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

[Jukka Juutinen]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

What are you suggesting, then? You state 'academic credentials' - what is the point you are making with regard to academic credentials? That academic credentials elevate someone to the point of being a better writer than others who do not have academic credentials? Or that academic credentials are a prerequisite to write history.
Please explain further...

1. While academic credentials do not quarantee a good writer or good research, often it gives tools to deal with issues like source criticism and in general in scientific approach. That is especially true in the past when The academia was more merit-driven than politically-driven (=woke) .

2. Do the forumites have such a lousy memory here? Years ago a member by the nick "Rabe Anton" frequented here and he attacked with quite strong expressions any books not written by Ph.Ds while being very derogatory towards one's written by "amateurs". I do not remember anyone subjecting Rabe Anton to 3rd degree interrogation.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

I do not remember anyone subjecting Rabe Anton to 3rd degree interrogation.

Nor do I, and happily no one has done anything more than ask you to clarify what you meant. You’ve done that in your first paragraph and I think your point is reasonable. There are, of course, many professions where information is collected, competing viewpoints compared and potential sources of bias taken into account—all useful techniques for writing history. (One example might be Jonathan Sumption, a British Supreme Court judge who has written a five-volume history of the Hundred Years War).

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

1. While academic credentials do not quarantee a good writer or good research, often it gives tools to deal with issues like source criticism and in general in scientific approach. That is especially true in the past when The academia was more merit-driven than politically-driven (=woke) .

2. Do the forumites have such a lousy memory here? Years ago a member by the nick "Rabe Anton" frequented here and he attacked with quite strong expressions any books not written by Ph.Ds while being very derogatory towards one's written by "amateurs". I do not remember anyone subjecting Rabe Anton to 3rd degree interrogation.

Sorry for continuing to push you on the posts that you put up, but I have to question what I have highlighted in bold.
1) what are these tools that academics have to deal with issues like source criticism? Quite frankly, that's a load of bollocks. And I'll tell you why with one prime example. One does not need to be an academic to know/realise that the Luftwaffe GQM returns are riddled with errors.
2) What is this 'scientific approach of which you talk?

[edwest2]

In the interest of further clarity, a few thoughts. People with and without academic credentials/degrees have produced good history books. Period.

I have seen too much evidence online of quick, sloppy work being posted with the intent of contributing something. It doesn't. It's just some bored or somewhat interested person who has no idea of how much work is involved when doing actual research. There are no shortcuts. There never will be.

The methods of doing research properly and turning that work into a written book can never change.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Sorry for continuing to push you on the posts that you put up, but I have to question what I have highlighted in bold.
1) what are these tools that academics have to deal with issues like source criticism? Quite frankly, that's a load of bollocks. And I'll tell you why with one prime example. One does not need to be an academic to know/realise that the Luftwaffe GQM returns are riddled with errors.
2) What is this 'scientific approach of which you talk?

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.