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

[Nick Beale]

Ed,

The courtroom analogy is interesting because UK courts operate on two standards: beyond reasonable doubt (criminal cases) and on the balance of probabilities (civil ones). Note that neither demands absolute certainty but each standard is used to arrive at a verdict. Courts routinely make inferences from patterns of behaviour or documentation to bridge the gap between what is known for certain and what is not.

The Roman period is as relevant as any other when discussing historical method. We have a certain amount of writing from the period (copied and recopied over centuries, and occasionally modified to suit the tastes of intervening periods) but we also have archaeology which has yielded original, unmediated writings and physical evidence — weapons, clothing, crockery, artworks etc. — illuminating things that were written about by Pliny, Tacitus or whoever. We have soil and pollen analysis, landscape archaeology, DNA, aerial photography, the list goes on.

We understand the Roman period better as a result and there is no reason to suppose that the same will not be true of the 20th century and its wars.

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

Ed,

The courtroom analogy is interesting because UK courts operate on two standards: beyond reasonable doubt (criminal cases) and on the balance of probabilities (civil ones). Note that neither demands absolute certainty but each standard is used to arrive at a verdict. Courts routinely make inferences from patterns of behaviour or documentation to bridge the gap between what is known for certain and what is not.

The Roman period is as relevant as any other when discussing historical method. We have a certain amount of writing from the period (copied and recopied over centuries, and occasionally modified to suit the tastes of intervening periods) but we also have archaeology which has yielded original, unmediated writings and physical evidence — weapons, clothing, crockery, artworks etc. — illuminating things that were written about by Pliny, Tacitus or whoever. We have soil and pollen analysis, landscape archaeology, DNA, aerial photography, the list goes on.

We understand the Roman period better as a result and there is no reason to suppose that the same will not be true of the 20th century and its wars.

Nick,

I could care less how the courts work in the UK. Let me be blunt: We either know something through artifacts or we don't. Knowledge is not found in the following statements: "Most historians believe..." "It is widely accepted that..." Followed by comments that are based, as far as Romans are concerned, on their behavior elsewhere. Example:

"The Romans passed through the city of Y on their way to attack a city north of Y. There are no physical records or burials or what have you, but based on previous accounts - which were written down - the Romans likely attacked Y on their way to the target city."

Is there a known pattern? Yes. Did we learn anything in this case? No.

Churchill allegedly said that history would be kind to him since he would write the history. In my years of doing historical research, I do not color it to taste. Whatever the references say is what they say. The end. I am not running for any office or need to tailor my research to any group/party and so on.

I have spent a number of years studying the Second World War and the Cold War. That study becomes more substantial when more than one source is available. The U.S. and UK classified quite a few records by the end of hostilities. These were unavailable to researchers until the mid-1990s. The Germans had petitioned the United States for a return of these records because the German People Wanted to Recover their History. Allied intelligence had recovered and also produced millions of pages of documents from the period. One aspect finally played out by 2001 when records created by the OSS, and inherited by the CIA, were reviewed.

THAT is how actual research is done. That is how and why the period will be written about. It will not be based on patterns. It will not be based on guesses, no matter how educated.

A new book just landed on my desk. It is following a pattern of what I call "the new idiocy." The title: The Hand behind Unmanned. Quick, anyone. What is this book about? Anyone? Surely, there is a pattern at work. But, like the book being discussed here, it is beyond the knowledge of the average book buyer. The subtitle offers a clue: Origins of the U.S. Autonomous Military Arsenal. But, again, it falls flat. Autonomous what? Military arsenal? A bit broad, don't you think? How about: The Origins of U.S. Unmanned Military Weapons, Aircraft and Related Equipment, followed by, I don't know, the time period in question?

Note to the publisher (includes American slang): A complete fail as far as keyword searches go. Don't do this again.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by edwest2

Nick,

I could care less how the courts work in the UK. Let me be blunt: We either know something through artifacts or we don't … Allied intelligence had recovered and also produced millions of pages of documents from the period… THAT is how actual research is done.

How then do the courts work in the USA, because nothing that reaches us over here suggests that absolute and unassailable certainty is the criterion they invariably impose in reaching their judgements?

Knowledge is not confined to your reductionist model. We know things with varying degrees of certainty. We constantly form working hypotheses which we use until new information requires their rejection or modification. If you demand absolute certainty at all times and in all things, what history would we have left? The job of the historian is to present hypotheses while making clear their basis and the limitations of his/her knowledge so that others can test those claims against the cited evidence or factor in new information.

As for researching among millions of declassified intelligence documents, what do you think I've been doing with most of my spare time for the last 40 years?

[edwest2]

My courts analogy was just that, nothing more. How many facts have been posted here, including by yourself, that require the related document reference? Those who ask about a particular Ju 88 want certainty. So when Rottler replies, that problem is solved, followed by the next.

I fail to see how you can possibly miss that. Is Rottler's reply unassailable? Is it open to interpretation? I think not. But, apparently, that is NOT obvious here. A sad state of affairs.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by edwest2

My courts analogy was just that, nothing more.

Actually it was John who brought up legal process originally, you just said you couldn't care less about it.

How many facts have been posted here, including by yourself, that require the related document reference?

Well, I try to provide source references these days because I hope people will follow them up.

Those who ask about a particular Ju 88 want certainty. So when Rottler replies, that problem is solved, followed by the next. I fail to see how you can possibly miss that.

I fail to see how you can possibly have missed posts where members were trying to resolve conflicting information in different primary sources and where suggestions are made as to the most probable answer.

Is Rottler's reply unassailable? Is it open to interpretation? I think not. But, apparently, that is NOT obvious here.

No it is not unassailable, any more than anything I ever posted. ALL of it is predicated on a judgement about the reliability of the source and the possibility that new information may emerge at some point.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

How then do the courts work in the USA, because nothing that reaches us over here suggests that absolute and unassailable certainty is the criterion they invariably impose in reaching their judgements?

Knowledge is not confined to your reductionist model. We know things with varying degrees of certainty. We constantly form working hypotheses which we use until new information requires their rejection or modification. If you demand absolute certainty at all times and in all things, what history would we have left? The job of the historian is to present hypotheses while making clear their basis and the limitations of his/her knowledge so that others can test those claims against the cited evidence or factor in new information.

As for researching among millions of declassified intelligence documents, what do you think I've been doing with most of my spare time for the last 40 years?

Sorry Nick: bollocks! The 'academic historian' loves that kind of shizz!

The true historian presents the known facts (which are not negotiable), and the variables for the reader to consider. One doesn't waste time delving into hypotheses. Why did 264 (Defiant) Squadron claim 39 Luftwaffe fighters on 29th May 1940?; why did RAF fighters claim so many Stukas on 16th & 18th August 1940 (massive overclaiming on both days)?; why did ZG 26 claim over 50 RAF fighters in one day? There are variables to each of those points, and there is no answer...

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

If you demand absolute certainty at all times and in all things, what history would we have left?

Most of what is in my books, for starters, and I'm not being facetious here...

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Sorry Nick: bollocks!

The legal training is reasserting itself I see.

Originally Posted by John Vasco

The true historian presents the known facts (which are not negotiable)

So who do you believe about Richard III, Thomas More or Philippa Langley or Alison Weir or … ?

Originally Posted by John Vasco

and the variables for the reader to consider. One doesn't waste time delving into hypotheses.

Exactly my point. Offering the reader variables to consider is to invite him/her to consider hypotheses.

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Most of what is in my books, for starters, and I'm not being facetious here...

Yet 30 years ago you wrote a book which you have now rewritten. Was there nothing in the original which subsequent research has led you to change, even though you believed it true at the time?