HL History
Internal Assessment
Research question: Who killed Manfred von Richthofen?
Word Count: 2196
Section 1: Identification and evaluation of sources
This study will investigate the question: Who killed Manfred von Richthofen? The sources I have selected for this analysis are: The autopsy performed on the Red Baron’s corpse, which is paramount to finding out where the bullet came from, and the other is the book “Who killed the Red Baron” by P. J. Carisella and W. Ryan, this source is crucial as it claims to be the definitive answer to the research question.
Source: Autopsy performed on the body of the Red Baron by Colonel, consulting surgeon Thomas Sinclair, of the IVth Army British Expeditionary Force. Written on the 21st of April 1918
The origin of this source is its major strength as it is written on the same day as Richthofen's death meaning the corpse had not deteriorated and the wounds' nature was more easily identified. Moreover, the author is a talented doctor, who graduated with first-class honors from the RUI (Royal University of Ireland) and worked as a surgeon for 20 years and was a war surgeon for one and a half years before examining the corpse, as a result, he had a lot of experience with bullet wounds. However, he is limited by the resources of a field hospital, lacking the equipment one would have enjoyed in a city hospital, such as an X-Ray machine which would have shown if the spine was struck and deflected the bullet. The purpose of this report is valuable as it is to determine the cause of death, which requires the elimination of non-fatal wounds, such as the fracture of his jaw, as well as what organs the bullet struck, allowing us to extrapolate the location of the shooter through the track of the bullet. Its content is valuable as it describes the track of the bullet supported with a diagram, which was invaluable to determine the angle at which it passed through the body but is limited by its lack of description of the exit wound which would indicate if the bullet was tumbling, suggesting whether a bone was struck.
Source: Book: “Who killed the Red Baron? The final answer to the half-century-old controversy concerning the death of the top flying ace of World War 1, Baron Manfred von Richthofen” written by P. J. Carisella and W. Ryan and published in 1969
The origin is valuable as the author is the most recognized historian about this topic, dedicating most of his life to researching the Red Baron. However, it is limited given that new material has subsequently come out, such as the seat from Richtofen’s plane which had disappeared until recently, having been taken by souvenir hunters. Its purpose is invaluable as it is a collection of 30 years of research and over 400 letters of witnesses and accounts of the events allowing for a broad spectrum. Such is its reputation that the book has been referenced by many historians researching this subject. The contents of this source are crucial, as it contains diagrams of the Red Baron's path based on the available evidence, helping me visualize at what point the fatal shot was possible. However, it is limited by the exclusion of altitude from the diagrams, a vital omission preventing me from determining the angle between Richthofen and the gunners.
Section 2: Investigation
In the final stages of the first world war, Manfred von Richthofen, also known as the Red Baron, on April 21, 1918, was shot down. This famous pilot is still considered a hero of Germany as he downed more than 80 enemy aircraft. Ever since his death, there have been disputes about the title of: “The man who shot down the Red Baron” and overtime the common consensus has changed, as Roy Brown was and still is credited by the RAF for the kill, however, the public has become more inclined to believe the claim of either Robert Buie or Cedric Popkin, two Australian anti-air gunners. These three men have the most backing and historians usually defend one of them. This essay will use testimonies, medical observations, and military reports, analysis of the more believable accounts will be necessary to argue that it was most likely Popkin who killed the Red Baron.
One leading candidate was Captain Roy Brown, a Canadian pilot who was in pursuit of the Red Baron and firing on him when he was shot down. He was officially credited by the RAF and his squadron, the 209th, even adopted the falling red eagle as their emblem, this has been reinforced in recent years by historians such as Philip Markham. Brown was by far the closest to Richthofen at the moment of his death, allowing him to see the impact of his bullets on the red triplane, which he details in the military report he wrote shortly after the skirmish. While one might put the legitimacy of that claim into question, being the pilot who shot down the Red Baron is quite the tempting title, and Brown could have lied. This is unfounded as Brown did not know the red triplane he was chasing was Richthofen, and there is no mention of his name in the report, as he wrote it before news that Richthofen had been shot down reached him and the red paint was not exclusive to Richthofen.
