PDA

View Full Version : NEW BOOK - LUFTWAFFE & THE WAR AT SEA


DavidIsby
7th July 2005, 00:33
Readers of this board may be interested in the following new book. I have appended an annotated copy of the table of contents to show the original source of each chapter.


The Luftwaffe and the War at Sea 1939-45

As Seen By Officers of the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe

by Grossadmiral Karl Doenitz, Kontreadmiral Gerhard Wagner, General der Flieger Ulrich O. E. Kessler, Vizeadmiral Eberhard Weichold, Oberst i.G. Walter Gaul, Kapitan zur See Hans-Jurgen Reinecke, Korvetten Kapitan Otto Mejer, Kapitanleutnant Hans-Diedrich Freiherr von Tiesenhausen

Edited by David C. Isby

The Luftwaffe and the War at Sea 1939-45 looks at the struggle for control of the sea in the European theater from the point of view of the German offices – Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe – that fought it. The contributing authors were involved in all aspects of German attempts to control the seas, from the use of Ju-87 Stuka dive-bombers in the invasion of Norway to the missions of FW-200 Kondors in cooperation with the U-boat campaign against Britain’s Atlantic liefelines.

These reports were either written as secret reports during the war for the benefit of the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe – the Air Force General Staff – or were written immediately after the war when most of the authors were prisoners of war or working for the US military. While they lacked the full story of the Allied efforts against them, these reports had the immediacy of either being prepared in wartime or soon afterwards. Such accounts, while by no means the last word, are valuable and should have a broader availability than just being in the archives

The book also benefits from having been written specifically for an audience well-versed in naval and aviation affairs. The detail contained in the reports is unique and allows the reader a fresh perspective on these famous campaigns.



The air-sea war in Europe from the view of the German Air Force and Navy.
Detailed insight into the divisions and tensions within the German command system.
Includes the writing of such notables as Admiral Doenitz,
David Isby is the editor of Fighting the Bombers, The Luftwaffe Fighter Force, Fighting the Invasion and Fighting the Breakout .



This book is being published by Chatham in the UK and Stackpole in the US. It is currently available on both US and UK Amazon.com web sites.



Author

title

Source of original



Introduction



I.

Overview and Prewar Development



US Office of Naval Intelligence

Chapter 1. German Naval Air 1933-45

National Defense University library (UG635 G3.U53 1947

Oberst i.G. Walter Gaul

Chapter 2. The German Naval Air Force 1933-September 1939

German Naval Archive, Operational Archives Branch, Naval Historical Center, Washington, D.C. Box T66

II.

The Air War at Sea – Navy and Luftwaffe Views



Vizeadmiral Eberhard Weichold

Chapter 3. A Survey From the Naval Point of View on the Organization of the German Air Force for Operations over the Sea

German Naval Archive, Operational Archives Branch, Naval Historical Center, Washington, D.C. Box T75

8th Abteilung, OKL

Chapter 4. The Operational Use of the Luftwaffe in the War at Sea 1939-43

RG 457 (National Security Agency), Box 743, US National Archives.

Naval Historical Team

Chapter 5. German Army and Air Force Influence on the German Navy During World War II

excerpt from German Army and Air Force Influence on the German Navy, RG 38.4, Office of Naval Intelligence Monograph Files, US National Archives

III.

1939-40



Oberst i.G. Walter Gaul

Chapter 6. German Naval Air Operations in the First Six Months of the War

German Naval Archive, Operational Archives Branch, Naval Historical Center, Washington, D.C. Box T66

General der Flieger Ulrich O. E. Kessler

Chapter 7. The Role of the Luftwaffe and the Campaign in Norway

report B-485 Foreign Military Studies US National Archives, RG 338

Oberst i.G. Walter Gaul

Chapter 8. German Naval Air Operations April-December 1940

German Naval Archive, Operational Archives Branch, Naval Historical Center, Washington, D.C. Box T66

IV.

