Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

That may be the intent. One thing I want to make clear is the incredible amount of bias I'm seeing in recent military history books. I paid $100 USD for a book about a weapon fielded by the Germans during the war. I could not have asked for better photos and details, but I vowed to never buy another book from the publisher again. The author decided to add his thoughts about hating Germans and Germany.

Churchill never told the young men, and the public, about tyranny? He never told the public what these young men were dying for?

My father was drafted into the Polish Army at the age of 17. As a boy, I was reluctant to ask him questions since I knew what he had gone through in general terms. I did decide to ask him what combat was like. He made it sound like a sporting event. "They shoot at you, you shoot at them." All he knew at the time was that his country needed him. He went. He never expressed strong feelings toward the enemy. After his capture, he was not sent to a POW camp. He was sent to Germany to work as a forced laborer.

But back to this book. The author displays a clear and non-professional bias by titling a chapter "Better Liars than Flyers." Seriously? As a working book editor, I would immediately strike such a title. Is it too much to ask for fair and balanced reporting of the relevant events? And yes, pilots on both sides had very similar experiences. Both sides had rules of engagement. It was not that long ago that dueling was common in some places. My point is, both sides made a commitment to kill each other.

There is a very large number of books about killing Jews during the war. This book should be entirely about the Battle of Britain. Full stop. There are more than enough accounts about who was a Nazi and who simply did their duty during the war. Nazis are still the villains. So if the author of this book wants to explore that particular tangent in great detail then write a book titled Crimes of the Wehrmacht. Go ahead if it matters so much to the author.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

I have to disagree with your disagree. The author once again makes a bland statement that we have largely 'rehabilitated' the Luftwaffe. Who is the 'we' that is being referred to? I have never attempted for a second to rehabilitate the Luftwaffe in all of my writing. All I have ever done is carried out research in an objective way, presented the findings, and have not passed any kind of judgement on a single person who was in the Luftwaffe. I believe that that is also correct for other researchers and writers, but they can obviously speak for themselves on here if they wish to do so. Also, I have never glossed over any crimes, since I have not known of any. Victoria Taylor has entered an area on page 325 which has no relevance to the BoB whatsoever. Yes, we were fighting for freedom, and the Third Reich was a tyrannical dictatorship. So was Stalinist USSR, but they were the 'good guys & gals' since they were fighting the Third Reich.

And yes, opposing airmen did share a common experience: that of each time they took off the fear of being wounded or killed was there with them. It wasn't 'imagined' at all.

The further in I go reading this book...

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

Another excellent post, #162, Ed.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

Thank you John.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

Chapter 12 read

First two pages, statistics. Pages about liaison between the Luftwaffe and the Army. Letter from an Oberleutnant zur See to his mother; article from the Briestal-Bote newspaper dated 2 September. More losses. 'Ace' rivalry between Galland & Mölders. Account by Klaus Deumling of why he was attracted to join the Luftwaffe. Luftwaffe training for nearly two pages. Quotes from Galland, and Werner Baumbach. Quote from Ulrich Steinhilper's book (not about combat). German aircrews' health, exhaustion, 'abgeflogen'. Taken out of the front line for rehabilitation.

RAF bombing, and a quote from a resident of Zehlendorf in Berlin. This goes on with various civilian quotes for three feckin' pages! Letter from an Air Signalman based in France to his wife! Footnote on the last page of the chapter explaining what the Reichsarbeitsdienst was and what it did!

Details of major combats in this chapter? In a word: No.

Make of it what you will...

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

Well, as the saying goes, exactly what it says on the tin. If it has tomato soup on it then there should be tomato soup and nothing else. If it has Battle of Britain on the cover, it should only be about the Battle of Britain.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

Chapter 13 read

Chapter 13 starts with: ‘As Berlin’s dead bodies piled higher under British bombs’. It then goes on to recount a civilian, Helena Vogel, who shouted abuse to Göring on one of his tours of the city, and was interviewed by the Gestapo as a result. A quote from a resident of Wotrum, Mecklenburg. Some more ruminations over ‘Sealion’, then a quote from a woman in Hamburg. A soldat with the Luftwaffe Station Command 16/XI is quoted. Hand Ekkehard Bob is quoted, with his views on the situation, coloured, obviously, by who he was fighting for.

