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

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

Several years ago a young Finnish long-chaired civilian historian wrote a doctoral dissertation on the key battles atvtve end of the Winter War in 1940. This topic was a hot one in this country and his study aroused lots of furor. He began the thesis with a long chapter heavily criticising previous publications for lack of analysis, source criticism, hero worship etc. He noted that to be scientific, a historian must analyze the pile of facts and create a logically deducted analysis from those facts and the primary question is why, not what and that simply listing facts is not history as per scientific standarfs, it is a chronicle.

Sorry Jukka, I don't think you know what you are talking about. And here's why.

You said: '...He noted that to be scientific, a historian must analyze the pile of facts and create a logically deducted analysis from those facts...' What is this 'scientific' that you keep wittering on about? I've asked you before, and I'll ask you again, please EXPLAIN SCIENTIFIC!
As for this: '...a historian must analyze the pile of facts and create a logically deducted analysis from those fact...' A historian PRESENTS the facts - facts that they have obtained from their research into primary documents, of facts that have been received from other researchers that can be factually backed up. Example: Erprobungsruppe 210 attacked Croydon airfield in the early evening of 15th August 1940. Fact. The unit should have attacked Kenley. Target information on the Namentliche Verlustmeldungen SPECIFICALLY STATES Kenley as the target. Fact. Having interviewed/corrsponded with some who took part in the raid, the conclusion is that the only one who knew why they attacked Croydon was Rubensdörffer, and he was killed in the aftermath of the attack. You, and the academics, can analyse this matter all you like, but they are the facts. Period.

As for this last part of your post: '...the primary question is why, not what and that simply listing facts is not history as per scientific standarfs, it is a chronicle...' '...The primary question is why, not what...' Really? I think you are lacking in the basic tools of research. THIS, is the basis upon which all research is (should be) founded:

I KEEP SIX HONEST SERVING MEN
THEY TAUGHT ME ALL I KNEW
THEIR NAMES ARE: WHAT AND WHY AND WHEN
AND HOW AND WHERE AND WHO
Rudyard Kipling

'What' is a basic component of research. To ignore/dismiss it is foolish, and that's me being polite…

And this: '...not history as per scientific standards...' (I have corrected your typo). So scientific standards are the standards for historical research? If I posted what I think of that garbage I would be permanently banned.

You see, academics such as yourself are so full of yourself that you are prepared to demean others in open forum. You do so, tilting (however lightly or surrepticiously) at researchers like me (and many others) who have done the 'hard yards' over the decades and produced works of what I would call historical significance, then I will come back at you, in defence of myself, and others like Chris Goss, Andy Saunders, Michael Payne, Peter Cornwell, Simon Parry, Mark Postlethwaite, Dennis Knight, Christopher Shores & Brian Cull in the UK (to name but some), and the like of Jochen Prien, Michael Meyer, Peter Rodeike, Erik Mombeeck, Gerhard Stemmer, Heinz Mankau, Peter Petrick, Holger Nauroth, Werner Held, and other non-British researchers and authors.

I find your latest post a total embarrassment...