The Battle of the Atlantic 1941-45



Korvetten Kapitan Otto Mejer

Chapter 9. Cooperation of Luftwaffe and U-Boats in Attacks on Convoys

German Naval Archive, Operational Archives Branch, Naval Historical Center, Washington, D.C. Box T69.

Kapitan zur See Hans-Jurgen Reinecke

Chapter 10. Cooperation of the Luftwaffe with the German Navy

German Naval Archive, Operational Archives Branch, Naval Historical Center, Washington, D.C. Box T69.

Kapitanleutnant Hans-Diedrich Freiherr von Tiesenhausen and others

Chapter 11: Examples of Luftwaffe Cooperation with U-boats from Wartime Reports

RG 38.4 Office of Naval Intelligence Monograph Files, US National Archives, Box 33 Air-Naval Cooperation Files 1002-220.

Headquarters Staff, Fliegerfuhrer Atlantik

Chapter 12. Principles Covering the Conduct of Operation by Fliegerfuhrer Atlantik and an Appreciation of the Types of Aircraft Available

RG 457 (National Security Agency), Box 174, US National Archives.

8th Abteilung, OKL

Chapter 13. The Role of the German Air Force in the Battle of the Atlantic

RG 457 (National Security Agency), Box 62, US National Archives.

V.

Conclusion



Grossadmiral Karl Doenitz and Kontreadmiral Gerhard Wagner

Chapter 14: Overview: The Atlantic War (and the Role of Air Cooperation)

various

Erich
7th July 2005, 00:50
David can you share if Ju 290A equipped FAGr 5 is covered in the book ?

many thanks

Erich ~

DavidIsby
7th July 2005, 14:27
The wartime German report from OKL Abtl. 8 discusses the types of aircraft available in the 1944 timeframe.

Rabe Anton
7th July 2005, 17:26
I would like to suggest that all those contemplating a purchase of Isby's most recent book consult the following review before shelling out their hard-earned money. The newest work has all the color of the author's previous Fighting the Bombers, which exhibited serious deficiencies. It appears likely that these blunders and shortcomings are repeated in this new volume, which seems not to be a synthesis at all but a collection of wartime document translations, interviews, interrogations, and the like.

Kitchens, James H. III - "Fighting the Bombers: The Luftwaffe's Struggle against the Allied Bomber Offensive (review)." The Journal of Military History - Volume 67, Number 4, October 2003, pp. 1330-1331.


RA

DavidIsby
7th July 2005, 18:37
What bothered Kitchens was the lack of specific sourcing for the documents. I made a point of including it in this book and here above. I noticed it had never bothered people using Garland Press editions. So, in response to his point, not only did I include it in this book, I put in on the Amazon.com treatments of the earlier books. Neither the publisher nor I thought we were being remiss.

My goal was never to do synthesis. I was not paid for #$%ing synthesis! Nor was it my objective. People want to hear from those who were involved at the time as well as those who have the benefit of 60 years work. It was to select and present a group of documents in their historical context, raise warning flags where approrpriate, and provide an annotated bibliography and description of the authors.

You get all of this for less than a xerox copy of the original documents, plus pretty pictures and maps.

SES
13th July 2005, 09:22
Hi all,

I bought "Fighting the Bombers" with great expectations. And how should I put it - it was a surprise. It is a collection of interrogation reports of Luftwaffe personnel ranging from supreme commanders to nightfighter pilots.

It is thus an account of their recollections from their point of vantage. And some of them did in the nature of things not have the full picture. The Need-to-Know principle applied also in the Wehrmacht. So albeit the interrogated personnel might have been cooperative, there are countless mistakes in their accounts, far too lengthy to quote here. But it is very interesting to see how little some generals knew or understood about their own organization, that assuming that they gave correct and honest answers.

The interrogations seem to have been conducted in German by interrogators, who did not have a good understanding of many of the subjects they asked questions about. Bluntly put: They asked stupid questions and got silly answers.

Subsequently the reports were translated to English by translators, who did not have a good grasp of operational notions or German military terminology.