However, upon the discovery of the identity of the downed pilot the body was inspected, and, as previously mentioned, the bullet was found in his clothing. And while this was the kind of bullet used by aircraft-mounted machine guns, it is the standard British caliber also used by all commonwealth small-arms, it is not exclusive to Brown’s weapon. More importantly, the bullet being caught by the clothing would indicate a low terminal velocity as it did not have enough kinetic energy left to pierce Richthofen’s coat. This makes it impossible for the bullet to have originated from someone close to him, such as Brown, as it would have enough energy to exit the body and clothing completely. Furthermore, Brown was positioned slightly above the Red Baron’s aircraft and there is no bullet hole in the recovered aluminum chair.
During the following months, the gunner Robert Buie, was a strong contender, as he was backed up by several high-ranking officers. He was most definitely in a place where he could have made the fatal shot, as the German ace headed straight for his position. And unlike Brown, there were plenty of witnesses around him who confirmed that his shots were accurate when the plane started going down. For British anti-aircraft machine guns were loaded with tracer ammunition. These witnesses state seeing the Red Baron’s guns stop abruptly and his aircraft started going down, as Buie’s gun was firing as Richtofen was moving away from Buie’s position. This is crucial as the entrance wound is on the back of Richtofen, and by interpreting the radical change in behavior as him feeling pain from the wound, which is likely since he had not managed to shoot down the aircraft he was pursuing, meaning, Buie was shooting him at the right time and from the right place to have made the fatal shot.
Moreover, Buie’s claim is supported by the autopsy of the body performed by Col. Sinclair a Consulting Surgeon. In his report, he states that the bullet made an entrance wound on “the right side of the chest in the posterior fold of the armpit” and an exit wound “slightly higher level, near the front of the chest”. If the bullet had traveled in a straight line the angle with the ground would have been too shallow for Buie to be responsible for the shot, as Buie stated: “His plane was bearing frontal and just a little to the right of me” meaning that the angle at which he would have been able to make a lateral shot must have been very steep. However, Sinclair’s observation led him to conclude that the bullet had entered the body at a high angle and then, striking the spinal column, glanced forward and down.
Finally, Carisella argues, because of firepower, witnesses, and position, that it was sergeant Cedric Popkin of the 24th Machine-gun Company who fired the fatal shot. Firstly, he was firing out of a belt fed machine-gun, this allowed him to unload approximately 160 rounds into the Red Baron, this gave him a better chance to land the fatal hit, whereas Buie was limited to a 45 round magazine. Secondly, the most important account was the one of his assistant gunners, as he had a clear view of Popkin’s fire as he was sitting next to him and he confirmed the hits were on target. finally, Popkin was positioned on the right of Richtofen’s the flight path about 400 feet from him and 100 feet higher. Meaning that, by applying basic trigonometry: 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 = 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 / ℎ𝑦𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑠𝑒), where the hypotenuse is the distance between Popkin and Richthofen while and the opposite side is the height difference, the angle is roughly 15˚. Comparing it to the angle of the exit wound which can be deducted using another trigonometric formula: 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 = 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛(𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 / 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒), where the opposite side is the height difference between the entrance and exit wound, about 2 inches according to the second autopsy and adjacent time would be the horizontal distance traveled by the bullet in the body, it was estimated that the length between the armpit and the opposite nipple was about 8 inches, meaning the angle came out 15, this is crucial as it means Popkin was at the perfect angle to make the shot that would pass through exactly the correct angle to match the bullet. Moreover, there is no guarantee that Richtofen was flying straight. However, I have confidence in those numbers since the witnesses were anti-aircraft gunners meaning that they were trained to tell distances to adjust their sights to them, and these WW1 aircraft to stabilize in a horizontal position due to their centre of lift being higher than their centre of gravity.
In conclusion, Brown’s and Buie’s claims can be disproved through the use of their description of their positions relative to the Red Baron, as well as the angle given by the most accurate autopsy. Hence, Popkin was the only anti-aircraft gunner firing at Richthofen, who claimed the kill and who was at the right angle.
