Full download ebooks at https://ebookmeta.

com

Arado Ar 196 Units in Combat 1st Edition Peter

De Jong

For dowload this book click link below

https://ebookmeta.com/product/arado-ar-196-units-in-
combat-1st-edition-peter-de-jong/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD NOW
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

RAF Tornado Units in Combat 1992 2019 1st Edition

Michael Napier

https://ebookmeta.com/product/raf-tornado-units-in-
combat-1992-2019-1st-edition-michael-napier/

Nazi Billionaires 1st Edition David De Jong

https://ebookmeta.com/product/nazi-billionaires-1st-edition-
david-de-jong/

Lonely Planet Singapore 12th Edition Ria De Jong

https://ebookmeta.com/product/lonely-planet-singapore-12th-
edition-ria-de-jong/

The Future of Religious Heritage 1st Edition Ferdinand

De Jong

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-future-of-religious-
heritage-1st-edition-ferdinand-de-jong/
Lonely Planet Pocket Singapore 7 Pocket Guide 7th
Edition Ria De Jong

https://ebookmeta.com/product/lonely-planet-pocket-
singapore-7-pocket-guide-7th-edition-ria-de-jong/

Economic Ideas, Policy and National Culture: A

Comparison of Three Market Economies 1st Edition Eelke
De Jong (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/economic-ideas-policy-and-national-
culture-a-comparison-of-three-market-economies-1st-edition-eelke-
de-jong-editor/

Sucked Ar Taboo

https://ebookmeta.com/product/sucked-ar-taboo/

Team Player 1st Edition Ar Taboo

https://ebookmeta.com/product/team-player-1st-edition-ar-taboo/

Taking Turns 1st Edition Ar Taboo

https://ebookmeta.com/product/taking-turns-1st-edition-ar-taboo/
 COMBAT
AIRCRAFT 136 Peter de Jong

ARADO Ar 196 UNITS

IN COMBAT
136 ARADO Ar 196 UNITS IN COMBAT
 SERIES EDITOR TONY HOLMES

136 Peter de Jong

ARADO Ar 196 UNITS

IN COMBAT
CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE

THE LAST FLOATPLANE 6

CHAPTER TWO

FIRST BLOOD 14
CHAPTER THREE

AHEAD OF THE ATLANTIC WALL 25

CHAPTER FOUR

THE SEVEN SEAS 51

CHAPTER FIVE

EASTERN FRONT AND THE MEDITERRANEAN 64

CHAPTER SIX

WAR’S END AND FOREIGN USE 79

APPENDICES 89
C O L O U R P L AT E S C O M M E N T A R Y 91
BIBLIOGRAPHY 95
INDEX 96
6 C H A P T E R O N E The Last Floatplane

C HA P T E R ONE

THE LAST FLOATPLANE

B
ig politics suddenly came to the friendly German North Sea island of The He 60 was robust and seaworthy,
Norderney in the early spring of 1935. On 9 March Generalleutnant but limited by its poor load‑carrying
capability. This example, photographed on
Hermann Göring revealed the existence of the Luftwaffe to 2 June 1936, is hanging from the crane of
Daily Mail correspondent George Ward Price, and to the British and the light cruiser Köln (Cologne) whilst the
French air attachés in Berlin. Overnight, the old seaplane station on vessel was anchored in the port of Kiel
(Horizonten )
the island was again a military base, and on 27 March, the somewhat
shady aviation company Severa GmbH became Coastal Reconnaissance
Squadron (Multirole) 2./116. Men working there started wearing military
uniforms, and painting black crosses on their Heinkel He 60 floatplanes.
The word ‘Multirole’ referred to their special new task – operating their
He 60s from the bigger warships of the German navy, restyled as the
Kriegsmarine (war navy, as opposed to merchant navy) that same month.
To their surprise, the personnel found their Staffel in the Luftwaffe rather
than the navy, the powerful Göring gobbling up all naval aviation and
declaring ‘everything that flies belongs to me’.
It was very much a case of serving two masters, however. Many of the
aircrew remained naval personnel, especially the observers. As usual in
Germany, the observer was also the aircraft commander, while the pilot,
despite the ring of the word Flugzeugführer, was merely the ‘driver’. Thus,
a common combination was to find a young Luftwaffe NCO in the front
cockpit, with a Kriegsmarine Leutnant zur See or Oberleutnant zur See
in the back. The latter might also command the Luftwaffe detachment on
 7

