Quote:
Originally Posted by uckwash
Hi Peter.
Since the thread has now turned in essence into an appraisal, I need to look in more detail at what you have stated above.
I'm sure & accept you likely earned the rights to access certain bits of information.
What do I mean by that?
Well I'm refering to records, photo's & documents, not in the Public domain, but gathered in connection with excavations, by individuals, as souvenirs, or as worthy additions to Museums past or present. For some reason which I rather wonder now was sometimes once possibly financial, was almost always exclusively in connection with the Battle of Britain, & the period involved.
I accept that 'Aircraft Casualties in Kent' when published in 1990 could have leant more heavily upon your earlier commendable publication, as that by then was in print?
Why was 'A/C casualties in Kent' never completed?
Well, please tell me if my paranoia is clouding my view, because my hunch Peter is that information (not always in the public domain) pertaining to the remaining 'sites' (exclusive of BoB) will remain water tight, until they too have been sucked dry. And exhausted of all artefactual evidence, by brothers. Then as with BoB sites of interest, all will be revealed, as the sites are no longer risks as they have been sucked dry.
But from what you are saying, its not this at all.
You suggest that actually its perfectly possible, given the right approach, from outside the brotherhood, (I'm paranoid again! damn) to figure out, in these cases, as I myself am endeavouring to do, & to obtain a complete picture, (& picture's'!) potentially as good as, or, extending even beyond the scope, of what the excellently (for its day) comprehensive, factual 'Then & Now' series definately achieved, & therefore that A/c casualties was indeed a weak effort, by a group of 3 men who had not 'earnt' by correct approach, sufficient privileges to access all that was required, to make it good.
Dave
|
I've read this ongoing discussion with interest, and feel it is time to add my views, in order to put you straight on a few things.
But first, a little paragraph on my background in research. I started in 1980, hoping to be able to find a lot more out about the 'well known but little known' Lw unit, Erprobungsgruppe 210. I knew absolutely nobody, apart from seeing names on/in books. So I started by writing to various authors via their publishers, and began to slowly garner information. Writing to Jagerblatt in 1983, I made contact with the first former member of the unit. It's then that I operated the 'GOYA' principle. GOYA = Get Off Your Arse. I attended a reunion in Germany in 1984, gathered more contacts, and things moved on from there. I trekked the length and breadth of Germany and Austria for years in pursuit of information and first-hand accounts, as did others. From the UK side of things, authors/researchers did get back in touch with me, and an ongoing exchange of information took place. It wasn't a case of 'all take and no give' from either side. Things progressed, and I was eventually able to write my book about that unit. Research continued with another researcher, which most people know about. Further books eventually followed.
Now, as for those who have carried out excavations over the years, what do you expect that they will find? I'll tell you. Lots of artifacts like bits of fuselage, wings, engines guns, etc.. The occasional W. Nr. from a Lw aircraft might come to light to confirm a particular loss and location. But do not run away with the idea that those who did/do excavations get all their information from those digs. They did their research as well, delving into archives here and abroad at undoubtedly great cost. The dig was only one part of the overall work they did in connection with their research.
I find it particularly insulting that you allude to a 'brotherhood' when in fact no such thing exists.
I find it disgusting that you see fit to call into questions the things that Peter Cornwell has pointed out to you. As for this paragraph: "...Lets say I was trying to write such a book, without the help & support afforded to other publications from such groups, without Internet forums, how otherwise would I get anywhere near the Scientific accuracy & factualness Peter is aluding to without any privileges that might be possibly have been afforded him in 'BoB then & Now' (of access to such data)?..." What privileges? Peter had no privileges. He worked his arse off over a long period of time gathering information from a host of sources, networking with other researchers regarding information. Investing an incredible amount of time and finance into his research (as all researchers do, without exception). There were no internet forums when Peter did most of his research, no e-bay from which to gather photos, either individually or collectively. Privileges? Don't make me, and others, angry with your facile, throwaway comments which do both you, and this forum, a disservice.
And to answer your question, yes, your paranoia is clouding your view.
Regarding that book, what Peter was pointing out was that the information was out there, if only the authors had bothered to undertake sufficient research to get to it (see GOYA principle, above). To not bother, and produce factually incorrect information lends itself to people pointing out the errors in the work. Nothing more, nothing less.
And to round this off, let's demolish your idea about a brotherhood once and for all. There is a major project going on at the moment (look at one of the 'sticky's at the head of the forum). This project involves people, literally, from all around the world. There is one particular person, and I will not name him, who started off with very little knowledge of the subject, but entered into the swing of things on this and other forums. Over time, his knowledge has increased tremendously through his own endeavours. He is now a reputable and valued member of this forum, and the project, and in future years his stature will grow and grow. He took the right approach you see. He didn't go after people and demand information. He entered into discussions, asked questions, proffered ideas and suggestions, and garnered information. THAT'S the way to go about things. So this statement of yours is completely blown out of the water: "I defy any relative newcomer to break the ranks of those 'in the know'." He has done it, as have others.
Ditch your idea of 'brotherhood', ditch your paranoia, and get real to the actual situation that exists.