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

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by edwest2

If it has tomato soup on it then there should be tomato soup and nothing else.

Tell that to Andy Warhol!

Originally Posted by edwest2

If it has Battle of Britain on the cover, it should only be about the Battle of Britain.

Well, what it has on the cover is "Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain". It doesn't promise air combat and nothing but, although the cover design might point in that direction.

[John Vasco]

Chapter 14 read

Four pages about continued planning post-17th September 1940. Mention of the SS Einsatzgruppen and their role in an invasion, as well as commando units. Accommodation to be provided for troops near the jump-off areas for the invasion, and dressing/medical packs that included seasickness pills, and pervitin. So many pages of behind-the-scenes planning. Galland’s five phases of the Battle are mentioned, including ‘Phase 4 the opening of the Blitz, which saw a mix of daylight and night-time Luftwaffe raids mainly concentrated on London (7th September - 20th October)’, and ‘Phase 5 the ‘Night Blitz’ offensive conducted independently by German bombers from the end of October 1940 to May 1941’. The term ‘Blitz’ features more prominently in the following chapters, I believe to emphasise that the Battle of Britain went well into 1941, and not the British time-period allotted to it on the back of Dowding selecting two dates between which the ‘Battle of Britain Clasp’ should be awarded.

Page 251: ‘Technically, the first significant attack by Jagdbomber (or ‘Jabos’) in the Battle of Britain had already come as early as 12 August 1940 when fighter-bombers of the test wing Erprobungsgruppe 210 were instructed to take out five Chain Home radar (sic) sites mostly dotted along the Kent and Sussex coastlines. The bombs had been accurately placed by the eight Jabos…’ Last time I looked, Dover, Rye, Pevensey and Dunkirk equals four. And where did she get the figure that a total of eight fighter-bombers took part? Is she thinking of the 3. Staffel of Bf 109 E fighter-bombers only? She references the book ‘Battle of Britain 1940’ by Douglas Dildy, in the ‘Further Notes and References’ section, citing pages 100-1. Now in my first edition of that book, it only goes to page 96, so good luck with finding that page! The actual page where Dildy references the attack on the RDF sites by Erprobungsgruppe 210 is page 47 in a ‘call-out’ section regarding ‘Attacking the Chain Home radar sites’. He mentions the eight Bf 109 Es of 3. Staffel, and Victoria Taylor attributes that number to the whole of Erprobungsgruppe 210. Words fail me…

There follows three pages giving details of how effective the Bf 109 fighter-bomber was, in ideal circumstances. Then a couple of pages about injuries, and a story from Heinz Knocke about one pilot who crashed and was killed. The last three pages cover the last major daylight raid on 7th October (briefly) and more comments about Göring, and more statistics.

[John Vasco]

Chapter 15 read

First two pages recount a night mission on 15 October, with the Do 17 getting back to France. Another page about flying in the dark. Two pages about flying vests and emergency buoys in the Channel. A page and a half about RAF intelligence information found on Lw bodies washed up on the English coast. More pages on intelligence gathered by the Luftwaffe. Then about 5-6 pages on beam navigation and the attack on Coventry. Yep, that was November, but is justified as being within the timescale of the Luftschlacht um England, which the Lw claimed went on into the Spring of 1941, so amply justifies this being included in a book on the Battle of Britain…

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Nick: I don't believe she spoke sense about the Ju 87 force. We know that after the combats of 16th & 18th August that the Ju 87s were not used in force again, but she said they were not used because of the distance to London. What?

To reinforce your point, here's some numbers I picked up from Bundesarchiv RL 2-IV/13: Deutsche Kampf- und Seeflugzeuge.- Leistungsvergleich (Sept.1939–Sept.1944)

Eindringtiefe (radius of action)
Bf 109 E = 200–250 km
Bf 110 C-1 = 400 km
Ju 87 B-1 = 250 km (with 500 kg bombload)
He 111 H-1 = 1000 km (1000 kg)
He 111 P = 960 km (1000 kg)
Do 17 Z-1 = 610 km (500 kg)
Do 17 Z-2, Z-3 = 330 km (1000 kg)
Ju 88 A-1 = 1000 km (1000 kg)

In other words, the Ju 87 could reach any target a Bf 109 could.

[John Vasco]

The remaining chapters

I will go through the remaining chapters collectively, since the tenor of the book is well established by now.