board a ship, which included a crew chief and two or three mechanics.
Embarked aircraft were obviously controlled by the ship’s captain,
and in wartime, naval air units were to be placed under Kriegsmarine
operational control.
In 1937, the Norderney unit was redesignated 1. Staffel/Bordfliegergruppe
(BoFlGr) 196 (1st Squadron, Embarked Air Group 196), and transferred
to the naval port of Wilhelmshaven. A sister Staffel was formed at
Holtenau, near the navy’s other main base in Kiel. This unit was numbered
5./BoFlGr 196 in accordance with an ambitious scheme to have an
embarked air wing with three groups and 12 squadrons in the future.
The navy was being expanded, of course, in accordance with Nazi
Germany’s fresh major power stance. When the going got rough, though,
Hitler had other priorities. No more large ships were launched after
1939, and, significantly, no aircraft carrier ever entered fleet service. Still,
the Kriegsmarine took itself very seriously. Larger ships at least carried
seaplanes, and as in other modern navies, they had catapults to launch
these observation and reconnaissance assets instantly into the air when
required, although their recovery always remained cumbersome.
The He 60 was, in a way, a suitable machine, having been designed
for the shipborne role in 1930. A neat‑looking two‑seat biplane on twin
floats, it possessed fine handling qualities on the water, and its mixed
construction was very solid to allow it to withstand the rigours of
catapulting and landings in rough seas. But it was unduly heavy. To say it
was underpowered does no justice to its 660 hp BMW VI inline engine
– rather, the airframe was overweight, giving poor performance and load
capacity. In reality, all the He 60 could get up in the air was its observer,
who would often remove his machine gun to save weight. Empty equipped
weight for the He 60, at more than 2700 kg (5952 lbs), exceeded the gross
The Ar 95 lost out to the He 114, sending
Arado’s Walter Blume back to the drawing weight of its counterpart in the US Navy, the Curtiss SOC Seagull, which
board (Horizonten ) did much the same job.
8 C H A P T E R O N E The Last Floatplane

Obviously, there was room

for improvement, and Göring’s
Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM
– German Ministry of Aviation)
duly issued a requirement for
a new Borderkunder (on‑board
scout) in that historic month for
the German military, March 1935.
Development contracts were
awarded for proposals submitted
by Heinkel and Arado, the latter
company almost neighbouring
the original Heinkel works in
Warnemünde, near Rostock, and being involved in He 60 production. Beautifully crafted, the He 114 sesquiplane
Friedrichshafen seaplanes had already been built on a site at Breitling was actually faster than the monoplane
Ar 196. It had serious handling issues,
harbour in 1918, and in 1925 Arado (Spanish for ‘plough’) was established however (Horizonten )
there, with military production as its covert purpose.
Arado’s biplane Borderkunder, the Ar 95, and the Heinkel He 114
sesquiplane were traditional, largish reconnaissance aircraft on twin floats,
both powered by a 900 hp BMW 132 radial engine in their definitive form.
The RLM developed a preference for the He 114, and Arado was advised
to rework the Ar 95 as a universal naval aircraft for export, with two or
three seats and either floats or wheels, and as the Ar 195 torpedo‑bomber
for the planned German aircraft carriers. The Ar 95 did not fly until
3 December 1936, and only small numbers were built. Some of these
served on the Eastern Front until 1944, so technically there was apparently
little wrong with the first seaplane created by Dipl‑Ing Walter Blume,
Arado’s chief engineer from the mid‑1930s.
A World War 1 ace credited with 28 aerial victories, Blume was
a remarkable and ambitious figure who would leave his mark on all
subsequent Arado designs up to and including the Ar 234 Blitz jet
bomber. He must have been unhappy either with the Ar 95 itself, with
losing the design competition, or with its specifications, for during the
course of 1936 he designed a smaller and lighter low‑wing floatplane, still
powered by the same BMW 132 engine. Possibly, he was influenced by
catapult trials undertaken by Heinkel He 51W fighters on floats, which
proved that faster aircraft could be launched from warships without too
many accidents.
Blume submitted his new design on 12 August 1936. No less than
24 representatives of the RLM, the Travemünde seaplane test centre,
the Luftwaffe and BMW came to Warnemünde to inspect a mock‑up
three weeks later. Apparently written around this, a fresh Borderkunder
requirement was issued to the aircraft industry in October, calling
for a light on‑board scout with little equipment or armament and a
take‑off weight of only 2500 kg (5512 lbs). With an engine in the
800–900 hp bracket, this suggested a spirited performance, although
no goals were given.
This was bad news for Heinkel, especially since all was not well with
the He 114. First flown in the early summer of 1936, this elegant aircraft
proved to be no kitten to tackle without gloves, having some adverse
 9

