Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

I disagree. The author explains that we have largely 'rehabilitated' the Luftwaffe - the 'chilvarous' foe in the Battle of Britain - and thereby glossed over the crimes committed by certain sections of this branch of the Wehrmacht. This was possible because opposing airmen imagined post war that they had shared a common experience, whereas in fact one group was fighting for freedom, the other for a tyrannical dictatorship. I think that's what she's saying...

That may be the intent. One thing I want to make clear is the incredible amount of bias I'm seeing in recent military history books. I paid $100 USD for a book about a weapon fielded by the Germans during the war. I could not have asked for better photos and details, but I vowed to never buy another book from the publisher again. The author decided to add his thoughts about hating Germans and Germany.

Churchill never told the young men, and the public, about tyranny? He never told the public what these young men were dying for?

My father was drafted into the Polish Army at the age of 17. As a boy, I was reluctant to ask him questions since I knew what he had gone through in general terms. I did decide to ask him what combat was like. He made it sound like a sporting event. "They shoot at you, you shoot at them." All he knew at the time was that his country needed him. He went. He never expressed strong feelings toward the enemy. After his capture, he was not sent to a POW camp. He was sent to Germany to work as a forced laborer.

But back to this book. The author displays a clear and non-professional bias by titling a chapter "Better Liars than Flyers." Seriously? As a working book editor, I would immediately strike such a title. Is it too much to ask for fair and balanced reporting of the relevant events? And yes, pilots on both sides had very similar experiences. Both sides had rules of engagement. It was not that long ago that dueling was common in some places. My point is, both sides made a commitment to kill each other.

There is a very large number of books about killing Jews during the war. This book should be entirely about the Battle of Britain. Full stop. There are more than enough accounts about who was a Nazi and who simply did their duty during the war. Nazis are still the villains. So if the author of this book wants to explore that particular tangent in great detail then write a book titled Crimes of the Wehrmacht. Go ahead if it matters so much to the author.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

I disagree. The author explains that we have largely 'rehabilitated' the Luftwaffe - the 'chilvarous' foe in the Battle of Britain - and thereby glossed over the crimes committed by certain sections of this branch of the Wehrmacht. This was possible because opposing airmen imagined post war that they had shared a common experience, whereas in fact one group was fighting for freedom, the other for a tyrannical dictatorship. I think that's what she's saying...

I have to disagree with your disagree. The author once again makes a bland statement that we have largely 'rehabilitated' the Luftwaffe. Who is the 'we' that is being referred to? I have never attempted for a second to rehabilitate the Luftwaffe in all of my writing. All I have ever done is carried out research in an objective way, presented the findings, and have not passed any kind of judgement on a single person who was in the Luftwaffe. I believe that that is also correct for other researchers and writers, but they can obviously speak for themselves on here if they wish to do so. Also, I have never glossed over any crimes, since I have not known of any. Victoria Taylor has entered an area on page 325 which has no relevance to the BoB whatsoever. Yes, we were fighting for freedom, and the Third Reich was a tyrannical dictatorship. So was Stalinist USSR, but they were the 'good guys & gals' since they were fighting the Third Reich.

And yes, opposing airmen did share a common experience: that of each time they took off the fear of being wounded or killed was there with them. It wasn't 'imagined' at all.

The further in I go reading this book...

[John Vasco]

Another excellent post, #162, Ed.

[edwest2]

Thank you John.