A question RE: Shore's 'Air War for Burma'

[Ruy Horta]

Brian wrote: reason I mention this is that American historian/author Dan Ford was highly critical of my 'Buffaloes over Singapore' because it was full of first-hand accounts (gathered over many years of painstaking research and dedication to seeking the truth) - and did not contain my personal opinions and conclusions. I didn't respond to him at the time - but should he read this - hard cheese! I will continue my style and he can continue his! Fair dues! Here endeth the sermon. You may or may not agree with me - perhaps you'll let me know. I can take criticism (I hope!!)

Dan Ford's own AVG book did go one step further in certain areas.

To me it illustrated obvious parallels with later US involvement in South East Asia, incl. the role / influence of Chennault. If correct, US involvement in China would probably have escalated to a war with Japan within a few years anyway. Now that sort of material would not appear in a more chronicle style history book. His book tries to stimulate critical thought, which IMHO is important (even if you do not agree).

The AVG was not a regular outfit and became a source of legend, as such it needs a more critical approach, call it an author who is prepared to be judge and jury, to give the subject any substance.

I do not agree with all of Ford's assessments, but overall his approach is as valued as a chronicle style book, but perhaps that extra step does give it more punch.

It all boils down to the old dilemma of recording versus judging.

My personal taste tends to prefer a healthy mix, where the author records without any judgement, until he reaches the end of his chronicle (or at the beginning) where he has room (or obligation) to to provide a framework, the glue which binds the chronicle, and conclusion (or introduction). If the subject needs a criticle appraisal, there may be a need to judge.

Just some thoughts, no critique!