If you have a good understanding of the subject and can transliterate to German as you read, there is much valuable information in the book, but also there are serious, incorrect accounts.

These interrogation reports CANNOT be used as prime sources, but sadly they have been by authors, who jumped the gun and in good faith believed these reports.

Kind regards

SES

www.gyges.dk (http://www.gyges.dk/)

Tony Williams
13th July 2005, 09:54
These interrogation reports CANNOT be used as prime sources, but sadly they have been by authors, who jumped the gun and in good faith believed these reports.

You make an interesting point here, which I have also noticed in compiling information for my own books. It is traditional to regard 'primary sources' - first-hand accounts from people involved at the time - as the best and most valuable evidence. However, I have frequently discovered this to be untrue. As you say, witnesses might not have known the 'whole picture', or have misunderstood it. Even direct eye-witness evidence sometimes turns out to be wrong, particularly in wartime when information is more restricted and difficult to check.

Such first-hand accounts are fascinating (because they reveal what the people involved thought was the case, even if it wasn't) but always need cross-checking with other sources.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

SES
13th July 2005, 10:09
Hi Tony,

Thank you for your responce and I wholeheartedly agree, facinating accounts, valuable as background, and the lack of knowledge is interesting in itself. With the above caveats I find the books are good value for money.
bregds
SES

Rabe Anton
13th July 2005, 16:30
SES and Tony Williams have, perhaps unwittingly, put their finger on yet another major deficit in David Isby's Luftwaffe-related publications. Isby is quite right that certain primary documents have value in the market-place and that some consumers are interested in such materials. What he seems to think, however, is that primary documents speak for themselves. They do not. A worthwhile documents compilation, or "book of readings" as academics call them, is a miserable failure without commentary that puts the documents and their authors in their historical setting. This means at least several biographical paragraphs on the author(s), explicating his/their views, life experiences, careers, concerns, purposes in writing, and so forth. Even their religious upbringing and psychological state could conceivably bear on their outlook and thus their writing, official and military though it be. It also means that each document should be accompanied by an extended, carefully researched statement of its origins, why it was produced, what its objectives were, what its strengths and shortcomings are, possible prejudices and blinders, and so forth. In other words, each document must be set against the historical tapestry that produced it.

Extended annotations about document authors and about individual items in a published collection should be presented just before the writing on which they bear, not off at the front or rear of the book as they are in Fighting the Bombers. Annotations—individual footnotes explaining terms or pointing out special points—rightly belong after each document.

The hard, nasty, gritty truth is this: document compilations are among the most difficult and sophisticated of historical writings. Successful compilations require at least as much research and loving care as do synthetic monographs. If Isby had obtained a graduate (preferably doctoral) level education in history and, better yet, if he had lived and worked for extended periods in the academic milieu of the discipline, he would have immediately grasped the characteristics required to produce a meaningful assembly of primary materials. The documents, Mr. Isby, do NOT speak for themselves . . . and, as SES and Tony Williams have perceived, the reader both needs and deserves to be fully informed about the complexion and content of each writing included in his manuscript.

RA

Ruy Horta
14th July 2005, 01:02
Yet, this book can provide an easy means to get these original documents, with or without annotations.

Plenty of monographs which would at least deserve a similar treatment, which is better than remaining obscure or within the domain of those willing and able to visit archives etc.

Although I understand some of the criticism, I certainly believe there is room on my bookshelf for this kind of work.

DavidIsby
14th July 2005, 01:13
Mr. Anton is certainly entitled to his opinions. Indeed, I share most of them. What he is not entitled to is his own facts.



The fact in question is: does the work in question meet the general industry standards for books of republished material?



