Ju-88, Volume One

[Jukka Juutinen]

Some of the spelling errors caught my attention as well. E.g. by a quick look at the bibliography I found two mistakes. But these are errors that an editor should catch; an author becomes too blinded by his own text.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Rasmussen: Lutz Budrass's book is listed in the bibliography. As for learning the German language, it would help if it was a logical language. It isn't.

[Rasmussen]

Dear Richard,

you are correct in many points but there are mistakes unacceptable in my personal opinion because these are basics like the 1933/JFM - mistake or the 1936/Leipzig - mistake or the ATG - mistake from p.15 (it's not the "Allgemeine Transportmaschinen GmbH" but the "Allgemeine Transportanlagen GmbH") and it had nothing to do with informations available only Peter.

Dear Jukka,

if I have a look in Hannu Valtonens book "Bf 109 ja saksan sotatalous" I would say the same ;-) .

Greetings
Rasmussen

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

As for learning the German language, it would help if it was a logical language. It isn't.

Compared to ... ?

[Jukka Juutinen]

Compared to Finnish (that has no genders for words, no articles, every single alphabet carries one pronunciation regardless of letter combinations, stress on first syllable without any exceptions, no prepositions, especially not irrationalities like ohne and mit requiring different form etc.).

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

Compared to Finnish (that has no genders for words, no articles, every single alphabet carries one pronunciation regardless of letter combinations, stress on first syllable without any exceptions, no prepositions, especially not irrationalities like ohne and mit requiring different form etc.).

That sounds like a proper language! A pity it has so little relationship to most others. I'd say German was logical (more so than English, which is more of a Latin-Germanic hybrid) but over-complicated with genders, adjective declensions etc. (very like Latin). German pronunciation is one of the easiest parts, I think - the rules are much simpler than for English.

[Lennart Andersson]

I think that the discussion is drifting away here - even if linguistics is one of my interests. I have just received the book and it LOOKS and feels very nice. I have not read it yet, but when just looking at the first chapters I was much disappointed by the mishmash of (old) photos of Junkers (and other types) without any apparent connection and little relation to the subject. When I read Peters thorough list of just a few of the mistakes I started to regret that I spent my money.

Right at this moment I happen to read the following sentence on page 11: “Trainers and lightplanes built during this period included the 1923 T 23 (Trainer 23), 1925 T 26 and 1930 A 50 (Austauchflugzeug 50 - Exchange aircraft 50), i e, an aircraft which could exchange roles, for example, commercial to military).”

Excuse me, but this is rubbish. Why would Junkers use the English word for trainer and the thing with the exchange aircraft is pure fabrication/fiction.

And then it goes on in the following column: I read that the J 22 was built at Fili, which it was not, even if that was the plan, but the J 20 was (not mentioned), and then the “A 25 and A 35” were built there “in small numbers”. The J 25 (H 25) was just a project and neither this, nor the A 35 were built at Fili.

When a book on an historical subject is published the author has a responsibility. It should be as close to the truth as possible. If there are thing you do not know, then that should be stated. If there are things that are doubtful, that should be stated. Historical books must be based on archive research and there is no way around that. That costs money, time and patience (and some language skills). Still, you always have to use some information from published sources, but you have to check thoroughly if the literature and/or webpages that you use are reliable or not (You will still end up with some “facts” that later prove to be wrong in your text).

Of course, everyone is free to write whatever he wants to, but the problem with books on German aviation is that certain authors (there are both the German and the English-speaking kind) have flooded the market with books that have created a “thousand lies” that are almost impossible to get rid of once they have become established. We should do everything to counter this. German aviation history need well-researched and thorough articles and books that tell the truth and does away with all the myths. Now and then this happens in Germany, mostly in the form of articles, but unfortunately not much of this trickles down to the outside world. Often the true facts are there, but instead the myths are reiterated.

I will now read the book with a generous mind, but judging from what I have already seen I am afraid that this book will end up on the Nowarra shelf…

Lennart A

[FalkeEins]

Oh I understand his review alright ..

" Darüber hinaus ist das Buch ein Motivationsschub, es selber besser zu machen und endlich mit dem eigenen Werk in die Gänge zu kommen"

" ..Medcalf's book moreover will spur me on to do better and finally get going with my own Ju 88 book..."

Good luck with that.

[Jukka Juutinen]

But do we read in a book on e.g. the P-51 that it was designed and built by a Democrat regime? Or that it was a tool of the Rooseveltian ideology? No, we don't.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

But do we read in a book on e.g. the P-51 that it was designed and built by a Democrat regime? Or that it was a tool of the Rooseveltian ideology? No, we don't.

I too get a bit tired of Hitler's this and Nazi that, but can anyone reliably separate state and party under National Socialism? The NSDAP and its Führer claimed to embody the national will - or some such mystical BS - and preached »Gleichschaltung« (bringing everything into line) so where does one draw the line?