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

[edwest2]

Thank you John. Today, the true sign of an amateur is presenting their personal bias in a book about a number of things. Some of which touch on the subject matter indicated by the title.

The actual title should have been: My Personal Thoughts about the Second World War, including the Battle of Britain.

No professional historian would write such tripe. Like a court case, the relevant facts should be presented to the jury/reader for their evaluation and judgment. Irrelevant material is always irrelevant and never advances the argument.

The author can be prejudicial on her own time.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by edwest2

No professional historian would write such tripe.

Here I would differ, Ed. Historians attempt to interpret and draw conclusions from incomplete data, the proviso being that you must acknowledge that this is what you are doing. I think the words John quotes are how a PhD candidate might close a thesis. As a teacher put it to me, the structure was 'say what you're going to say / say it / say what you've said'.

[edwest2]

Nick,

As a working book editor who handles historical references, I cannot agree in this case. When reading about the Battle of Britain, anything else is unwanted and inappropriate. I'm not going to write a book about fly fishing and include anything beyond the topic. That's all I'm saying.

All history books about the Second World War should be understood to start with the unspoken: So far as is known as of this writing.

It's one thing to miss some relevant books that connect to the Battle, but quite another to turn a book into the author's personal soapbox. When writing a book, there are rules. This author ignored them.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

Historians attempt to interpret and draw conclusions from incomplete data, the proviso being that you must acknowledge that this is what you are doing.

I have to disagree with the above, Nick. Pseudo-historians may attempt to do the above; I would suggest real historians do not do that. I don't claim to be any kind of historian - I just gathered information over the decades and presented it. Aside from actual facts, that's all you can do.

Once someone attempts to interpret and draw conclusions from incomplete data, then they are entering the realm of speculation, and leaving themselves open to getting things wrong. The classic example of such a thing is something I have mentioned on social media several times to illustrate my point. Why did Rubensdörffer attack Croydon, not Kenley, in the early evening of 15th August 1940. People can speculate until the cows come home, but only Rubensdörffer knows why, and he perished in the aftermath of the raid.

[Nick Beale]

IMO you are at liberty to infer and interpret provided you make it crystal clear that that’s what you’re doing. What you don’t do is present inference as fact.

[Steve Coates]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

IMO you are at liberty to infer and interpret provided you make it crystal clear that that’s what you’re doing. What you don’t do is present inference as fact.

Just my two cents. I think that is an entirely reasonable standpoint as all too often, pieces of the jigsaw are missing and providing the basis for that inference is made crystal clear. I will acknowledge that over time others can take what has been written and mangle it.

[edwest2]

A person writing about history for others needs to provide documents for whatever he presents to the reader. That's all. No guesses. No this must have been statements. It's not more than that.

This author has failed as far as this book is concerned. The reader should not be the one stepping over any digressions from the subject. Had it been placed in my hands, certain parts would have disappeared, never to be seen by an audience expecting one whole piece about the subject.