More writing about Sealion and the preparations for it. ‘The level of meticulous planning included the German High Command launching an exhaustive survey into the capabilities of British guerilla warfare on 7th September 1940.(WTH has this to do with the Battle of Britain!). Then the 45th Division of Infantry Regiment 134 is mentioned (has she got the terminology the wrong way around? I think she has.) with regard to training.

Over two pages of a raid on London that Peter Stahl took part in – no date. A page on the switch to attacking London in a general way. Mention of the high contact rate by RAF fighters on 15th September. Meeting of Ribbentrop and Mussolini on 19th September with the usual bluster from Ribbentrop. More general chit-chat about the German High Command’s views.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

It looks like a Phalanx 20mm (kind of Gatling gun) firing everywhere and hitting nothing...

I remember seen this lady on a RAF Hendon Museum Presentation (Crowdcast abroad). She is very articulated and her presentation was fantastic.

But I am feeling that ON THIS BOOK, she messed up and got nowhere....starting from the cover which is tendencious....

A.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

Thanks John, for giving us a glimpse of Chapters 12 and 13....
WE all now have a full idea of the contents....and it's worth (or not).

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

Ben Dunnell has reviewed this book saying complimentary things about it as a general book on what was going on at the time. He also says if you want a who shot down who type book, this is not what this book is about notwithstanding what it says on the cover............

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

Tell that to Andy Warhol!

Well, what it has on the cover is "Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain". It doesn't promise air combat and nothing but, although the cover design might point in that direction.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

Chapter 14 read

Four pages about continued planning post-17th September 1940. Mention of the SS Einsatzgruppen and their role in an invasion, as well as commando units. Accommodation to be provided for troops near the jump-off areas for the invasion, and dressing/medical packs that included seasickness pills, and pervitin. So many pages of behind-the-scenes planning. Galland’s five phases of the Battle are mentioned, including ‘Phase 4 the opening of the Blitz, which saw a mix of daylight and night-time Luftwaffe raids mainly concentrated on London (7th September - 20th October)’, and ‘Phase 5 the ‘Night Blitz’ offensive conducted independently by German bombers from the end of October 1940 to May 1941’. The term ‘Blitz’ features more prominently in the following chapters, I believe to emphasise that the Battle of Britain went well into 1941, and not the British time-period allotted to it on the back of Dowding selecting two dates between which the ‘Battle of Britain Clasp’ should be awarded.

Page 251: ‘Technically, the first significant attack by Jagdbomber (or ‘Jabos’) in the Battle of Britain had already come as early as 12 August 1940 when fighter-bombers of the test wing Erprobungsgruppe 210 were instructed to take out five Chain Home radar (sic) sites mostly dotted along the Kent and Sussex coastlines. The bombs had been accurately placed by the eight Jabos…’ Last time I looked, Dover, Rye, Pevensey and Dunkirk equals four. And where did she get the figure that a total of eight fighter-bombers took part? Is she thinking of the 3. Staffel of Bf 109 E fighter-bombers only? She references the book ‘Battle of Britain 1940’ by Douglas Dildy, in the ‘Further Notes and References’ section, citing pages 100-1. Now in my first edition of that book, it only goes to page 96, so good luck with finding that page! The actual page where Dildy references the attack on the RDF sites by Erprobungsgruppe 210 is page 47 in a ‘call-out’ section regarding ‘Attacking the Chain Home radar sites’. He mentions the eight Bf 109 Es of 3. Staffel, and Victoria Taylor attributes that number to the whole of Erprobungsgruppe 210. Words fail me…

There follows three pages giving details of how effective the Bf 109 fighter-bomber was, in ideal circumstances. Then a couple of pages about injuries, and a story from Heinz Knocke about one pilot who crashed and was killed. The last three pages cover the last major daylight raid on 7th October (briefly) and more comments about Göring, and more statistics.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