characteristics both on the water and in the air. Heinkel did not give up on
it, constructing no fewer than nine prototypes in an effort to iron out the
worst problems. This seemed to pay off when He 114 production aircraft
of 1./BoFlGr 196 embarked on board the new battleships Gneisenau and
Scharnhorst. The He 114 had only entered service as a stopgap, however,
and it even proved a failure at this. Indeed, the aircraft never replaced the
old He 60 on other ships. Most of the 98 He 114s built were used by
training units, or supplied to Spain, Sweden and Romania.
While Heinkel did not tender in the new competition, this did not mean
that the coast was all clear for Walter Blume’s monoplane design. Three
other proposals reached the RLM’s grand new offices in Wilhelmstrasse,
although two of them were quickly dismissed. Gothaer Waggonfabrik
seemed to have read only the word ‘light’ in the specification, offering a
floatplane variant of the humble Go 145 trainer, while Dornier entered its
three‑seat Do 22 floatplane which was simply too large for shipboard use.
Focke‑Wulf came up with an all‑new design, however. Its Fw 62 biplane
and Blume’s Ar 196 monoplane were selected for development.

TWO FLOATS, OR ONE

Four prototypes were ordered from each company – two with twin floats,
and two with a central float and outrigger floats. The latter configuration
was unusual in Germany, but was believed to offer advantages during
landings in rough seas, as the heaviest blows would be absorbed by the
fuselage, not through the wings. On the other hand, the small outrigger
floats might dig into bigger waves, causing longer take‑off runs, while twin
floats would also be better for manoeuvring in the water.
The first Ar 196 prototype, D‑IEHK, takes off The twin‑float Ar 196 V1 prototype first flew on 1 June 1937 from
from the Warnow River near Arado’s the Plauer See, Arado’s development department having moved to the
Warnemünde works, although it had been
built at Brandenburg. It has a two‑bladed company’s new premises in Brandenburg an der Havel. The new seaplane
propeller and a large spinner (Horizonten ) was a good‑looking low‑wing monoplane, well adapted for shipboard use.
10 C H A P T E R O N E The Last Floatplane

The wings could fold for stowage and, while the Ar 95 had a monocoque metal A conservative design, the Fw 62 did
fuselage, the Ar 196 reverted to a steel‑tube frame to facilitate small repairs surprisingly well in the fly‑off against the
Ar 196. Like its competitor, the aircraft
at sea. This was clad largely with Hydronalium, a light, seawater‑resistant came in twin‑float and central‑float variants
aluminium‑magnesium alloy, with old‑fashioned fabric on the rear fuselage (Horizonten )
and control surfaces. The floats were also made of Hydronalium, and they
doubled as fuel tanks in both the twin‑float and central‑float variants.
The aircraft was heavier than the ambitious target, and not as fast as one
might have expected – it was slower, actually, than the He 114 sesquiplane.
The Ar 196 V1 was quite agile though, and easy to fly. There were few
issues, and the V1 was flown to the government seaplane test centre in
Travemünde in September. It was followed quickly by the twin‑float
Ar 196 V2 and the central‑float V3 and V4. The V3 successfully performed
the type’s first catapult launch on 19 February 1938.
The Fw 62 did not fly for the first time until 23 October 1937, and the
mixed‑construction biplane was clearly the runner‑up in the competition.
It did well, though, in a fly‑off at Travemünde, and was found to have
better handling both in the water and in the air. Still, the Ar 196 was
declared the winner on the grounds of its monoplane construction, which
was easier to manufacture and lighter, ensuring a better load capacity.
Already the V4 prototype was flying with forward‑firing armament,
intended principally for use in an additional role for the Ar 196 as a
shore‑based coastal reconnaissance aircraft.
Victorious, Arado withdrew the V1 prototype from the test programme
for some minor speed record attempts – only in the Ar 196’s category
though, and not the general seaplane world speed record, held by the
Macchi MC.72 and then still standing as the absolute world speed record
at 709 km/h (441 mph)! Months were spent fitting a more powerful
BMW 132SA engine to the Ar 196 V1, installing a low‑profile cockpit
canopy and smoothening the airframe. Then the RLM became aware of the
record attempt and forbade the venture on the grounds of military security.
Meanwhile, the selection of a floatplane configuration took longer than
the selection of the Ar 196 itself. The efforts were joined by at least three
 11

