Quote:
Originally Posted by John Beaman
Alright guys, no flame wars or Ill shut the thread down.
|
I don't know whether you have read the other relevant thread, John, so I cannot comment on that matter.
In defence of myself in this thread ( I note you say 'guys' so I presume your post is directed at me, among other(s)), this is what I posted in a previous thread by srob48 titled 8./ZG26, 09.07.1940:
"It might be useful if you quote your source(s) when you post such as you have done in your first post in this thread. If you do that, then the knowledgeable on here may be able to provide better replies for you." Quite innocuous as far as I am concerned. Simply wanting to know from where he drew his information from, in order to provide better assistance.
The above post by me prompted this reply from srob48:
"To John and everyone else that mentions quoting sources.
All my information comes from the Luftwaffe Loss Records kept on microfilm at the Imperial War Museum in London. Wast in Berlin, and the VDK. All official sources. I do not tend to use books as most contain errors. If you wish me to repeat this message on every new thread I will, but it will get a bit boring."
So he doesn't tend to use books. Fine.
I replied with (after providing a couple of examples of where 'official' records were 100% incorrect):
"So I would respectfully suggest that you do not dismiss information in books, as oftentimes that information is far more up-to-date and correct...
THAT is why I suggested you quote your sources for the specific information you request in threads on here. There are many on here who have accessed over the decades the records you mention, and garnered a hell of a lot more information from private sources to supplement those official records. If it's 'boring' for you to quote your sources, then you may find that that will result in less assistance than you may otherwise receive..." The reason for this is to simply point out when official records are incorrect.
Nick Beale then weighed in with this relevant point:
!To reinforce what others have said, sometimes books are more reliable because authors have done more work, taking into account the limitations of the source material rather than taking things at face value. Wartime sources are invaluable, not infallible. The Luftwaffe was hopeless at spelling personal names and non-German place names, for a start. Take Ofw. Kuno Dollenmayer/Dollenmeyer/Dollenmaier — all spellings in primary sources, so how do you decide which is right? Or Oblt. Theodor Spies/Spiess of 5.(F)/123 … Or (from the IWM records) "Grumone" in Italy — on maps it's Cremona, so do you believe the German records?"
Now, back to this thread. When Melvin Brownless posted: "From Nigel Parker's Luftwaffe Crash Archive the following", I simply thought it rather ironic that srob48 said that he did not tend to use books as most contain errors, yet here was Melvin quoting the correct information from a book. Ironic, surely, John?
I then said 'buy the book' (because it has excellent information in it, drawing from decades of recent research that supplements and correct the errors in the official records). And when I posted this it was an ironic comment also: "Oh, you don't set any store by information in books..."
This prompted srob48 to say: "Thank you for your unhelpful reply." Missed the irony 100% there, srob.
And then to pile irony upon irony, he goes on to say:
"I have already bought your books "Bombsights over England" and "Zestörer" and for your information I have a very extensive collection of Luftwaffe books covering the period 1st June 1940 to 1st June 1941." Now after saying that he did not tend to use books, he points out that he has an extensive collection of books... Is that not somewhat ironic?
To me, everything is light-hearted, full of ironic twists. To srob,who is trying to garner additional information, perhaps not.
That's all John. Nothing more complicated than that.