Chapter 15 read

First two pages recount a night mission on 15 October, with the Do 17 getting back to France. Another page about flying in the dark. Two pages about flying vests and emergency buoys in the Channel. A page and a half about RAF intelligence information found on Lw bodies washed up on the English coast. More pages on intelligence gathered by the Luftwaffe. Then about 5-6 pages on beam navigation and the attack on Coventry. Yep, that was November, but is justified as being within the timescale of the Luftschlacht um England, which the Lw claimed went on into the Spring of 1941, so amply justifies this being included in a book on the Battle of Britain…

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

To reinforce your point, here's some numbers I picked up from Bundesarchiv RL 2-IV/13: Deutsche Kampf- und Seeflugzeuge.- Leistungsvergleich (Sept.1939–Sept.1944)

Eindringtiefe (radius of action)
Bf 109 E = 200–250 km
Bf 110 C-1 = 400 km
Ju 87 B-1 = 250 km (with 500 kg bombload)
He 111 H-1 = 1000 km (1000 kg)
He 111 P = 960 km (1000 kg)
Do 17 Z-1 = 610 km (500 kg)
Do 17 Z-2, Z-3 = 330 km (1000 kg)
Ju 88 A-1 = 1000 km (1000 kg)

In other words, the Ju 87 could reach any target a Bf 109 could.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

The remaining chapters

I will go through the remaining chapters collectively, since the tenor of the book is well established by now.

Chapter 16 early pages about Bomber Command attacks (3 pages). Army signalman’s views (2 pages). Then more on Sealion. More on what was happening in Germany. Peter Stahl quoted again about a raid he conducted in May 1941! Civilian losses 1940-41. Pages of general chit-chat. More quotes from a Lw Unteroffizier based in Lyon, and an anti-aircraft gunner named Raynor.
Page 293: ‘…Thus by 6 December 1941 – two days before the United States of America entered the war – the Luftwaffe had a mere 468 serviceable bombers…’. At this point I’m thinking, ‘Jeez, spare me this 100% off-topic crap!
Quoting from the Sorauer Tageblatt of a Lw sortie on 24 January 1944! And so it goes on…

Chapter 17 goes on about Sealion and post-war interrogation of Göring (several pages), and Kesselring’s memoirs. Also, post-war snippets from Kurt Student and Werner Baumbach. She then goes on to the ‘Battle of Britain’ film, and Galland’s intervention in certain scenes. Then about the matter of shooting enemy in parachutes. Then about attacking German aircraft with Red Cross markings. On page 313 she references the film ‘The Dambusters’ with regard to civilian losses.

Chapter 18 – titled ‘Better liars than flyers’. First four pages actually cover incidents in the BoB. Then pages on the political ties of the Luftwaffe to the Third Reich regime. Goes on about individuals with sinister pasts in joining in with the killing of jews. Whereas such acts are totally despicable, what has that particular matter got to do with the Battle of Britain? Pages about the terrorisation of the population in occupied countries from 1939 onwards, including Poland, the western European countries, and Norway. Then three pages concerning the involvement of Luftwaffe doctors in experiments on concentration camp inmates.

The final chapter is titled ‘Conclusion’. Some of the content; ‘…Eagle Days, then, has striven to provide a truly exhaustive account of life and death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain…’ Er, don’t think so! Exhaustive? What a load of bollocks that is! ‘…this book has also invited its readers to consider the campaign from a fresh and unique perspective…’ I was still looking for this fresh and unique perspective at the end of the last page! ‘…What Eagles Days has done is to write the rest of the Luftwaffe back into the story of the Battle of Britain…’ ‘…So, Eagle Days fully documents how the Luftwaffe was able to sustain its morale during its first protracted campaign…’ Pass me the puking bucket! What a load of self-opinionated crap!

Apologies for this rather long post, but I felt it better to wrap it up with a single post rather than four.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

Nick,
Thanks for that information. Most interesting...

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

Thank you John. Today, the true sign of an amateur is presenting their personal bias in a book about a number of things. Some of which touch on the subject matter indicated by the title.

The actual title should have been: My Personal Thoughts about the Second World War, including the Battle of Britain.