Let’s look at the bookshelf in this subject matter area. I can see the US Air Force has published historical material without editorial commentary or apparatus bringing it up to date. Examples of this are the multi-volume Craven & Cate official history (the recent edition has a two-page introduction added to each volume) and the wartime AAF in Action Monographs. The Navy and the Army also publish post-war material without editorial commentary. These include the Department of the Army publications on German combat actions on the Eastern Front. The Garland Press editions of the Karlshrue studies and German postwar Army studies have no editorial commentary at all nor anyone’s name to hold responsible for the selection made. Looking at a couple of books, THE FIRST AND THE LAST by Adolf Galland and WINGED WARFARE by Billy Bishop, I see no one has provided the new editions with any apparatus or even raised a warning flag that the author was not actually under oath as to the truth of what they were saying. In fact, most publications of such material has no editorial additions, synthesis or value-added of any sort. So the works in question exceed industry standards.



Now, I believe annotating documents can be an excellent and most useful approach to history. Since Mr. Anton reads THE JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY I can direct his attention to the review I did a couple of years back on Les Grau’s annotated Russian General Staff study on Afghanistan, which was excellent. But it’s not the only way. If we had to follow Mr. Anton’s alleged standards, all the books should not have appeared. In reality, there will be multiple approaches to doing this. Just like there are books by Boog, Corum, Muller etc. as well as Ospreys.



Mr. Anton should certainly edit a collection of Luftwaffe accounts that, in his opinion, would meet his (and that’s what they are, HIS, not that expected of such works) requirements. If what results is reasonably priced, I will most likely buy a copy (as will, I suspect, most of the readers of this board. If you can do it better, please do so. My publisher would probably give you a contract. Mr. Anton is not entitled to say that material should remain out of print or only in microfilm in archives and thus unavailable to most of the readers of this board until it is tucked between hard covers to his satisfaction in company with what he sees as sufficient synthesis. If this inspires Mr. Anton to go and do as good a job of annotating and editing Luftwaffe material as Les Grau did on Afghanistan material, I am sure he will be as grateful to me as I was to Dr. Kitchen for calling my attention that including sourcing details would be a good idea.

Jukka Juutinen
14th July 2005, 19:06
It seems that mr. Anton´s primary concern in his continued critiques is not the content but who did it. Any author not having his beloved academic degree is a fraud, liar and incompetent. Yet, this same Anton has applauded the work of Eric Bergerud whose work is utter Thomasmanure. It is perverse that Anton sees a history degree as essential for serious aviation historians, yet proper understanding of e.g. aircraft engineering seems to be of zero importance to him. Otherwise his praise for the Eric Bergeruds cannot be understood.

As for primary documents and their presentation, e.g. the Finnish translation of the transcript of the Soviet Winter War conference at Kremlin in April 1940 must be an utter failure as it e.g. lacks description of the religious background of the participants even though the book is edited by two well known academic historians. Perhaps the publisher should have listened to massa Anton´s genius.

Ruy Horta
14th July 2005, 19:31
Lets try to keep this discussion civil, critique is fair as long as it is constructive.

Discuss and debate, but do not argue.
Of course a discussion can become heated, but it is absolutely essential to remain civil. Try to present your case with proper arguments, and if you do not succeed in convincing the other party, simply agree to disagree. Our forum is built upon mutual respect. Violate that respect and you violate the very foundation our community is built on. Personal attack and insult is never allowed and will be acted upon accordingly depending upon the severity of the attack and insult.

edwest
14th July 2005, 19:44
Ruy,


I could not agree more with your comment about being civil. Arguments based on emotion are usually the most difficult for me to understand. For example, I do not believe it so it must be so. This defies logic.

We, as people, have not gotten as far as we have based on barbaric behavior but on self-control and developing our reasoning abilities.


Best regards,
Ed

tagjagd
15th July 2005, 03:55
Don't sweat it, David.

I am sure he will be as grateful to me as I was to Dr. Kitchen for calling my attention that including sourcing details would be a good idea.Just in case it wasn't obvious, Rabe Anton = James Kitchens.