Ar 196A‑0 twin‑float and three Ar 196B‑0

central‑float pre‑production aircraft
from November 1938. Early testing did
not confirm the theoretical differences
between the two set‑ups – there seemed
to be little to choose between them.
The calmer waters of the Baltic Sea
off Travemünde were evidently not the
best place, however, to put ocean‑going
equipment to the test. In the spring of
1939, trials were undertaken here with
a so‑called landing mat or sail towed
alongside the new battleship Gneisenau to
flatten the waves. Pilots were supposed to
Ar 196B‑01 D‑INCN taxies over alight over the mat, uncomfortably close to the ship, and the aircraft were
Gneisenau’s landing sail, or mat, off then reeled in to be hoisted back on board. The landing mat was adopted,
Travemünde. This device proved useless in
rougher seas. Equipped with a central float, only to be found useless on the high seas.
the Ar 196B was less stable during Meanwhile, a special Luftwaffe evaluation unit had been put
manoeuvring and, controversially, this was in charge, and while its pilots may have been competent enough,
judged to outweigh its better landing
performance (Horizonten ) 10. (See)/Lehrgeschwader (LG) 2 was a rather obscure outfit. The
Ar 196’s Atlantic testing took place, belatedly, as part of a major
German fleet exercise held off Portugal and Morocco in April and
May 1939. An Ar 196A‑0, coded L2+X41, was embarked on board the
‘pocket battleship’ Admiral Graf Spee and a second Ar 196B‑0 joined
its sister ship Admiral Scheer.
Gneisenau did not take part in the exercise, leaving Kiel on 12 June
1939 for Atlantic trials of its own carrying two Ar 196s for continued
oceanic testing. The ship visited Gran Canaria and Madeira, prior to
returning to Germany on 26 July. Ten days later, LG 2 filed its report
to the Travemünde test centre, stating that the Ar 196 generally met or
exceeded its expectations. Regarding the two float configurations, the
central float was finally found to be ‘undoubtedly’ better when landing in
rough seas. However, its roll stability during manoeuvring on the water
was so much worse that the twin‑float aircraft was to be preferred. This
verdict confirmed the provisional choice of the RLM, which had already
ordered the Ar 196A into production.
While pilots liked the Ar 196, Kriegsmarine captains were far less
complimentary, complaining that the Arado lacked both the ruggedness
and seaworthiness of the old He 60. In 1941 the aircrew of the auxiliary
cruiser Orion, which did not have a catapult, wrote a report comparing the
aircraft to the Japanese Nakajima E8N biplane they had been operating
for two months. On the plus side, the Arado in its definitive form was
much better armed, and it had a much shorter take‑off run. However,
if the pilot attempted to take off with insufficient speed, this could be
fatal as the aircraft would drop its left wing. The landing speed of the
Ar 196 was too high, the report stressed, and on top of that the pilot’s view
during landing was poor. An uneven touchdown, with a wave top under
one float, resulted in a strong tendency to overturn over the bow of the
other float. The central‑float set‑up of the E8N was much better in the
opinion of Orion’s aircrew.
12 C H A P T E R O N E The Last Floatplane

The RLM did keep toying with

the float arrangement. A modified
central‑float Ar 196 V5 prototype was
built in 1940, and during 1941 the three
older Ar 196B‑0 airframes, which had
been relegated to the seaplane advanced
flying school in Pütnitz, underwent a
brief operational re‑evaluation with
BoFlGr 196. They soon resumed their
training duties, however.
The twin floats had been lengthened
by 80 cm (2 ft 7 in) during the
Ar 196’s early testing, and a further
stretch of the twin floats was planned
for the Ar 196C – the prototype of
this proposed series, the Ar 196 V6,
was flown in September 1941, but the
C‑model did not enter production. Ultimately, the Ar 196A would be This close‑up of an Ar 196A‑2/4 clearly
the only variant to see operational service. shows its forward‑firing armament – a
7.92 mm MG 167 machine gun on the
starboard side of the nose and two
wing‑mounted 20 mm MG FF cannon, the
PRODUCTION latter protected here by seawater caps.
Forward of the cockpit is a mounting plate
The first of 20 Ar 196A‑1s was delivered to the Travemünde test centre for an ESK 2000B gun camera, which itself
on 20 July 1939. The only armament installed was a flexible 7.92 mm is not present. Outside the float struts is an
MG 15 machine gun for the observer, although, like the later versions, the electrically operated ETC 50 rack for a
50 kg bomb. The small dome below the
A‑1 could carry two 50 kg bombs on underwing racks for use principally centre fuselage contains a Peil D/F loop
against enemy submarines. The engine was an 880 hp BMW 132K turning antenna. The line attached to the side of the
a three‑bladed wooden Schwarz propeller. cockpit allowed the aircraft to be grabbed
and controlled with a boat hook during
The Ar 196 V4 prototype had been wrecked when the engine mount hoisting or on the water (Horizonten )
collapsed during a rough landing, and this was belatedly recognised to be
due to a structural weakness that was not fixed until the Ar 196A‑2 entered
production in November 1939. It introduced the much heavier armament
first tested on the V4, namely a 7.92 mm MG 17 machine gun on the
right side of the nose and two wing‑mounted 20 mm MG FF cannon.
The BMW 132K engine was uprated to 960 hp. The final 15 of a batch
of 100 A‑2s were completed to A‑4 standard, with enlarged fuel tanks to
increase range. They were originally intended specifically for shipboard use
as replacements for the ‘fragile’ A‑1s.
Structural strengthening of the Ar 196 airframe resulted in the A‑3,
without the extra fuel capacity. A variable‑pitch VDM propeller with a
spinner was now standard. The final A‑5 version differed only in some
equipment changes, and twin MG 81Z machine guns for the observer.
Close to 400 A‑3s and A‑5s are believed to have been produced.
All versions had wing folding and all were embarked on ships. From 1942,
the earlier A‑2 and A‑4 were banned from making catapult take‑offs, however.
All models except the A‑1 normally carried the 20 mm cannon which gave
the Ar 196 a heavy punch for a small seaplane. The weight of the guns was
a burden, however, restricting take‑offs in the open sea to calmer conditions
only. From late 1944, the MG FF cannon were sometimes replaced with
more modern 15 mm MG 151 autocannon or MG 13 machine guns.
 13

