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

[John Vasco]

Nick,

1. Oh yes it was. Not with your reference. But as you know, information is circulated to more than section of the Air Ministry.

2. Well you won't get an answer from me about that because, as you know by now, I'm about facts that happened, not the 'possible why because we don't know', or any kind of counterfactuals...

3. Yep, agree.

4. Which book is that?

[Nick Beale]

2. I’m not asking for counterfactuals, merely what you would consider legitimate in connecting facts into a narrative, making a book rather than a list.

4. The Most Dangerous Enemy — I liked it and I wondered what you thought.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

2. I’m not asking for counterfactuals, merely what you would consider legitimate in connecting facts into a narrative, making a book rather than a list.

4. The Most Dangerous Enemy — I liked it and I wondered what you thought.

2. Everything I have done has been to connect facts to my narrative. And any books regarding combat necessarily produces lists, either in the ongoing flow of the narrative, or as lists of damaged/lost. I really don't know where you are going with this sentence.

4. I liked it. Gave a completely different slant than had been the case before with BoB books. Far better than a certain book that came out recently, IMO.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

2. Everything I have done has been to connect facts to my narrative. And any books regarding combat necessarily produces lists, either in the ongoing flow of the narrative, or as lists of damaged/lost. I really don't know where you are going with this sentence.

4. I liked it. Gave a completely different slant than had been the case before with BoB books. Far better than a certain book that came out recently, IMO.

2. What I mean by a list is what I'm continually stopping myself from doing, just putting down each KTB item, radio message, ORB entry in sequence and letting the reader work it out. I LOVE this stuff but normal readers probably no so much, and so authors craft the raw data into a narrative, trying to make sense of it. Yes, you are trying to not to distort the original but you inevitably do something more than simply compile, e.g. drawing attention to omissions, discrepancies, apparent errors etc. You may even draw conclusions but—and I think we agree here—you do not make stuff up ("Göring would have thought …" etc.).



4. Me too because I found his analysis clear and well-argued.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

2. What I mean by a list is what I'm continually stopping myself from doing, just putting down each KTB item, radio message, ORB entry in sequence and letting the reader work it out. I LOVE this stuff but normal readers probably no so much, and so authors craft the raw data into a narrative, trying to make sense of it. Yes, you are trying to not to distort the original but you inevitably do something more than simply compile, e.g. drawing attention to omissions, discrepancies, apparent errors etc. You may even draw conclusions but—and I think we agree here—you do not make stuff up ("Göring would have thought …" etc.).

4. Me too because I found his analysis clear and well-argued.

I do believe we are on the same page, Nick!
You will see from the content of my book on Erprobungsgruppe 210, and the 'Zerstörer' book with Peter Cornwell, that the narrative contains details of combats and damage/losses, as well as tables of the same. I think this works in two ways: 1. The reader can see the losses/damaged as they read through the text, or, 2. if they want to examine the losses/damaged as a single entity, to see how hard the type or units were hit on a particular day/week, it is there for them also.