Mr. Anton is not entitled to say that material should remain out of print or only in microfilm in archives and thus unavailable to most of the readers of this board until it is tucked between hard covers to his satisfaction in company with what he sees as sufficient synthesis.By Rabe's reckoning, you obviously haven't suffered enough for your art. You need to have secluded yourself for several years in dark, dank vaults, rifling through unfiled scraps of paper and microfilm, fighting fishmoths and bureaucrats. Only after you emerge, emaciated and riddled with paper cuts, might you consider yourself a card-carrying historian.

If we had to follow Mr. Anton’s alleged standards, all the books should not have appeared.Rabe routinely disses works by non-doctoral hacks. He bemoans the fact that amateur historians are selling books, making money, and (horrors!) enjoying it. The only people he despises more are the pondscum enthusiasts buying said books.

Mr. Anton should certainly edit a collection of Luftwaffe accounts that, in his opinion, would meet his (and that’s what they are, HIS, not that expected of such works) requirements.Well, he did put out that monumental tome, "Flying Aces". His follow-up, the definitive booklet on Marseille's 109s (sans photos, no less), has been at the printers for over four years now...

Adam
17th July 2005, 18:14
To all concerned,

Far be it for me to weigh in on such a discussion, but as a qualified historian and curator I feel somewhat obliged to add to this thread, not merely in defence of David Isby (though I am sure he does not need my help), but also that of the mistress we serve: history.

I bought Fighting the Bombers expecting nothing less than I got, perhaps even as SES was, finding myself surprised. Despite what Rabe Anton thinks - or would like to pursue - such books [reprints of primary sources] are a critical part of not only modern understanding, but also historical representation. Unwittingly Rabe Anton has highlighted perhaps the most over-looked and mis-understood aspect of primary sources when, in his second posting on this topic, he stated ' seems to think...that [i]primary documents speak for themselves. They do not. A worthwhile documents compilation, or "book of readings" as academics call them, is a miserable failure without commentary that puts the documents and their authors in their historical setting.'

I do not claim to be the last word on such discussions, however, I was trained - and spent more than half a dozen years at university in the pursuit of such disciplines, not to mention years spent outside such institutions researcdhing of my own accord - to regard all available evidences as if they were the one true openings of true understanding. Irrespective of that which was found before or that which was to follow. Irrespective more so of what any pox of a modern author seemed fit to "interpret" and add to the evidence. Rabe Anton insists that, 'Extended annotations about document authors and about individual items in a published collection should be presented just before the writing on which they bear, not off at the front or rear of the book as they are in Fighting the Bombers. Annotations—individual footnotes explaining terms or pointing out special points—rightly belong after each document.' No, Mr Anton, history is not ours to regulate, define and mediate. History is a legacy left to us so that we each, in our own way, may extract and enunciate a meaning from it. Whether we are right (or more right, as the case may warrant) is not for us to decide, but rather for us to believe. Mr Isby, as editor of Fighting the Bombers (I have not yet seen the latest publication) merely presented history in its pure form. Hence the term editor, not author.

I do not wish to come across as anti-Rabe Anton (or pro-Isby), however what I hear in Mr Anton's writings fills me with remorse as in some way it objectifies modern understanding and society. History (*or for that matter, life) does not come with annotated bibliography or footnotes, rather history is what the individual makes of it (one need only look as far as David Irving). That Mr Isby has seen fit not to impose his interpretation on the subject or add disctracting commentary to, what is after all, a primary source, is to be recognised and commended for what it is.

To whatever degree, those of us who frequent this board are of a learned background and similarly such publications as Fighting the Bombers and Luftwaffe and the War at Sea sahould be seen as a [u]necessary and [u]acceptable part of the overall study of history. Whether we like it or not the writtings of Galland, Donitz, Hitler, Churchill or whoever are necessary aspects of history and as such deserve their place - untouched and uninterpreted by modern authors, historians, "exerts" or enthusiasts alike, despite - or perhaps because of - their short-falls and misrepresentations (Look at Churchill and his recounting of Dieppe). Without the coloured views such as Churchill's multi-volume works on the Second World War, Galland's First and the Last, Knockes, I Flew for the Fuhrer, etc all history would be lkeft with would be the likes of Mr Anotn (non-personal) that can only view the world with annotated bibliographies and footnotes. History is not black an white, rather it is coloured by the subjective understanding and intepretations placed upon it by the evidence left behind. Evidence such as that which was edited and published by Mr. Isby.