While the first Ar 196s had been built

in Brandenburg, series production was
set up in the original Arado works at
Breitling harbour in Warnemünde.
Wings and floats came from the
company’s Anklam facility. Further
decentralisation was ordered by the
RLM to reduce the potential impact of
enemy bombing. In the severe winters
of 1939‑40 and 1940‑41, the weather
was still more of a nuisance than RAF
Bomber Command, the freezing of
the river Warnow disrupting test and
delivery flights.
A second assembly line was arranged
in occupied France at SNCASO in
Note the swivel mount for the twin MG 81Z Saint Nazaire – the site of the former Loire seaplane factory. The first
guns in the rear cockpit of this pristine French‑built Ar 196A‑3 completed its maiden flight on 5 July 1942,
Ar 196A‑5, believed to be one of the first
Fokker‑built Arados, near the Fokker factory but a reluctant workforce and Allied air raids against the U‑boat
in Amsterdam‑Noord. From here the aircraft base next door combined to make sure that only 23 airframes were
could taxi to the Schellingwoude seaplane completed here over the next eight months. The quality of the work
base. Not a great deal is known about the
use of the Dutch‑built machines (Horizonten ) also left something to be desired, at least initially, and the first six
aircraft were assigned to training units after being deemed unsuitable
for operational use in the frontline.
The Fokker works in Amsterdam was bombed too in July 1943, but
the Dutch company was found to be more collaborative and delivered 69
Ar 196A‑5s from August. These were assembled from parts supplied from
Germany and France, but also from various Dutch companies and sites,
including the former Spyker car and aeroplane factory, a bicycle factory
and a wallpaper factory. The Warnemünde assembly line closed in March
1944, and thus Ar 196 production ended after approximately 530 aircraft
when Fokker completed its last airframe in August 1944.
By then, the Ar 196 was the last combat seaplane being built in Europe.
With a reasonable performance and well‑armed, it was much more of a
warplane than its foreign counterparts in its original shipborne scout role.
This does not automatically make it the best aircraft in its class, because its
potential came at a cost in robustness and seaworthiness – and the ability
to take off and land in a rough sea was often all that really mattered out on
the ocean. The Arado was more at home, perhaps, in its alternative capacity
as an inshore maritime patrol and anti‑submarine aircraft. The wisdom of a
seaplane fulfilling this role was already questionable, however, by the start
of World War 2. Floats could come in handy over water, but seaplanes were
increasingly outclassed by landplanes, both in performance and operating
efficiency. One can feel sympathy for the German pilots who kept being
sent up against far superior aircraft in the Ar 196, even in theatres where
airfields were available.
RAF aviators learnt the hard way not to underestimate this German
anachronism on floats, though. As Beaufighter navigator Tony Ross wrote,
‘they were actually quite manoeuvrable and a fixed armament of two
20 mm cannon made them respectable makeshift fighters’.
14 C H A P T E R T W O First Blood

C HA P T E R T W O

FIRST BLOOD

T
he RLM’s effort to keep the Ar 196 a secret, forbidding Arado’s record Scharnhorst at sea after the outbreak of
attempts, seems to have been successful, and the first the outside war in 1939, toting two Arados on its
catapults. Note the rear catapult mounted
world, or at least the foreign aviation press, saw of the new seaplane right on top of one of the 28.3 cm main gun
was a photograph published by Flight magazine in its 19 October 1939 turrets (Bundesarchiv, Bild-23-63-12,
edition. The shot had been taken during the Kriegsmarine’s spring exercise, Slachtschiff Scharnhorst )
and it showed L2+X41 on the catapult of the pocket battleship Admiral
Graf Spee. By the time the photograph appeared in print, Admiral Graf Spee
was busy sinking British merchantmen in the South Atlantic, and the very
first operational Ar 196 was the vessel’s aerial lookout post.
The German surface fleet mostly resorted to piracy tactics during
World War 2. Augmenting the efforts of the U‑boats, lone wolf ships
raided commercial vessels out on the high seas and kept enemy forces
disproportionately busy searching for them. The Kriegsmarine was
nowhere near as big as the Royal Navy. In fact, just five modern heavy
units formed the backbone of the German fleet in 1939, and one of these –
the pocket battleship Admiral Scheer – spent the first year of the war being
refitted. The others were its sister ships Deutschland and Admiral Graf Spee,
and the newer, much bigger battleships Gneisenau and Scharnhorst. There
were also six light cruisers, but they were rather short on range and would
have little impact on the war.
The battleships were each equipped with two catapults and two recovery
cranes. Gneisenau normally embarked two seaplanes, while Scharnhorst,
 15