No professional historian would write such tripe. Like a court case, the relevant facts should be presented to the jury/reader for their evaluation and judgment. Irrelevant material is always irrelevant and never advances the argument.

The author can be prejudicial on her own time.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

Here I would differ, Ed. Historians attempt to interpret and draw conclusions from incomplete data, the proviso being that you must acknowledge that this is what you are doing. I think the words John quotes are how a PhD candidate might close a thesis. As a teacher put it to me, the structure was 'say what you're going to say / say it / say what you've said'.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

Nick,

As a working book editor who handles historical references, I cannot agree in this case. When reading about the Battle of Britain, anything else is unwanted and inappropriate. I'm not going to write a book about fly fishing and include anything beyond the topic. That's all I'm saying.

All history books about the Second World War should be understood to start with the unspoken: So far as is known as of this writing.

It's one thing to miss some relevant books that connect to the Battle, but quite another to turn a book into the author's personal soapbox. When writing a book, there are rules. This author ignored them.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

I have to disagree with the above, Nick. Pseudo-historians may attempt to do the above; I would suggest real historians do not do that. I don't claim to be any kind of historian - I just gathered information over the decades and presented it. Aside from actual facts, that's all you can do.

Once someone attempts to interpret and draw conclusions from incomplete data, then they are entering the realm of speculation, and leaving themselves open to getting things wrong. The classic example of such a thing is something I have mentioned on social media several times to illustrate my point. Why did Rubensdörffer attack Croydon, not Kenley, in the early evening of 15th August 1940. People can speculate until the cows come home, but only Rubensdörffer knows why, and he perished in the aftermath of the raid.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

IMO you are at liberty to infer and interpret provided you make it crystal clear that that’s what you’re doing. What you don’t do is present inference as fact.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

I wish to comment further on the matter of speculation, with reference to another period of history in which I am interested, which is tangential to the topic, but I believe is most illustrative. I’ve been a member of the Richard III Society since the mid-1980s, and receive the quarterly magazine, which includes letter from members.
Regarding the famous disappearance of the ‘Princes in the Tower’, one member wrote in and stated: ‘Yet he did, surely, order the deaths of his nephews as the only way to secure the throne.’ No evidence whatsoever was offered to support this contention. He also stated: ‘All Richard could do was to cause his nephews to disappear.’ Again, no evidence was offered to support this contention. He also stated: ‘there can be little doubt that he bore the guilt of it for the rest of his days.’ He’s making a judgement on Richard bearing guilt, when there is no way he can ever know what was in Richard’s mind! And to cap it off, he states: ‘How else to explain that last desperate charge at Bosworth except as an appeal to the judgement of God?' Yes, at this point I was laughing out loud!

Of course I replied, demolishing his speculation, and it was published in the June edition of the Society’s magazine. So, he will be seeing my reply for the first time in the last few days. He has had another letter published in the June magazine, and it turns out the guy went to Oxford University. Oh dear! In his long, rambling, letter, he says: ‘To judge an individual’s actions in history, we need to immerse ourselves in the day-to-day assumptions that frame his or her views of the world.’ What! One makes judgements on assumptions? There is more I could say about this guy’s June letter, but I will leave it there.

What I wished to highlight with the foregoing is that in the area of non-fiction, factual, research, there is no room for assumptions or speculation.

Loyaulte me lie

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

Major requirements for a reliable historian:
-he must allow the reader to see the foundation of his research=reference note
-his main duty is provide understanding and causalities on past events without bias or any attempt to further any current-day agenda; he is not a judge
-his research must go from bottom to top, in other words, he must never take the end result as the starting point and work backwards
-he must never resort to anachronism
-he must never evaluate the actions based on later day information (information that was not available to actors of that event)
-the possible conclusions must be in line with the evidence provided in the research and be logical (if evidence says X, one cannot conclude Y)
-sources must be critically treated; for example, is a diary entry made the same day as the event occurred treated perhaps as more reliable than a reminiscence 50 years after the event
-he must stick to relevant issues

Based on the examples referred to by Vasco, it seems Taylor failed on more than one hurdle.

