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

[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.

[FalkeEins]

Exactly. By the same token people get PhDs for doing not nearly half as much as some of the 'old hands' here (sorry John!) have over the years in their spare time.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

Exactly. By the same token people get PhDs for doing not nearly half as much as some of the 'old hands' here (sorry John!) have over the years in their spare time.

Oh I'm an 'old hand', no doubt about that!

[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.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

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.

Sorry Jukka, I don't think you know what you are talking about. And here's why.

You said: '...He noted that to be scientific, a historian must analyze the pile of facts and create a logically deducted analysis from those facts...' What is this 'scientific' that you keep wittering on about? I've asked you before, and I'll ask you again, please EXPLAIN SCIENTIFIC!
As for this: '...a historian must analyze the pile of facts and create a logically deducted analysis from those fact...' A historian PRESENTS the facts - facts that they have obtained from their research into primary documents, of facts that have been received from other researchers that can be factually backed up. Example: Erprobungsruppe 210 attacked Croydon airfield in the early evening of 15th August 1940. Fact. The unit should have attacked Kenley. Target information on the Namentliche Verlustmeldungen SPECIFICALLY STATES Kenley as the target. Fact. Having interviewed/corrsponded with some who took part in the raid, the conclusion is that the only one who knew why they attacked Croydon was Rubensdörffer, and he was killed in the aftermath of the attack. You, and the academics, can analyse this matter all you like, but they are the facts. Period.

As for this last part of your post: '...the primary question is why, not what and that simply listing facts is not history as per scientific standarfs, it is a chronicle...' '...The primary question is why, not what...' Really? I think you are lacking in the basic tools of research. THIS, is the basis upon which all research is (should be) founded:

I KEEP SIX HONEST SERVING MEN
THEY TAUGHT ME ALL I KNEW
THEIR NAMES ARE: WHAT AND WHY AND WHEN
AND HOW AND WHERE AND WHO
Rudyard Kipling

'What' is a basic component of research. To ignore/dismiss it is foolish, and that's me being polite…

And this: '...not history as per scientific standards...' (I have corrected your typo). So scientific standards are the standards for historical research? If I posted what I think of that garbage I would be permanently banned.

You see, academics such as yourself are so full of yourself that you are prepared to demean others in open forum. You do so, tilting (however lightly or surrepticiously) at researchers like me (and many others) who have done the 'hard yards' over the decades and produced works of what I would call historical significance, then I will come back at you, in defence of myself, and others like Chris Goss, Andy Saunders, Michael Payne, Peter Cornwell, Simon Parry, Mark Postlethwaite, Dennis Knight, Christopher Shores & Brian Cull in the UK (to name but some), and the like of Jochen Prien, Michael Meyer, Peter Rodeike, Erik Mombeeck, Gerhard Stemmer, Heinz Mankau, Peter Petrick, Holger Nauroth, Werner Held, and other non-British researchers and authors.

I find your latest post a total embarrassment...

[twocee]

"the primary question is why, not what and that simply listing facts is not history as per scientific standards, it is a chronicle."

(young long-haired Finn)

"The fundamental question is : "What actually happened and why?"".

(Adm. S.E. Morison)

"Simply explain the event exactly as it happened"

(Leopold von Ranke, 1824)

[Nick Beale]

I do hope that members will devote comparable energy to this book once it’s actually out and they’ve read it.

Meanwhile, I see no legitimate cause for anger over the term ‘scientific’. It’s perfectly applicable to historical enquiry in the sense of amassing all the evidence you can from all sides and going where it takes you, irrespective of what you first thought might be the case. One should take account of all the evidence, not just the bits that suit some preconception, and keep alert to potential bias both in one’s sources and oneself. You reach a conclusion rather than start out with one. Also, as in science, the writer has to accept that their conclusions are only as good as the last bit of data and could be blown away tomorrow by some new discovery.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

I do hope that members will devote comparable energy to this book once it’s actually out and they’ve read it.

Meanwhile, I see no legitimate cause for anger over the term ‘scientific’. It’s perfectly applicable to historical enquiry in the sense of amassing all the evidence you can from all sides and going where it takes you, irrespective of what you first thought might be the case. One should take account of all the evidence, not just the bits that suit some preconception, and keep alert to potential bias both in one’s sources and oneself. You reach a conclusion rather than start out with one. Also, as in science, the writer has to accept that their conclusions are only as good as the last bit of data and could be blown away tomorrow by some new discovery.

It's not anger, Nick, just a request for an explanation of the term 'scientific', that's all. And if your definition is accepted (historical enquiry in the sense of amassing all the evidence you can from all sides and going where it takes you, irrespective of what you first thought might be the case), which is perfectly reasonable, then that is what I (and a whole host of other researchers) have been doing since 1980! Do I see my research as 'scientific'? No, just research. Into primary documents and contact with those who took part. That's research, nothing more complicated.
As for this: '...conclusions are only as good as the last bit of data and could be blown away tomorrow by some new discovery...' I completely agree, that is not in dispute. Look out for certain things surfacing in a work later this year...

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

And if your definition is accepted (historical enquiry in the sense of amassing all the evidence you can from all sides and going where it takes you, irrespective of what you first thought might be the case), which is perfectly reasonable, then that is what I (and a whole host of other researchers) have been doing since 1980! Do I see my research as 'scientific'? No, just research.

I only think of my stuff as research too. The contrast I would make is with the kind of Second World War history I grew up with: tales of heroes and daring raids/escapes with all the awkward bits left out, and with a bit of guesswork/imagination to bridge the occasional gap in the information.