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

[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.

[edwest2]

Guesswork and imagination have no place in historical research. Phrases like "it appears that" or "it is believed that" are place holders for gaps. Or "this author thinks this for the following reasons."

This is research: The event, the official documents (Air Min, Luftwaffe), secondary sources, including pilot log books, and third-hand sources, as in "We saw an American plane crash in a field by this village on this date." Nothing more. Let me repeat that: Nothing more.

As the various sources line up in terms of date and time, the greater the confidence that the event happened as described.

[Nick Beale]

Dr. Taylor will be talking aobut her upcoming book on ww2tv tomorrow (Tuesday).

[Chris Goss]

I hope it lives up to the hype and does in fact come up with something totally new. I will not be watching it as I will be enjoying a meal in a restaurant in SW France

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Chris Goss

I will not be watching it as I will be enjoying a meal in a restaurant in SW France

The Offizier Kasino at Mont de Marsan, no doubt.

[Chris Goss]

Nope-restaurant Le Lou Marmitou just outside Mussidan😊. I look forward to what people like John V think as I am sceptical about these new and unpublished claims