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

New archival research on the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain in this whopping 464-page book:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/18045499...v_ov_lig_pi_dp

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

Crikey how many more books are coming out on this subject? I am interested to know what new revelations this and the plethora of others will reveal

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

She has pretty solid academic credentials and seems to be involved in aircraft history off-duty as well. Which is much more than can be said for many other authors. I think even Axis Wings has her work.

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

And cover shows a Bf109 that has been not involved in BoB

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

Authors don't choose cover designs. There was once an Amazon review of a book on history of air war from a doctrinal point of view by a top-class military analyst Martin van Creveld. That reviewer dismissed the book because the cover photo was a mirror image...

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

You should see British TV when it reports on the Battle of Britain: to illustrate Summer 1940 they use a package of Imperial War Museum footage that includes an Fw 190 being shot down over a snow-covered landscape.

Dr. Taylor's website is here, by the way: https://spitfirefillyaviation.com

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

After reading the publisher's synopsis of the book with its description of primary source German documents and eyewitness accounts, I am certainly interested in Dr. Taylor's Eagle Days.

However the first paragraph is pretty awkward and reads like a first draft by an intern.

“By the summer of 1940, Great Britain watched as France succumbed to the might of Adolf Hitler’s forces. Her forces driven off the continent, many rescued from capture at Dunkirk, only the Royal Air Force, supported by the country’s newly established radar system, now stood in the way of the country being invaded. . . . "

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

It helps that there are lots of those free online now: Luftflotte 3 mission reports; Luftwaffe western theatre daily ops reports; Lw. 10-daily unit strengths and operational readiness stats; Quartermaster General loss reports … plenty of rabbit holes for the researcher to disappear down. I'd imagine that the team working on the revised Battle of Britain Then and Now will be scouring those as well.

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

I always have an input to my book covers albeit I don't always agree with the end result. As to academic qualifications, I am one of the rare ones having a Masters with Merit in War Studies from Kings College London. When I added to my thesis to produce Luftwaffe Fighter Bombers over Britain, was told I should have put this forward for a PhD!

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

And it's greatly to your credit that it reads like a proper book. I've read a few theses about Second World War aviation (they're often online at the university concerned) and books based on them. The prevailing academic conventions seem to result in something a long way from anything that an 'outsider' would enjoy reading or even learn much from. Much of the object seems to be demonstrating how thoroughly familiar you are with the work already done by others in the field. For example, you can download Dr. Taylor's 'Après moi, le déluge : redressing the wartime and postwar mythologization of Operation CHASTISE in Britain' here: https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/output/4221081

To me, it just seemed that far more words were devoted to what other writers said (or didn’t) about the raid rather than presenting anything new that she might have unearthed from her own research.

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

What's wrong with that?

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

Using the word "forces" twice, so close together.

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

And why "Adolph Hitler's forces", rather than "the German Army". They don't say "Chamberlain watched" or "Churchill watched".

And, anyway, "Great Britain" is wrong as it should be "The United Kingdom"!

Did not the Navy, too, stand in the way of invasion?

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

Besides the inclusion of "forces" again the second sentence is pretty awkward with its four commas. I feel certain that Dr. Taylor could do a quick edit and improve this

I'm sure that the publisher has to insert a certain number of phrases and buzz words for their description of a book on the BoB. "Dunkirk" "Adolf Hitler" "radar" etc so that it shows up in different searches.

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

Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
(Apollo, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing - May 22, 2025)
by Victoria Taylor
464 pages - hardback

$32.99 US - hardback
$29.69 US - ebook

"Read an extract" at link below does not seem to be working

Description
"By the summer of 1940, Great Britain watched as France succumbed to the might of Adolf Hitler's forces. Her forces driven off the continent, many rescued from capture at Dunkirk, only the Royal Air Force, supported by the country's newly established radar system, now stood in the way of the country being invaded. Herman Goering had promised his Fuhrer his air force would sweep the British skies of all opposition to allow Operation Sea Lion, the invasion of southern England, to commence. The intense aerial combat over the coming months across the English Channel and the countryside of southeast England would not reflect the optimism of Nazi propaganda.