Based on Vasc

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

Just my two cents. I think that is an entirely reasonable standpoint as all too often, pieces of the jigsaw are missing and providing the basis for that inference is made crystal clear. I will acknowledge that over time others can take what has been written and mangle it.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

A person writing about history for others needs to provide documents for whatever he presents to the reader. That's all. No guesses. No this must have been statements. It's not more than that.

This author has failed as far as this book is concerned. The reader should not be the one stepping over any digressions from the subject. Had it been placed in my hands, certain parts would have disappeared, never to be seen by an audience expecting one whole piece about the subject.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

I do agree with John Vasco and Edwest on this topic.

1-If you are selling fishes, do not send me pork! Am paying for fish and fish is what I want to see on the fridge. So, according to the resumés of John Vasco, there is nothing new (Historically speaking) on the book, it is pork, sold as fish, and with another kind of "modern food" presentation on the dish...signed by a PhD "expert".
2- If you choose a topic to write about, keep that on the telescopic sight....be a sniper and hit your target headshot and cleanly...do not start shooting like a Phalanx 20mm gun firing snipets everywhere and hitting nothing at all....What an interview from a LW bomber pilot remembering a raid from May 1941 to England (Blitz period) or 1944 off-topic do have to do with the Battle of Britain? In my opinion, she lost herself on her "Navigation"....and was totally off-track....sadly. It seems there is no connection between some chapters, sadly too...
3-That the RAF won the BoB, no one is questioning that...In my opinion, the cover is tendencious and disrespectful towards the German airmen, who , like the RAF airmen, were obeying orders from "the Powers that be" and doing their duty...and they fought well, so they deserve some kind of respect, even from the winners of the war.
4-Regarding the War Crimes...they existed and were registered on both sides...Americans shooting Me-262 pilots late in the war, Americans making no prisoners of war on D-Day; RAF airmen shooting down Red-Cross Heinkels He-59 and hitting French civilians in Harbours and nearby other military installations, etc...we can quote quite a number of cases...Russian revenge, etc....and, of course, German war crimes (in all branches). So, again, an off-course or topic deviation from the tittle of the book (what she is selling for the reader).

Thanks again for John Vasco, for giving us a glimpse of what is written (inside the cover) and how this book is written.

For me, this is surely a NO GO book, not even for the cover....will not even look at it on the "maché aux puces".

A.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

Just a small typo of my part: "marché aux puces"

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

You might consider that a war crime but it seems that at the time the Luftwaffe didn’t, however outraged they later acted … see here: http://www.ghostbombers.com/1940/Arm...mistice04.html

By the way, I think that treating the German air campaign from the fall of France to Barbarossa as one subject is legitimate but what we have come to think of as the Battle of Britain does mean finding a new name for the longer period perhaps.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

I believe extending it to the start of Barbarossa is a post-war German construct. Churchill's famous speech clearly outlines what the 'Battle of Britain' was, and given the extensive preparations for a possible invasion in the second half of 1940, to claim, as some do (not you, Nick) that the title extends up to the point of Barbarossa is at best disingenuous, and at worst, a downright lie.

In 'Eagle Days', from start to finish, the author has, IMO, not so much moved the goalposts as moved to a different pitch in a different location!

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

I agree that it is a construct but there would be logic in considering as a whole the period during which the bulk of the Luftwaffe’s resources were turned against Britain. The failure of the daylight campaign led to the night Blitz (nobody ever switched to night bombing because things had been going really well by day). As Stephen Bungay put it, they turned from trying to force a decision to siege warfare. For the Kampfflieger especially it must have been one long slog.

P.S. I’m wary of viewing history through ‘Churchill goggles’, or ‘Galland googles’ for that matter, although the Battle of Britain is a good enough description for me.

Re: Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
 

Not looking through anything with 'Churchill goggles' at all.

Just this part of his speech from 18th June 1940: 'What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war.'
And as you say, Nick, that is a good enough description for me.

Once they started night bombing against various cities, the Battle of Britain, as a term used to indicate the subjugation of the RAF day fighter force and lead to invasion in whatever manner, was over. The Germans can dress it up any way they wish. They failed. They lost. And it didn't trickle on into June 1941.

By the way, that's a great link in your post #188.