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

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by twocee

I bet that if the author had been "John Smith" the reception would have been much less effusive and more critical, if, indeed, the book had ever reached the stage of publication.

You clearly do not know me. My response would have been exactly the same as all I have written in this thread.

[twocee]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

You clearly do not know me. My response would have been exactly the same as all I have written in this thread.

I was not referring to your response but to that of the mass media. I do not doubt that your response would have been the same.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by twocee

I was not referring to your response but to that of the mass media. I do not doubt that your response would have been the same.

I don't believe you can 'second-guess' the media...

[John Vasco]

From her 'X' account. The latest 'self-publicity...




'Cornerstone of the next generation of Battle of Britain historiography.' What a load of pompous poppycock!

'written on the same old topics' - Yeah, Simon Parry's 'Battle of Britain Combat Archive' series on the actual events of the period skins your book alive!

'I didn't want this to be a nice book' It wasn't...

[FalkeEins]

the relentless self-aggrandisement of the Facebook/twitter/X generation. She should really look at Dr. Sarah-Louise Miller's humble and modest posts on these platforms. Miller is a Defence Studies lecturer at Oxford and King's College and author of 'The Lancaster Story' (Michael O'Mara, 2024).

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

the relentless self-aggrandisement of the Facebook/twitter/X generation. She should really look at Dr. Sarah-Louise Miller's humble and modest posts on these platforms. Miller is a Defence Studies lecturer at Oxford and King's College and author of 'The Lancaster Story' (Michael O'Mara, 2024).

I must point out the sharp dividing line that must exist between the expert and the amateur. The professional and the dilettante. This divide must exist at all costs.

Some who are enamored by the instant gratification that comes from posting online must understand that the time and effort that are always required to produce quality work is what you are paying for when you buy a book. Someone else did the work, checked it for accuracy, and put it into a form for others to enjoy and profit from.

This is not about any particular "generation." This is about the Communist/Anarchist construct called the internet where everyone is "equal." But the exact opposite is true, isn't it? Add to that the fact that the internet is the greatest manure spreader ever invented by man.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

'Cornerstone of the next generation of Battle of Britain historiography.'

The humility and sense of proportion just shine through, don't they?

Originally Posted by John Vasco

'I didn't want this to be a nice book'

Writing about a series of events in which thousands of people died or were seriously injured, that particular objective can't have been unduly challenging.

[Not thinking the Battle of Britain was nice comes easy to me, perhaps: on 17 September 1940 my Grandparents and my Dad (then 12) got back from the cinema to find themsleves bombed out while next door four brothers aged 3, 8, 12 and 17 had been killed.]

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

From her 'X' account. The latest 'self-publicity...



'Cornerstone of the next generation of Battle of Britain historiography.' What a load of pompous poppycock!

'written on the same old topics' - Yeah, Simon Parry's 'Battle of Britain Combat Archive' series on the actual events of the period skins your book alive!

'I didn't want this to be a nice book' It wasn't...

The author clearly does not know what she is doing. Or why. She neither understands the average reader or historian. Facts, so far as they can be known, are not subject to debate.

It appears she has created a fantasy world for herself where she can dictate how her work is received and how it is talked about.

I am not trying to be impolite, but this is called self-delusion.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by edwest2

The author clearly does not know what she is doing. Or why. She neither understands the average reader or historian. Facts, so far as they can be known, are not subject to debate.

Facts are however open to interpretation and reinterpretation, part of the historian’s job.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

Facts are however open to interpretation and reinterpretation, part of the historian’s job.

Sorry Nick, wrong.

Facts are 'non-negotiable'.

The reason why a fact happened is open to interpretation. As I have said before: Fact - Erprobungsgruppe 210 hit Croydon on 15th August. The correct target was Kenley. WHY the unit attacked Croydon is open to anyone's interpretation/viewpoint. However, the fact is indisputable.

The same problem arises with Dowding. People STILL believe today that he was sacked at the end of the BoB, when in fact he took retirement that had been deferred three times.