Quote:
Originally Posted by focusfocus
Stig
It's not a question of "inflating","reducing" or inventing new "AS" for simple pleasure,but of correctly using ALL the informations available.
The Closterman "case" quoted by Nick is THE good example of the official version long peddled and "cast in concrete"...and yet!
In France,you have to be wary of the official version
ex:GCII/7
According to the huting inspection:40 vict and 10 prob'official version of the state and "cast in concrete".
According to SHAA GCII/7 (official):29 vict and 17 prob.
According to Jean Gisclon (historian):52 vict
According history of the 7° escadre published by the SHD-Air (ex SHAA),and still official:64 vic
That's a lot of different official versions but "cast in concrete"
So the work official for SHAA of Porret/Thevenet....good sources....coulée dans le béton?
Good headache!
Best Regards
Michel
|
Thanks Michel
Unfortunately you loose me when you are talking about "inflation and inventing" stuff. I am talking about
re-evaluation and new interpretation, which is way, way different! So please don't invent words I have never
written!
Unfortunately I don't understand some words you use, such as AS and "huting inspection.
Not sure how I should interpret your example since what you are basically saying is that French official historians
have no clue what they are actually saying. Is that correct or am I missing something?
We all know about the weird system France used in 1939-40 (perhaps even longer with the Vichy) but by the time
we have reached 1943 I always assumed the French adopted the "Allied" way meaning their claims system was on par
with both the British and American Air Forces.
Finally, you unfortunately don't answer the things I am interested in. Are the re-evaluations done with
a) new found documents?
b) new interpretations of already known documents?
c) perhaps even by other means?
d) who is/are doing these re-interpretation/re-evaluations?
e) are they officially sanctioned or done privately?
My personal opinion is that if you change something which has been said in the past as the truth, you also have to
say why and which document/statement you base your new evidence on.
It is not good enough to just say new facts has come to light, or that everyone should believe in it just because
"I say so!". Mind you, when checking out the quoted sources, not everyone may agree with "these new facts".
As I said before, this is "duckpond" trivia, but since it is French I am simply curious, that's all.
Cheers
Stig