Researching and blending a diverse range of primary sources together (Luftwaffe air crews' personal letters and diaries), with official combat reports, and contemporary German newspapers, Victoria Taylor weaves a rich, multifaceted tapestry of the military, political, social and cultural influences that shaped the German air force's mentality and morale during the Battle of Britain.

Eagle Days transforms the Luftwaffe's historical role during the RAF's 'Finest Hour' from a cartoonish antagonist to a multidimensional, flawed-yet-formidable opponent. The narrative contains not just the voices of the air crews who conducted the fighting, but uniquely never-before-translated primary source material of other contemporary eyewitnesses, (Luftwaffe's paratroopers, anti-aircraft gunners and air signalmen). Eagle Days will offer all fans of this period a refreshing, comprehensive and exciting new account of the Luftwaffe's real experiences during the Battle of Britain."

The Author
"Dr Victoria Taylor, BA (Hons), MRes, AFHEA is an award-winning aviation historian who completed her PhD thesis on the Luftwaffe and National Socialism in the Third Reich at the University of Hull and Sheffield Hallam University. She has contributed to numerous popular history magazines such as BBC History Extra, Iron Cross Magazine and Britain at War.

Victoria sits on the Advisory Board for the cross-party Spitfire AA810 restoration project in the House of Lords and is an Assistant Editor for the Royal Aeronautical Society’s Journal of Aeronautical History. Eagle Days is her first non-fiction book."

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/eagle-days-9781804549971/

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

Publishers seem very fond of WW2 titles beginning “Hitler’s …”, “Churchill’s …” or “Stalin’s …” but not so much “Roosevelt’s …”

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

The blurb suggests that Ms Taylor is the first author to recognize that the Luftwaffe in 1940 was not just a "cartoonish antagonist". So that is where Wood and Dempster, and Mason, went wrong.

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

probably used ChatGPT. Ask it to write the blurb for a new book on the Battle of Britain ..and be amazed. Or not.

" Title: Wings of Fire: The Battle of Britain and the defeat of the Luftwaffe

Blurb:
In the summer of 1940, the skies over England became the stage for one of the most pivotal confrontations of the Second World War. Wings of Fire dives deep into the dramatic clash between the Royal Air Force and the Luftwaffe, exploring the strategies, bravery, and sacrifices that defined the Battle of Britain.

From the adrenaline-fueled dogfights between Spitfires and Messerschmitts to the relentless bombing campaigns of the Blitz, this gripping narrative brings history to life through vivid accounts of the pilots, commanders, and civilians who lived through the chaos. Witness the rise of the Luftwaffe, fueled by Hitler’s ambitions, and the resilient defense mounted by an outnumbered but determined Britain.

Combining meticulous research with storytelling that places you in the cockpit, Wings of Fire is a tribute to the human spirit, a tale of heroism against all odds, and a testament to the enduring legacy of the battle that changed the course of history..."

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

I don't want to be placed in the cockpit, I haven't finished flying school yet!

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

“Wings of Fire”, a worthy sequel “Blazing Saddles”?

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

A thousand monkeys working at a thousand typewriters will eventually get you "It was the best of times. It was the blurst of times."

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

Are you suggesting that authors should have solid academic credentials in order to research and write? What is the point you are making with what I have put in bold above? Please enlighten me, and others...

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

I have 40 years at a publishing company without a college degree. Our head writer has no college degree. Both of us had to learn the publishing business by the seat of our pants. Learning how to write to inform and entertain takes years. It can be done.

However, unlike the illustrators we work with, writers seem more easily offended, to a greater or lesser degree. While I can tell an artist that a leg is too long, all writing is black ink on paper. A quick glance does not suffice. When converting original documents to book form, a way to order the material for the specialist reader and those just curious has to be chosen. There are plenty of fine examples in existence.

Unfortunately, descriptions and even titles chosen by publishers, and, in some cases, writers can create the wrong impression or put off potential buyers. Reviews on Amazon range from bad to atrocious. Far, far removed from proper book reviews. And if a review for a specialist book cannot be found quickly, what happens? Potential buyers tend to discount it.

I have seen many Ph.D. papers online. The writer usually offers only surface impressions with occasional bits of originality. A seasoned writer does not spring into existence overnight. I suspect that if some went on to write history books that they would drown in the deep water of actual research into original documents. It appears that 5 years is a minimum while 10 years or more is average.

