should now publish my full investigation as I could not be criticised by Dorfy or anyone else for having spilled the beans at what was clearly an innappropriate time. Graham and I particularly take exception to your belief that Bader, Buck etc knew what had happened, which we know was NOT the case. My investigation was eventually published, in full, in my 19th book, ‘Spitfire! Courage & Sacrifice’ (Victory Books International, May 2006).
6. With 5 above in mind, this is also why I agreed to co-operate with Wildfire TV on the programme. I was led to believe by the production team that the programme would be a fair representation and detailed look at Bader, the events of August 9th, 1941, my search for Bader’s Spitfire in 1996 and realisation of the Bader/Casson connection, and your subsequent involvement. Having watched a review copy of the programme this week, obtained via a reporter friend, the end result is nothing like. What we have is Andy Saunders being credited entirely with the friendly fire theory etc, with no mention whatsoever of my (very great) involvement or 1996 expedition – and this despite hours of talks, reams of correspondence and days of filming. So, although I cannot hold you personally in any way responsible for how the programme was finally cut and represented, you will appreciate why I am unhappy. Although I have emailed Simon Raikes to this effect, I have received no response and nor do I expect one – as usual the TV people have got what they wanted, and cut and run to some other project.
7. For the record, I have sufficient life experience to know that some you win, some you lose, so this is NOT, repeat NOT, about you beating me into print with the Casson/Bader story. My grievance, however, is that you and Winston went ahead and published regardless and with absolutely no consideration whatsoever for Dorfy Casson – if what I say was not true, why did I not seize the opportunity when invited onboard by Winston?
8. Again for the record, there is overwhelming evidence, including taped interviews, correspondence and witnesses to prove absolutely everything I say. This is not a case of a rattle being thrown from the pram, as it were, because of being beaten into print with what is, after all, quite a story, but entirely because of the ethics and integrity involved – or indeed lack of it.
9. Although I think you had rather a head start in your research given that I had published ‘Bader’s Tangmere Spitfires’ in 1996, I accept that two researchers of our calibre in possession of Buck’s letter to Bader are likely to independantly come to the same conclusion. Following my conversation with Winston, however, what I think should have happened is that we should all have met and discussed jointly publishing the story in the future and after Dorfy Casson has passed on – which, I hasten to add, I hope will not be for a long while yet. To have gone ahead regardless as you did is, to me, unforgiveable.
10. I personally greatly regret this situation, because until publication of your After the Battle article I considered you a valued and old friend.
I hope that this clarifies my position on the matter; please feel free to post this email on the FlyPast forum, and please copy it to our mutual friend Peter Arnold, whom I suspect is ‘Mark 12’ on the forum.
Sincerely
Dilip Sarkar MBE FRHistS
http://www.DilipSarkarMBE.co.uk
http://www.VictoryBooks.co.uk
Sign In