Section 3: Reflection
As I worked on this investigation I encountered difficulty when working with the medical records as it is not my area of expertise as I did not take biology. For example, I had read that probes were not a reliable autopsy method but had to seek out an expert and take their word for it as I do cannot know if they are speaking the truth only check with more experts. This made me realize that historians are not experts on a lot of the things they write about, such as military tactics, and have to rely on external experts, such as John Rowling, on the unreliability of medical probes.
Another thing I noticed very quickly is just how vast the topic was and the realization that I simply cannot cover all of it. I was limited by the scope of the IA, but also have to limit their scope due to the infinite complexity of history. In my case, I had to cut a very interesting account of a German spy who had witnessed the dogfight, as it was not as central to my thesis as the other sources. I also cut a major contender: W.J. Evans who is referenced by many historians but his claim seemed to be flimsy at best. Which made me think, what if I had looked into him more and discovered that he had a much stronger claim than I thought? Are historians too quick to ignore intriguing leads that could bring them to the truth?
We have proven time and time again that humans are untrustworthy, and they might not even be malicious, just remember incorrectly, however, we still rely on eyewitness accounts greatly for these investigations, and that is simply because there is little to no other evidence left, for this IA especially, apart from the autopsies, all the other invaluable facts such as the distance from Popkins to the Red Baron is a number given from memory from Popkin it is impossible to verify, and that is true for most eyewitness accounts and something to keep in mind in every investigation.
Bibliography
1. Aces Falling: War Above The Trenches, 1918 p300 Hart, Peter. Aces Falling: War Above The Trenches, Hachette UK, 2008
2. Bean, Charles. “The death of Richthofen”. Official History of Australia in the War of 1914 - 1918 Angus & Robertson, 1935
3. Brown, Roy. combat in the air report. 21 April 1918.
4. Brown, Roy. “my fight with Richthofen.” Liberty, no. 30, 11 November 1927, pp. 41-56.
5. carisella. Who killed the Red Baron?
6. Corum, James S. Wolfram von Richthofen: master of the German air war. University Press of Kansas, 2008.
7. Ellis, A. D. The Story of the Fifth Australian Division, Being an Authoritative Account of the Division's Doings in Egypt, France and Belgium. Creative Media Partners, LLC, 2018.
8. Maiden, Nicolas R. The Assessment of Bullet Wound Trauma Dynamics and the Potential Role of Anatomical Models. The Univeristy of Adelaide.
9. Markham, Philip. “The Events of 21 April, 1918.” Over the Front, vol. 8, no. 2, 1993, pp. 123-137.
10. McGuire, Frank. The Many Deaths of the Red Baron: The Richthofen Controversy, 1918-2000. Bunker to Bunker Pub., 2001.
11. McKelverly, Houston. Queen’s professor of medicine and the death of German air-ace the Red Baron. Remembrance letter. 2018. Remembrance Ni, https://remembranceniorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/remembrance-ni-sinclair.pdf.
12. Miller, Geoffrey. “The Death of Manfred von Richthofen: Who fired the fatal shot?” the Journal and Proceedings of the Military History Society of Australia, Vol. XXXIX, No. 2, June 1998
13. Rawlings, John. Fighter Squadrons of the RAF and their Aircraft, Macdonald and Jane's, 1969
14. Rowling, John. “baron manfred von richthofen.” Priory Medical Journals Online, 2010, https://www.priory.com/history_of_medicine/richthofen.htm. Accessed 19 December 2022.
15. Sinclair, Thomas. Autopsy report. 21 April 1918.
16. Smith, Alan, and George E. Downs. Autopsy Report. 1918.
17. Treadwell, Terry C. The Red Baron: A Photographic Album of the First World War's Greatest Ace, Manfred Von Richthofen. Pen & Sword Books Limited, 2021.
18. United States. Federal Aviation Administration. Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 1997.
19. Weston, Rupert. personal war diary.
20. Wingfield, Arthur, and Dennis L. Byrnes. The Psychology of Human Memory. Elsevier Science, 2013.
EXAMPLE 2
