[Adam]

Originally Posted by SES

If the original German transcripts, devoid of spelling errors, erroneous geographical locations etc., had been published, the book would have been of value as a collection of source material. Now it suffers from a translation, which can only be graded D minus, and some of the interrogated personnel had an incorrect perception of facts and events. These accounts cannot be trusted without cross reference to original German documents on the same subject.

As I understand your comment, SES, you are contradicting yourself by commenting on the interegated and their lack of accuracy. You miss the point completely. That the interegated had an incorrect perception of facts and events is irrelevant to the documents classification. The interegated had/have a view point as concerned them and their experiences and whether or not it was correct is irrelevant. What matters is that they had a view point. If everyone had the same point of view and the same experiences and understanding then there would be no need for researchers or historians to piece together the past, would there? As Tony Williams points out, that is where the fun lies.

Using the example of Fighting the Bombers, anybody who purchased the book did so for their own reasons and with their own expectations. Those with only a passing interest in the topic or gamers where given an insight into the thinking, dealing and organisation (and implementation) of the German air defence system. Those with more of an interest, or the professional SHOULD have read it already knowing its limitations. Let's face it, it is not the editor's responsibility to remind the reader of what already should be obvious. Reading such a book gives those of us unsure whether the effort dealing with Freiburg is truly necessary or - like me - who have next to no German language skills the availability of primary sources. I do not understand why you say these documents can not be trusted without cross reference to the original documents. Are you talking the documents from which they were translated or other period documents dealing with the same subject matter? For if the former then see my above comment, if the latter is true then the point of the book was missed by its audience.

I bought Fighting the Bombers and both read and enjoyed it for what it is, not what it could or should have been. It is a collection of translated primary sources assembled to act (as I see it) as a bridge or supplement to the audiences interests or projects. In fact, looking at the introduction of Fighting the Bombers I note that Mr Isby discusses and clarrifies much of which people seem to take issue with regarding the book. After all, as Mr Isby pointed out, the documents were written by specialists for specialists. That, as far as I am concerned, is sufficient enough warning. Indeed, if we the audience consider ourselves 'specialists' on the topic in question then commentry or warnings are irrelevant! Brief comment was also made concerning grammar and syntax editing so what followed was in no way lacking. As I said previously, history does not come with footnotes or commentry it is ours to interpret as we each see fit. I understand the criticisms levelled at Mr Isby's work but when all is said and done, if historians or researchers need such books to relly on instead of their own leg work and furthermore deem it necessary that such collections should include commentary then those historians and researchers show themselves to be inadequate.

It seems too many people view such books as Fighting the Bombers as failures because they can not properly appreciate them for what they were intended to be. I see nothing wrong with how Mr Isby presented his work and indeed should be commended for allowing seeds of doubt or misunderstanding to remain perhaps in the reader. The purpose of the book was not to discuss or comment on translated primary sources, it was merely to give a wider audience access to the documents in question. Our cardinal sin in following this thread is that we have tried to critique a book using guidelines and expectations on which it was never written (or edited, as the case may be).

regards

Adam

P.S. pardon my ignorance but what is A-level?