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

[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.

[Nick Beale]

IMO you are at liberty to infer and interpret provided you make it crystal clear that that’s what you’re doing. What you don’t do is present inference as fact.

[John Vasco]

I wish to comment further on the matter of speculation, with reference to another period of history in which I am interested, which is tangential to the topic, but I believe is most illustrative. I’ve been a member of the Richard III Society since the mid-1980s, and receive the quarterly magazine, which includes letter from members.
Regarding the famous disappearance of the ‘Princes in the Tower’, one member wrote in and stated: ‘Yet he did, surely, order the deaths of his nephews as the only way to secure the throne.’ No evidence whatsoever was offered to support this contention. He also stated: ‘All Richard could do was to cause his nephews to disappear.’ Again, no evidence was offered to support this contention. He also stated: ‘there can be little doubt that he bore the guilt of it for the rest of his days.’ He’s making a judgement on Richard bearing guilt, when there is no way he can ever know what was in Richard’s mind! And to cap it off, he states: ‘How else to explain that last desperate charge at Bosworth except as an appeal to the judgement of God?' Yes, at this point I was laughing out loud!

Of course I replied, demolishing his speculation, and it was published in the June edition of the Society’s magazine. So, he will be seeing my reply for the first time in the last few days. He has had another letter published in the June magazine, and it turns out the guy went to Oxford University. Oh dear! In his long, rambling, letter, he says: ‘To judge an individual’s actions in history, we need to immerse ourselves in the day-to-day assumptions that frame his or her views of the world.’ What! One makes judgements on assumptions? There is more I could say about this guy’s June letter, but I will leave it there.

What I wished to highlight with the foregoing is that in the area of non-fiction, factual, research, there is no room for assumptions or speculation.

Loyaulte me lie

[Jukka Juutinen]

Major requirements for a reliable historian:
-he must allow the reader to see the foundation of his research=reference note
-his main duty is provide understanding and causalities on past events without bias or any attempt to further any current-day agenda; he is not a judge
-his research must go from bottom to top, in other words, he must never take the end result as the starting point and work backwards
-he must never resort to anachronism
-he must never evaluate the actions based on later day information (information that was not available to actors of that event)
-the possible conclusions must be in line with the evidence provided in the research and be logical (if evidence says X, one cannot conclude Y)
-sources must be critically treated; for example, is a diary entry made the same day as the event occurred treated perhaps as more reliable than a reminiscence 50 years after the event
-he must stick to relevant issues

Based on the examples referred to by Vasco, it seems Taylor failed on more than one hurdle.

Based on Vasc

[Adriano Baumgartner]

I do agree with John Vasco and Edwest on this topic.

1-If you are selling fishes, do not send me pork! Am paying for fish and fish is what I want to see on the fridge. So, according to the resumés of John Vasco, there is nothing new (Historically speaking) on the book, it is pork, sold as fish, and with another kind of "modern food" presentation on the dish...signed by a PhD "expert".
2- If you choose a topic to write about, keep that on the telescopic sight....be a sniper and hit your target headshot and cleanly...do not start shooting like a Phalanx 20mm gun firing snipets everywhere and hitting nothing at all....What an interview from a LW bomber pilot remembering a raid from May 1941 to England (Blitz period) or 1944 off-topic do have to do with the Battle of Britain? In my opinion, she lost herself on her "Navigation"....and was totally off-track....sadly. It seems there is no connection between some chapters, sadly too...
3-That the RAF won the BoB, no one is questioning that...In my opinion, the cover is tendencious and disrespectful towards the German airmen, who , like the RAF airmen, were obeying orders from "the Powers that be" and doing their duty...and they fought well, so they deserve some kind of respect, even from the winners of the war.
4-Regarding the War Crimes...they existed and were registered on both sides...Americans shooting Me-262 pilots late in the war, Americans making no prisoners of war on D-Day; RAF airmen shooting down Red-Cross Heinkels He-59 and hitting French civilians in Harbours and nearby other military installations, etc...we can quote quite a number of cases...Russian revenge, etc....and, of course, German war crimes (in all branches). So, again, an off-course or topic deviation from the tittle of the book (what she is selling for the reader).

Thanks again for John Vasco, for giving us a glimpse of what is written (inside the cover) and how this book is written.

For me, this is surely a NO GO book, not even for the cover....will not even look at it on the "maché aux puces".

A.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Adriano Baumgartner

I do agree with John Vasco and Edwest on this topic.

4-Regarding the War Crimes...they existed and were registered on both sides… RAF airmen shooting down Red-Cross Heinkels He-59

A.

You might consider that a war crime but it seems that at the time the Luftwaffe didn’t, however outraged they later acted … see here: http://www.ghostbombers.com/1940/Arm...mistice04.html

By the way, I think that treating the German air campaign from the fall of France to Barbarossa as one subject is legitimate but what we have come to think of as the Battle of Britain does mean finding a new name for the longer period perhaps.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

By the way, I think that treating the German air campaign from the fall of France to Barbarossa as one subject is legitimate but what we have come to think of as the Battle of Britain does mean finding a new name for the longer period perhaps.

I believe extending it to the start of Barbarossa is a post-war German construct. Churchill's famous speech clearly outlines what the 'Battle of Britain' was, and given the extensive preparations for a possible invasion in the second half of 1940, to claim, as some do (not you, Nick) that the title extends up to the point of Barbarossa is at best disingenuous, and at worst, a downright lie.

In 'Eagle Days', from start to finish, the author has, IMO, not so much moved the goalposts as moved to a different pitch in a different location!

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

I believe extending it to the start of Barbarossa is a post-war German construct. Churchill's famous speech clearly outlines what the 'Battle of Britain' was, and given the extensive preparations for a possible invasion in the second half of 1940, to claim, as some do (not you, Nick) that the title extends up to the point of Barbarossa is at best disingenuous, and at worst, a downright lie.

I agree that it is a construct but there would be logic in considering as a whole the period during which the bulk of the Luftwaffe’s resources were turned against Britain. The failure of the daylight campaign led to the night Blitz (nobody ever switched to night bombing because things had been going really well by day). As Stephen Bungay put it, they turned from trying to force a decision to siege warfare. For the Kampfflieger especially it must have been one long slog.

P.S. I’m wary of viewing history through ‘Churchill goggles’, or ‘Galland googles’ for that matter, although the Battle of Britain is a good enough description for me.

[Adriano Baumgartner]

Just a small typo of my part: "marché aux puces"

[John Vasco]

Not looking through anything with 'Churchill goggles' at all.

Just this part of his speech from 18th June 1940: 'What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war.'
And as you say, Nick, that is a good enough description for me.

Once they started night bombing against various cities, the Battle of Britain, as a term used to indicate the subjugation of the RAF day fighter force and lead to invasion in whatever manner, was over. The Germans can dress it up any way they wish. They failed. They lost. And it didn't trickle on into June 1941.

By the way, that's a great link in your post #188.