which was the only ship with a decent hangar, could handle
three. Aeroplanes were constantly exposed to the elements on
the other vessels. The pocket battleships had a single catapult
and operated one seaplane, like four of the light cruisers. If a
spare aeroplane was to be stowed on board, it first had to be
taken apart.
Three heavy cruisers and the battleships Bismarck and
Tirpitz were added to the fleet during the first two years of
the war. Some merchant ships were also converted to so‑called
auxiliary cruisers for the commerce raiding campaign. Raiding
operations were kicked off, however, by the two operational
pocket battleships shortly after the outbreak of war on
3 September 1939.
Often capturing the headlines in the ‘Phoney War’ period,
Admiral Graf Spee and its sister ship Deutschland had actually
been despatched into the Atlantic before the German invasion of
Poland on 1 September. Admiral Graf Spee left Wilhelmshaven
on 21 August after frantic preparations by Kapitän zur See
Hans Langsdorff and his crew of 1180 men, including two
aircrew (pilot Unteroffizier Heinrich Bongards and observer
and aircraft commander Oberleutnant zur See Detlef Spiering)
and five mechanics from 1./BoFlGr 196.
Although the Ar 196 had not yet entered regular service at this
point, Admiral Graf Spee’s single He 60 seaplane was replaced
by an Ar 196A‑1 at the last minute, the third production
aircraft arriving from Arado on the 19th. On 31 August a flap
actuator on Admiral Graf Spee’s Arado broke and the brand new
floatplane was out of action for two days while the mechanics
under crew chief Werner Grotzki fixed the problem – the first,
but by no means the last, repair job they would undertake.
Sailors from Admiral Graf Spee gather to Deutschland sailed on 24 August after receiving the fifth production
watch the aeroplane that was being used Arado earlier that same day. During a flight on 5 September, pilot Feldwebel
by the photographer who took this shot as
the vessel sailed south through the Channel Haberkorn and observer Oberleutnant zur See Kell ran out of fuel and
in April 1939, bound for the Atlantic. landed away from the ship. Their emergency signal was misread at first
Ar 196A‑0 L2‑X41 was on board for the and the vessel searched for them in the wrong place, but the aircraft was
new Arado floatplane’s open ocean trials
(US Navy ) eventually recovered. Deutschland’s supply vessel and tanker Westerwald
carried an He 114, but the floatplane, intended mainly as a spare for the
pocket battleship, pitchpoled against the ship’s hull after its second landing
on 6 September and was damaged beyond shipboard repair.
The Arados proved their worth on 11 September, when Admiral Graf
Spee was replenishing from its supply vessel Altmark at sea. Sent up in
their Ar 196 as a precaution, Bongards and Spiering spotted the British
heavy cruiser HMS Cumberland approaching. Maintaining radio silence,
they flashed light signals to Admiral Graf Spee and the supply ship, which
dashed off, successfully evading Cumberland. The crew on board the heavy
cruiser had failed to spot the floatplane.
The Führer hoped that Britain and France would make peace after the
quick defeat of Poland, and the two pocket battleships were kept on a
leash until naval high command in Berlin signalled the green light to
start targeting merchantmen on 26 September. Four days later, off the
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 1. See Ward’s Naturalism and Agnosticism.

2. Vācaspati’s Tattvavaiśāradī on the Vyāsa-bhāshya, III. 47.

3. Sāṃkhyapravacanabhāshya, I. 120.

4. It is indeed difficult to say what was the earliest conception of the guṇas.
But there is reason to believe, as I have said elsewhere, that guṇa in its earliest
acceptance meant qualities. It is very probable that as the Sāṃkhya philosophy
became more and more systematised it was realised that there was no ultimate
distinction between substance and qualities. In consequence of such a view the
guṇas which were originally regarded as qualities began to be regarded as
substantive entities and no contradiction was felt. Bhikshu in many places
describes the guṇas as substantive entities (dravya) and their division into three
classes as being due to the presence of three kinds of class-characteristics. This
would naturally mean that within the same class there were many other differences
which have not been taken into account (Yoga-vārttika, II. 18). But it cannot be
said that the view that the guṇas are substantive entities and that there is no
difference between qualities and substances is regarded as a genuine Sāṃkhya
view even as early as Śaṅkara. See Ghābhāshya, XIV. 5.