Chapter 16 early pages about Bomber Command attacks (3 pages). Army signalman’s views (2 pages). Then more on Sealion. More on what was happening in Germany. Peter Stahl quoted again about a raid he conducted in May 1941! Civilian losses 1940-41. Pages of general chit-chat. More quotes from a Lw Unteroffizier based in Lyon, and an anti-aircraft gunner named Raynor.
Page 293: ‘…Thus by 6 December 1941 – two days before the United States of America entered the war – the Luftwaffe had a mere 468 serviceable bombers…’. At this point I’m thinking, ‘Jeez, spare me this 100% off-topic crap!
Quoting from the Sorauer Tageblatt of a Lw sortie on 24 January 1944! And so it goes on…

Chapter 17 goes on about Sealion and post-war interrogation of Göring (several pages), and Kesselring’s memoirs. Also, post-war snippets from Kurt Student and Werner Baumbach. She then goes on to the ‘Battle of Britain’ film, and Galland’s intervention in certain scenes. Then about the matter of shooting enemy in parachutes. Then about attacking German aircraft with Red Cross markings. On page 313 she references the film ‘The Dambusters’ with regard to civilian losses.

Chapter 18 – titled ‘Better liars than flyers’. First four pages actually cover incidents in the BoB. Then pages on the political ties of the Luftwaffe to the Third Reich regime. Goes on about individuals with sinister pasts in joining in with the killing of jews. Whereas such acts are totally despicable, what has that particular matter got to do with the Battle of Britain? Pages about the terrorisation of the population in occupied countries from 1939 onwards, including Poland, the western European countries, and Norway. Then three pages concerning the involvement of Luftwaffe doctors in experiments on concentration camp inmates.

The final chapter is titled ‘Conclusion’. Some of the content; ‘…Eagle Days, then, has striven to provide a truly exhaustive account of life and death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain…’ Er, don’t think so! Exhaustive? What a load of bollocks that is! ‘…this book has also invited its readers to consider the campaign from a fresh and unique perspective…’ I was still looking for this fresh and unique perspective at the end of the last page! ‘…What Eagles Days has done is to write the rest of the Luftwaffe back into the story of the Battle of Britain…’ ‘…So, Eagle Days fully documents how the Luftwaffe was able to sustain its morale during its first protracted campaign…’ Pass me the puking bucket! What a load of self-opinionated crap!

Apologies for this rather long post, but I felt it better to wrap it up with a single post rather than four.

[John Vasco]

Nick,
Thanks for that information. Most interesting...

[edwest2]

Thank you John. Today, the true sign of an amateur is presenting their personal bias in a book about a number of things. Some of which touch on the subject matter indicated by the title.

The actual title should have been: My Personal Thoughts about the Second World War, including the Battle of Britain.

No professional historian would write such tripe. Like a court case, the relevant facts should be presented to the jury/reader for their evaluation and judgment. Irrelevant material is always irrelevant and never advances the argument.

The author can be prejudicial on her own time.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by edwest2

No professional historian would write such tripe.

Here I would differ, Ed. Historians attempt to interpret and draw conclusions from incomplete data, the proviso being that you must acknowledge that this is what you are doing. I think the words John quotes are how a PhD candidate might close a thesis. As a teacher put it to me, the structure was 'say what you're going to say / say it / say what you've said'.

[edwest2]

Nick,

As a working book editor who handles historical references, I cannot agree in this case. When reading about the Battle of Britain, anything else is unwanted and inappropriate. I'm not going to write a book about fly fishing and include anything beyond the topic. That's all I'm saying.

All history books about the Second World War should be understood to start with the unspoken: So far as is known as of this writing.

It's one thing to miss some relevant books that connect to the Battle, but quite another to turn a book into the author's personal soapbox. When writing a book, there are rules. This author ignored them.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

Historians attempt to interpret and draw conclusions from incomplete data, the proviso being that you must acknowledge that this is what you are doing.

I have to disagree with the above, Nick. Pseudo-historians may attempt to do the above; I would suggest real historians do not do that. I don't claim to be any kind of historian - I just gathered information over the decades and presented it. Aside from actual facts, that's all you can do.

Once someone attempts to interpret and draw conclusions from incomplete data, then they are entering the realm of speculation, and leaving themselves open to getting things wrong. The classic example of such a thing is something I have mentioned on social media several times to illustrate my point. Why did Rubensdörffer attack Croydon, not Kenley, in the early evening of 15th August 1940. People can speculate until the cows come home, but only Rubensdörffer knows why, and he perished in the aftermath of the raid.