There is no How to Write History Books to a High Standard in 5 Easy Lessons. Too many writers think they can complete a book in less time than what those documents would allow.

Finally, a proper discussion, such as can be had by two people sitting face to face or even on the phone cannot be had. It takes just one or two off hand remarks to cause a problem.

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

A good post ed.
However, I do take issue with this in your last paragraph: '...a proper discussion, such as can be had by two people sitting face to face or even on the phone cannot be had...' I cannot speak for others, but that is simply not true in my own experience.

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

No, I am not suggesting that because my favourite aircraft authors have either aircraft engineering or test pilot background. But I am suggesting that Ms. Taylor's academic credentials have something to do with aviation history in the deepest sense. Which is very different from e.g. what that coalminer-looking man in a recent British Dambusters TV documentary had; that guy's credentials were in cultural history with zero connections to Dambusters. He was obviously chosen for the same reason the doc did not name Gibson's dog.

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

I'd be interested to hear your reactions to reading Dr. Taylor's thesis on the dams raid. My own impression, as I posted earlier, was that she was more interested in reviewing others' writings and angles they might not have looked at (historiography). What she seemed less concerned with was herself exploring said neglected areas and presenting her findings.

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

What are you suggesting, then? You state 'academic credentials' - what is the point you are making with regard to academic credentials? That academic credentials elevate someone to the point of being a better writer than others who do not have academic credentials? Or that academic credentials are a prerequisite to write history.
Please explain further...

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

1. While academic credentials do not quarantee a good writer or good research, often it gives tools to deal with issues like source criticism and in general in scientific approach. That is especially true in the past when The academia was more merit-driven than politically-driven (=woke) .

2. Do the forumites have such a lousy memory here? Years ago a member by the nick "Rabe Anton" frequented here and he attacked with quite strong expressions any books not written by Ph.Ds while being very derogatory towards one's written by "amateurs". I do not remember anyone subjecting Rabe Anton to 3rd degree interrogation.

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

Nor do I, and happily no one has done anything more than ask you to clarify what you meant. You’ve done that in your first paragraph and I think your point is reasonable. There are, of course, many professions where information is collected, competing viewpoints compared and potential sources of bias taken into account—all useful techniques for writing history. (One example might be Jonathan Sumption, a British Supreme Court judge who has written a five-volume history of the Hundred Years War).

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

Sorry for continuing to push you on the posts that you put up, but I have to question what I have highlighted in bold.
1) what are these tools that academics have to deal with issues like source criticism? Quite frankly, that's a load of bollocks. And I'll tell you why with one prime example. One does not need to be an academic to know/realise that the Luftwaffe GQM returns are riddled with errors.
2) What is this 'scientific approach of which you talk?

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

In the interest of further clarity, a few thoughts. People with and without academic credentials/degrees have produced good history books. Period.

I have seen too much evidence online of quick, sloppy work being posted with the intent of contributing something. It doesn't. It's just some bored or somewhat interested person who has no idea of how much work is involved when doing actual research. There are no shortcuts. There never will be.

The methods of doing research properly and turning that work into a written book can never change.

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

Exactly. By the same token people get PhDs for doing not nearly half as much as some of the 'old hands' here (sorry John!) have over the years in their spare time.

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

Oh I'm an 'old hand', no doubt about that! :D

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

I have not read it. But, one of the basic diktats of such a thesis is that the writer must sonehow show the reviewing opponents that he has read the previous research on the topic. Illogical or not, but a historian pursuing a degree will not likely get fullest score if previous research is not discussed. I have recently browsed a few such theses prepared by the students of the Finnish Military Academy and everyone of them has substantial chapters explaining previous publications on the topic and methology of the study at hand. The professors require that.

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

Several years ago a young Finnish long-chaired civilian historian wrote a doctoral dissertation on the key battles atvtve end of the Winter War in 1940. This topic was a hot one in this country and his study aroused lots of furor. He began the thesis with a long chapter heavily criticising previous publications for lack of analysis, source criticism, hero worship etc. He noted that to be scientific, a historian must analyze the pile of facts and create a logically deducted analysis from those facts and the primary question is why, not what and that simply listing facts is not history as per scientific standarfs, it is a chronicle.

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

Sorry Jukka, I don't think you know what you are talking about. And here's why.