5. See Vyāsa-bhāshya on Patañjali’s Yoga-sūtras, II. 18, and Vācaspati’s

Tattvavaiśāradī on it.

6. See Bhikshu’s Yoga-vārttika, II. 18.

7. History of Hindu Chemistry, Vol. II, by P. C. Ray, p. 66.

8. The usual Sāṃkhya terms as found in Iśvarakṛshṇa’s Kārikā, having the

same denotation as aviśesha and viśesha, are prakṛtivikṛti and vikṛti.

9. Vyāsa-bhāshya, II. 19.

10. Vyāsa-bhāshya, II. 19.

11. Tattvavaiśāradī, II. 19.

12. Tattvatraya, p. 48 (Chowkhamba edition), Benares.

13. Bhikshu in his Yoga-vārttika explains “māyeva” as “laukikamāyeva

kshaṇabhaṇguram” evanescent like the illusions of worldly experience.

14. Siddhāntalleśa (Jīveśvara nirūpaiṇa).

 15. Princess Kuntī of the Mahābhārata had a son born to her by means of a
charm when she was still a virgin. Being afraid of a public scandal she floated the
child in a stream; the child was picked up by the wife of a carpenter (Rādhā). The
boy grew up to be the great hero Karṇa and he thought that he was the son of a
carpenter until the fact of his royal lineage was disclosed to him later in life.

16. Kārikā 17.

17. Gauḍapāda’s commentary on Kārikā 17.

18. Purusha is a substance (dravya) because it has independent existence

(anāśrita) and has a measure (vibhu parimāṇa) of its own. So it always possesses
the common characteristics (sāmānya guṇa) of substances, contact (saṃyoga),
separation (viyoga) and number (saṃkhyā). Purusha cannot be considered to be
suffering change or impure on account of the possession of the above common
characteristics of all substances. Yoga-vārttika, II. 17.

19. Thus the Bhāshya says:

bhavishyadvyaktikamanāgataṃanudbhūtavyaktikamatītaṃ
svavyāpāropārūḍhaṃ varttamānaṃ trayaṃ, caitadvastu jñānasya jñeyaṃ yadi
caitat svarūpato nābhavishyannedaṃ nirvishayaṃ jñānamudapatsyata
tasmādatītamanāgataṃ svarūpato’ stīti.

20. Tattvavaiśāradī, IV. 14.

21. Vastusāmye cittabhedāt tayor vibhaktaḥ panthāḥ. Yoga-sūtra, IV. 15.

22. “Tattvāntara-pariṇāma” means the evolution of a wholly new category of

existence. Thus the tanmātras are wholly different from the ego from which they
are produced. So the atoms are wholly different from the tanmātras from which
they are produced, for the latter, unlike the former, have no sense-properties. In all
combinations of atoms, there would arise thousands of new qualities, but none of
the products of the combination of atoms can be called a tattvāntara, or a new
category of existence since all these qualities are the direct manifestations of the
specific properties of the atoms.

23. Vyāsa-bhāshya, III. 52, says that the smallest indivisible part of a thing is
called a paramāṇu. Vijñāna Bhikshu in explaining it says that paramāṇu here
means guṇa, for if a thing say a stone is divided, then the furthest limit of division
is reached when we come to the indivisible guṇas. But if the prakṛti is all-pervading
(vibhu) how can the guṇas be atomic? Bhikshu says (Yoga-vārttika, III. 52) in
reply that there are some classes of guṇas (e.g. those which produce mind
antaḥkaraṇa and ākāśa) which are all-pervading, while the others are all atomic.
In Bhikshu’s interpretation a moment is to be defined as the time which a guṇa
entity takes to change its own unit of space. Guṇas are thus equivalent to the
Vaiśeshika paramāṇus. Bhikshu, however, does not deny that there are no atoms of
earth, water, etc., but he says that where reference is not made to these atoms but
to guṇa atoms for the partless units of time can only be compared with the partless
guṇas. But Vācaspati does not make any comment here to indicate that the
smallest indivisible unit of matter should mean guṇas. Moreover, Yoga-sūtra, I.
40, and Vyāsa-bhāshya, I. 45, speak of paramāṇu and aṇu in the sense of earth-
atoms, etc. Even Bhikshu does not maintain that paramāṇu is used there in the
sense of atomic guṇa entities. I could not therefore accept Bhikshu’s interpretation
that paramāṇu here refers to guṇa. Paramāṇu may here be taken in the sense of
material atoms of earth, water, etc. The atoms (paramāṇu) here cannot be
absolutely partless, for it has two sides, prior (pūrvadeśa) and posterior
(uttaradeśa).