If one can admire or show to the world the lines and design of Mother Nature [sic] without feeling the need to interpret or force upon another an idea or "understanding", why should historical evidence be different. In life, as in all other aspects, each part plays its role. Similarly; if the Luftwaffe ad the War at Sea was the first collection of primary documents published, would this thread exist (in its current form)? Then ask yourself: Why should it matter if it is or it is not if that which was published was new to the public?

If history has got to the point where it is only serviceable, justifiable and indeed wanted if it only incorporates interpretation, footnotes and explantion (because, as Mr Anton points out, it does not speak for itslef) then, learned sirs, the discipline to which I have devoted myself no longer provides the attraction it once did.

Tony Williams
17th July 2005, 19:05
An interesting contribution Adam. I am not a trained historian (beyond A-level anyway) but have spent much of my professional life collecting, analysing, evaluating and presenting information. Primary sources, such as are being discussed here, are clearly an essential part of historical research. However, the fun begins when primary sources disagree, as they often do.

A good example which keeps coming up is the effectiveness of the Allied fighter-bombers in knocking out tanks in Normandy and beyond. You will find many first-hand reports from fighter-bomber pilots describing in detail the great execution they wrought. The problem is that Operational Research teams, who crawled all over the battlefields shortly afterwards trying to find out what knocked out the tanks, found that very few could be attributed to aircraft: the pilots had basically been mistaken, for a variety of reasons.

Personally I welcome the publication of raw primary sources as such books save authors like me a lot of slogging through files, although they should perhaps come with a health warning to the general reader that the contents only represent what the originators of the documents thought at the time, and may have been contradicted by later research.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

SES
17th July 2005, 20:22
An interesting contribution Adam. I am not a trained historian (beyond A-level anyway) but have spent much of my professional life collecting, analysing, evaluating and presenting information. Primary sources, such as are being discussed here, are clearly an essential part of historical research. However, the fun begins when primary sources disagree, as they often do.


Personally I welcome the publication of raw primary sources as such books save authors like me a lot of slogging through files, although they should perhaps come with a health warning to the general reader that the contents only represent what the originators of the documents thought at the time, and may have been contradicted by later research.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

I have also "spent much of my professional life collecting, analysing, evaluating and presenting information" just like Tony, and neither I am a historian beyond A-level, and I would love to have primary source material published, so I didn't have to wait 2 month for copies from Freiburg. But the interviews published in Fighting the Bombers are not primary source material. If the original German transcripts, devoid of spelling errors, erroneous geographical locations etc., had been published, the book would have been of value as a collection of source material. Now it suffers from a translation, which can only be graded D minus, and some of the interrogated personnel had an incorrect perception of facts and events. These accounts cannot be trusted without cross reference to original German documents on the same subject.

Did the Editor warn the reader about these limitations in his introduction? No and that I fell is Mr. Isby's cardinal sin.
bregds
SES

Adam
18th July 2005, 02:42
If the original German transcripts, devoid of spelling errors, erroneous geographical locations etc., had been published, the book would have been of value as a collection of source material. Now it suffers from a translation, which can only be graded D minus, and some of the interrogated personnel had an incorrect perception of facts and events. These accounts cannot be trusted without cross reference to original German documents on the same subject.

As I understand your comment, SES, you are contradicting yourself by commenting on the interegated and their lack of accuracy. You miss the point completely. That the interegated had an incorrect perception of facts and events is irrelevant to the documents classification. The interegated had/have a view point as concerned them and their experiences and whether or not it was correct is irrelevant. What matters is that they had a view point. If everyone had the same point of view and the same experiences and understanding then there would be no need for researchers or historians to piece together the past, would there? As Tony Williams points out, that is where the fun lies.

