[Adam]

To all concerned,

Far be it for me to weigh in on such a discussion, but as a qualified [University of Sydney] historian and curator [University of Canberra] I feel somewhat obliged to add to this thread, not merely in defence of David Isby (though I am sure he does not need my help), but also that of the mistress we serve: history.

I bought Fighting the Bombers expecting nothing less than I got, perhaps even as SES was, finding myself surprised. Despite what Rabe Anton thinks - or would like to pursue - such books [reprints of primary sources] are a critical part of not only modern understanding, but also historical representation. Unwittingly Rabe Anton has highlighted perhaps the most over-looked and mis-understood aspect of primary sources when, in his second posting on this topic, he stated '[Isby] seems to think...that primary documents speak for themselves. They do not. A worthwhile documents compilation, or "book of readings" as academics call them, is a miserable failure without commentary that puts the documents and their authors in their historical setting.'

I do not claim to be the last word on such discussions, however, I was trained - and spent more than half a dozen years at university in the pursuit of such disciplines, not to mention years spent outside such institutions researcdhing of my own accord - to regard all available evidences as if they were the one true openings of true understanding. Irrespective of that which was found before or that which was to follow. Irrespective more so of what any pox of a modern author seemed fit to "interpret" and add to the evidence. Rabe Anton insists that, 'Extended annotations about document authors and about individual items in a published collection should be presented just before the writing on which they bear, not off at the front or rear of the book as they are in Fighting the Bombers. Annotations—individual footnotes explaining terms or pointing out special points—rightly belong after each document.' No, Mr Anton, history is not ours to regulate, define and mediate. History is a legacy left to us so that we each, in our own way, may extract and enunciate a meaning from it. Whether we are right (or more right, as the case may warrant) is not for us to decide, but rather for us to believe. Mr Isby, as editor of Fighting the Bombers (I have not yet seen the latest publication) merely presented history in its pure form. Hence the term editor, not author.

I do not wish to come across as anti-Rabe Anton (or pro-Isby), however what I hear in Mr Anton's writings fills me with remorse as in some way it objectifies modern understanding and society. History (*or for that matter, life) does not come with annotated bibliography or footnotes, rather history is what the individual makes of it (one need only look as far as David Irving). That Mr Isby has seen fit not to impose his interpretation on the subject or add disctracting commentary to, what is after all, a primary source, is to be recognised and commended for what it is.

To whatever degree, those of us who frequent this board are of a learned background and similarly such publications as Fighting the Bombers and Luftwaffe and the War at Sea sahould be seen as a necessary and acceptable part of the overall study of history. Whether we like it or not the writtings of Galland, Donitz, Hitler, Churchill or whoever are necessary aspects of history and as such deserve their place - untouched and uninterpreted by modern authors, historians, "exerts" or enthusiasts alike, despite - or perhaps because of - their short-falls and misrepresentations (Look at Churchill and his recounting of Dieppe). Without the coloured views such as Churchill's multi-volume works on the Second World War, Galland's First and the Last, Knockes, I Flew for the Fuhrer, etc all history would be lkeft with would be the likes of Mr Anotn (non-personal) that can only view the world with annotated bibliographies and footnotes. History is not black an white, rather it is coloured by the subjective understanding and intepretations placed upon it by the evidence left behind. Evidence such as that which was edited and published by Mr. Isby.

If one can admire or show to the world the lines and design of Mother Nature [sic] without feeling the need to interpret or force upon another an idea or "understanding", why should historical evidence be different. In life, as in all other aspects, each part plays its role. Similarly; if the Luftwaffe ad the War at Sea was the first collection of primary documents published, would this thread exist (in its current form)? Then ask yourself: Why should it matter if it is or it is not if that which was published was new to the public?

If history has got to the point where it is only serviceable, justifiable and indeed wanted if it only incorporates interpretation, footnotes and explantion (because, as Mr Anton points out, it does not speak for itslef) then, learned sirs, the discipline to which I have devoted myself no longer provides the attraction it once did.