You said: '...He noted that to be scientific, a historian must analyze the pile of facts and create a logically deducted analysis from those facts...' What is this 'scientific' that you keep wittering on about? I've asked you before, and I'll ask you again, please EXPLAIN SCIENTIFIC!
As for this: '...a historian must analyze the pile of facts and create a logically deducted analysis from those fact...' A historian PRESENTS the facts - facts that they have obtained from their research into primary documents, of facts that have been received from other researchers that can be factually backed up. Example: Erprobungsruppe 210 attacked Croydon airfield in the early evening of 15th August 1940. Fact. The unit should have attacked Kenley. Target information on the Namentliche Verlustmeldungen SPECIFICALLY STATES Kenley as the target. Fact. Having interviewed/corrsponded with some who took part in the raid, the conclusion is that the only one who knew why they attacked Croydon was Rubensdörffer, and he was killed in the aftermath of the attack. You, and the academics, can analyse this matter all you like, but they are the facts. Period.

As for this last part of your post: '...the primary question is why, not what and that simply listing facts is not history as per scientific standarfs, it is a chronicle...' '...The primary question is why, not what...' Really? I think you are lacking in the basic tools of research. THIS, is the basis upon which all research is (should be) founded:

I KEEP SIX HONEST SERVING MEN
THEY TAUGHT ME ALL I KNEW
THEIR NAMES ARE: WHAT AND WHY AND WHEN
AND HOW AND WHERE AND WHO
Rudyard Kipling

'What' is a basic component of research. To ignore/dismiss it is foolish, and that's me being polite…

And this: '...not history as per scientific standards...' (I have corrected your typo). So scientific standards are the standards for historical research? If I posted what I think of that garbage I would be permanently banned.

You see, academics such as yourself are so full of yourself that you are prepared to demean others in open forum. You do so, tilting (however lightly or surrepticiously) at researchers like me (and many others) who have done the 'hard yards' over the decades and produced works of what I would call historical significance, then I will come back at you, in defence of myself, and others like Chris Goss, Andy Saunders, Michael Payne, Peter Cornwell, Simon Parry, Mark Postlethwaite, Dennis Knight, Christopher Shores & Brian Cull in the UK (to name but some), and the like of Jochen Prien, Michael Meyer, Peter Rodeike, Erik Mombeeck, Gerhard Stemmer, Heinz Mankau, Peter Petrick, Holger Nauroth, Werner Held, and other non-British researchers and authors.

I find your latest post a total embarrassment...

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

"the primary question is why, not what and that simply listing facts is not history as per scientific standards, it is a chronicle."

(young long-haired Finn)

"The fundamental question is : "What actually happened and why?"".

(Adm. S.E. Morison)

"Simply explain the event exactly as it happened"

(Leopold von Ranke, 1824)

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

I do hope that members will devote comparable energy to this book once it’s actually out and they’ve read it.

Meanwhile, I see no legitimate cause for anger over the term ‘scientific’. It’s perfectly applicable to historical enquiry in the sense of amassing all the evidence you can from all sides and going where it takes you, irrespective of what you first thought might be the case. One should take account of all the evidence, not just the bits that suit some preconception, and keep alert to potential bias both in one’s sources and oneself. You reach a conclusion rather than start out with one. Also, as in science, the writer has to accept that their conclusions are only as good as the last bit of data and could be blown away tomorrow by some new discovery.

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

It's not anger, Nick, just a request for an explanation of the term 'scientific', that's all. And if your definition is accepted (historical enquiry in the sense of amassing all the evidence you can from all sides and going where it takes you, irrespective of what you first thought might be the case), which is perfectly reasonable, then that is what I (and a whole host of other researchers) have been doing since 1980! Do I see my research as 'scientific'? No, just research. Into primary documents and contact with those who took part. That's research, nothing more complicated.
As for this: '...conclusions are only as good as the last bit of data and could be blown away tomorrow by some new discovery...' I completely agree, that is not in dispute. Look out for certain things surfacing in a work later this year...

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

I only think of my stuff as research too. The contrast I would make is with the kind of Second World War history I grew up with: tales of heroes and daring raids/escapes with all the awkward bits left out, and with a bit of guesswork/imagination to bridge the occasional gap in the information.