Using the example of Fighting the Bombers, anybody who purchased the book did so for their own reasons and with their own expectations. Those with only a passing interest in the topic or gamers where given an insight into the thinking, dealing and organisation (and implementation) of the German air defence system. Those with more of an interest, or the professional SHOULD have read it already knowing its limitations. Let's face it, it is not the editor's responsibility to remind the reader of what already should be obvious. Reading such a book gives those of us unsure whether the effort dealing with Freiburg is truly necessary or - like me - who have next to no German language skills the availability of primary sources. I do not understand why you say these documents can not be trusted without cross reference to the original documents. Are you talking the documents from which they were translated or other period documents dealing with the same subject matter? For if the former then see my above comment, if the latter is true then the point of the book was missed by its audience.

I bought Fighting the Bombers and both read and enjoyed it for what it is, not what it could or should have been. It is a collection of translated primary sources assembled to act (as I see it) as a bridge or supplement to the audiences interests or projects. In fact, looking at the introduction of Fighting the Bombers I note that Mr Isby discusses and clarrifies much of which people seem to take issue with regarding the book. After all, as Mr Isby pointed out, the documents were written by specialists for specialists. That, as far as I am concerned, is sufficient enough warning. Indeed, if we the audience consider ourselves 'specialists' on the topic in question then commentry or warnings are irrelevant! Brief comment was also made concerning grammar and syntax editing so what followed was in no way lacking. As I said previously, history does not come with footnotes or commentry it is ours to interpret as we each see fit. I understand the criticisms levelled at Mr Isby's work but when all is said and done, if historians or researchers need such books to relly on instead of their own leg work and furthermore deem it necessary that such collections should include commentary then those historians and researchers show themselves to be inadequate.

It seems too many people view such books as Fighting the Bombers as failures because they can not properly appreciate them for what they were intended to be. I see nothing wrong with how Mr Isby presented his work and indeed should be commended for allowing seeds of doubt or misunderstanding to remain perhaps in the reader. The purpose of the book was not to discuss or comment on translated primary sources, it was merely to give a wider audience access to the documents in question. Our cardinal sin in following this thread is that we have tried to critique a book using guidelines and expectations on which it was never written (or edited, as the case may be).

regards

Adam

P.S. pardon my ignorance but what is A-level?

Tony Williams
18th July 2005, 10:03
P.S. pardon my ignorance but what is A-level?

English Advanced-level exam, normally taken at age 18. Traditionally, you need passes at A-level in two or (preferably) three subjects to get a place at university.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

DavidIsby
19th July 2005, 02:19
German language versions of most of the documents do not currently exist. While the US Army Foreign Military Studies series and the US Air Force Karlshrue studies were prepared in German laguage versions and then translated (with significant exceptions), this was not the case with many of the earlier efforts. Any German language versions were apparently considered working papers and did not make it into the archival files or onto the microfilm where they have rested since 1945.

Anyway, I hope you all enjoy THE LUFTWAFFE AND THE WAR AT SEA, where you will get to hear from maritime air specialist Colonel Gaul and stuka General Kessler and many others whose story you may not have heard before and may find interesting.

John Vasco
19th July 2005, 17:50
I've read this thread with a smile on my face - all this high-flown shit flying around. All the crap about needing a University degree before being competent to write/comment on historical things. Do me a favour! I didn't go to University. Didn't even pass my A-levels either, failed all of them. I was too busy gigging in a rock band in late '60s Liverpool night clubs, so homework went to the wall (shock horror!).

So all of the above does not qualify me to write one word of history. Some may say I should not have bothered anyway. But do I care? No, I don't give a shit. I went out, met the people, went to the institutions, got the information & photos, and out of that came the books. If you like them, great, if you don't, tough, don't buy them. By the way, Adam, I should say at this point that I am not a qualified historian.

