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

[Jukka Juutinen]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

What a load of absolute bollocks this post is!

'...I must say that edwest2 is incorrect in stating that historian may not speculate...' edwest2 is spot on! Whether you call yourself a 'historian', 'researcher', or anything else, speculation is worthless. It counts for absolutely NOTHING in the great scheme of things. Absolutely nothing!

'...The main goal of a historian is to answer the question "why"...' Sorry, but this is a crock of shit! Do you really know what you are talking about? Or have you lapsed into your academic scientific persona again? You really are posting rubbish, and it has to be called out! This kind of comment is an insult to the research work done by all reputable researchers and writers, simply because it is only ONE small part of the research process, and a lot of the time, doesn't need to feature at all. It IS NOT the main goal.

'...For example, why did an aerial engagement end the way it did...' If you have ever done any long-term research, or long-term writing (which I susupect you have not, but correct me here if I am wrong), that particular point falls out naturally from what is actually written. One does not have to delve into that at all, as I said, it falls out naturally.

Finally, this: '...This requires making historical events and their causalities understandable...' Do you really think writers DO NOT make events and casualties understandable?

Just disappear, and stop trying to denigrate the work of researchers and writers, or preach to us. Who the hell do you think you are???

Indeed, bollocks you wrote. You have completely misunderstood what I wrote. Just ask any university trained historian (by the way, I am not an academic) as to what are the cornerstones of scientific history writing. I have quoted and am quoting simply what professional academic historians consider the duties of a professional historian.

If edwest2's post was so true, what do you think would happen to historiography of say ancient Roman history? Documentary evidence is very fragmented at best and if one cannot speculate on anything, writing a coherent history becomes impossible. Even lots of WW2 political history requires speculation because there is no documentation on everything.