24. Bhikshu regards the movement of a guṇa of its own unit of space as the
ultimate unit of time (kshaṇa). The whole world is nothing else but a series of
kshaṇas. This view differs from the Buddhist view that everything is momentary in
this that it does not admit of any other thing but the kshaṇas (na tu kskaṇātiriktaḥ
kshaṇikaḥ padārthaḥ kaścidishyate taistu kskaṇamātrasthāyyeva padārthaḥ
ishyate. Yoga-vārttika, III. 52).

25. There is a difference of opinion as regards the meaning of the word

“kshaṇapratiyogi” in IV. 33. Vācaspati says that it means the growth associated
with a particular kshaṇa or moment (kshaṇapracayāśraya). The word pratiyogī is
interpreted by Vācaspati as related (pratisambandhī). Bhikshu, however, gives a
quite different meaning. He interprets kshaṇa as “interval” and pratiyogī as
“opposite of” (virodhī). So “kshaṇapratiyogī” means with him “without any
interval” or “continuous.” He holds that the sūtra means that all change is
continuous and not in succession. There is according to his interpretation no
interval between the cessation of a previous character and the rise of a new one.

26. Nothing more than a superficial comparison with Fichte is here intended.
A large majority of the texts and the commentary literature would oppose the
attempts of all those who would like to interpret Sāṃkhya-yoga on Fichtean lines.

27. Tattvakaumudī on Sāṃkhya-kārikā, 25.

28. Tattvavaiśāradī, III. 41.

29. This was first pointed out by Dr. B. N. Seal in his Physical, Chemical and
Mechanical Theories of the Ancient Hindus in Dr. P. C. Ray’s Hindu Chemistry,
Vol. II.

30. Yoga-vārttika, I. 45.

 31. I have already said before that Bhikshu thinks that the guṇas (except the
all-pervading ones) may be compared to the Vaiśeshika atoms. See Yoga-vārttika,
III. 52.

32. Cf. Vyāsa-bhāshya—“sabdādīnāṃ mūrttisamānajátīyānāṃ,” IV. 14.

33. Vyāsa-bhāshya, II. 19.

34. Vyāsa-bhāshya, III. 13.

35. Ibid.

36. Nahusha an earthly king became Indra the king of the gods by the fruition
of his virtues, but on account of gross misdeeds fell from Heaven and was turned
into a snake.

37. Tattravaiśāradī, IV, 3.

38. I have translated both citta and buddhi as mind. The word buddhi is used
when emphasis is laid on the intellective and cosmical functions of the mind. The
word citta is used when emphasis is laid on the conservative side of mind as the
repository of all experiences, memory, etc.

39. If this is a Sāṃkhya doctrine, it seems clearly to be a case of Jaina

influence.

40. Compare Pañcaśikha, svalpasaṇkaraḥ saparihāraḥ sapratyavamarshaḥ,

Tattvakaumudī, 2.

41. Pratyaya is explained in Yoga-vārttika, II. 28, as sampratyaya or

prāmāṇyaniścaya.

42. Yudhishṭhira led falsely Droṇa to believe that the latter’s son was dead by
inaudibly muttering that it was only an elephant having the same name as that of
his son that had died.

43. This book has, however, not yet been published.

44. Dr. Ray’s Hindu Chemistry, Vol. II, p. 81.

45. Avidyā manifests itself in different forms: (1) as the afflictions (kleśa) of
asmitā (egoism), rāga (attachment), dvesha (antipathy) and abhiniveśa (self-love);
(2) as doubt and intellectual error; (3) as error of sense. All these manifestations of
avidyā are also the different forms of viparyyaya or bhrama (error, illusion,
mistake). This bhrama in Yoga is the thinking of something as that which it is not
(anyathākhyāti). Thus we think the miserable worldly existence as pleasurable
and attribute the characteristics of prakṛti to purusha and vice versa. All afflictions
are due to this confusion and misjudgment, the roots of which stay in the buddhis
in all their transmigrations from one life to another. Sāṃkhya, however, differs
from Yoga and thinks that all error (avidyā or bhrama) is due only to non-
distinction between the true and the untrue. Thus non-distinction (aviveka)
between prakṛti and purusha is the cause of all our miserable mundane existence.
Avidyā and aviveka are thus synonymous with Sāṃkhya.
 TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect
retained.
Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at
the end of the last chapter.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK YOGA ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States
copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy
and distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the
General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree
to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease
using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for
keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the
work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement
by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full
Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge
with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and
with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it,
give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country
where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of
the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
 containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute

this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must,
at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy,
a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy
upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
 payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these
efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium
on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as,
but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data,
transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property
infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be
read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you
do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission

of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status
by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or
federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions
to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact
 Section 4. Information about Donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine
the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About

Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.