The simple rules are: 1) source documents are information which gives the reader (of the document) a guide, but may in many areas be proved incorrect with the passage of time and the uncovering of further information. 2) in setting down anything in writing which is claimed to be 100% correct, the simple legal tenet of 'He who asserts must prove' is the guide by which any assertion must be judged. This second point, however, must not be confused with matters where an author states a belief, rather than a 100% claim. There is a distinction.

There are more important things in life than scholarly bitching. Never lose sight of that. Enjoy what you want to read, as others will do with their readings.
And if you read this Rabe/Jim, you know I do not agree with you all of the time. Hope all is well with you.

Regards,

A pox of a modern author

Adam
20th July 2005, 01:54
John,

Are you right there? The reason I identified myself as having qualifications was in response to the initial comment by Jukka where he stated: "It seems that mr. Anton´s primary concern in his continued critiques is not the content but who did it. Any author not having his beloved academic degree is a fraud, liar and incompetent" so please don't get too snitchy. I couldn't agree more with you that it doesn't matter what your level of education is. The point I was making was that as such, under the guise of Jukka's assesment on Rabe's beliefs, I was entitled to enter the debate on a "qualified" level. I would even argue that anyone with publishing experience is "qualified", but then what do I know?

As for the comment on poxy modern authors, it was not levelled at anyone in particular, rather it was meant to highlight, as it was linked to a specific quote by Rabe, people who deem it necessary to over intellectualize - which is why this whole thread exists! I could not agree more that there are more things in life than scholarly bitching, (which begs the question, why not let sleeping dogs lie, John?)

If you took offence at the comment about poxy modern authors then I apologise. It was not meant to single out anyone specific. Merely illustrate points under the guidlines of "qualified historians" (refer above). Would you have preferred had I not identified my qualifications and joined the thread in defence of the works in question on a less intellectual basis?

Adam

John Vasco
20th July 2005, 10:24
Adam,

You miss the point. You did it beautifully, but you really did miss it good style.

Now, where was I? Ah yes, back to the Les Paul and Mesa Boogie.

Regards,

A poxy old rock 'n roller of a modern sleeping dog author and a non-qualified historian

Adam
21st July 2005, 01:22
Touche!

Regards,

A young, over-sensitive, over-intellectualizing university git

Brian
7th February 2011, 00:01
Hi guys - John and Adam in particular

It would seem that John and I popped out of the same egg. I am not a professional historian, I have no qualifications as such, yet I have succeeded (my deliberate choice) in having had some 30 books published to date, with more to follow. All, without exception, have sold reasonably well within the refines of our subject matter, and have generally been well received with some very good reviews from the highest level.

I have always endeavoured to obtain 'personal' accounts of those involved (obviously almost impossible now) and would rather consider myself as a chronicler than an author since, as with most of us, I hadn't been born in the period in which I (we) write about.

I felt somewhat offended when, in another posting, people such as me (and John - and specifically another well-known author) were labelled by a 'professional' historian as nothing more than 'careless' enthusiasts (on the basis of 'errors' in our books), which implies to me that his own writings are 100% factual without any sort of error on the basis that he is a 'professional' historian with qualifications.

In my humble opinion most of the best work on military aviation history of the WWII period has come from the pen of the dedicated enthusiast.

In closing, should anyone wish to dissect any of my 'enthusiatic' writings, please do so. The free 'plugs' might be rewarding! Just Google or visit Amazon for most of the titles!

Cheers
Brian

Felix C
28th June 2012, 16:39
Any chance you will be authoring a strictly naval version with all of the papers done by former senior German naval officers?

DavidIsby
29th June 2012, 01:15
No, sorry. I did three Normandy and three Luftwaffe volumes and that seemed to be enough for the publisher.

Now, if you could persuade someone to publish the naval studies, it would be a good thing. There are several volumes potentially there, such as Weichhold's study on German surface ship operations by itself.

Someone with a quality scanner could do us all a great service and pick up some loose change selling copies in pdf form!

david isby