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

[edwest2]

Thank you John.

Well, when reading history, I'd gladly accept writing based on the evidence even though it is not written a certain way. I recently picked up a book about anti-aircraft artillery where I would describe the writing as adequate.

I am always looking for something new. If a book can give me new details and new photos then I'm likely to buy it.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

The interpretation comes in two forms that I can think of offhand:

1. In inferring the links between data that is inevitably incomplete (much as an archaeologist ‘reconstructs’ a broken vase or a mosaic, drawing on the pieces they have and on their accumulated knowledge of similar objects). Bridging the gaps, in other words.

2. Putting forward a hypothesis consistent with all the available data — scientific method.

The point in either case is that you do not pretend to certainty but acknowledge openly what you are doing, so that others may assess the evidence and come to their own conclusions.

Historians do not simply amass facts, they also try to find meaning in them.

Nick:
You say interpretation is inferring the links between data that is incomplete. I call that 'academic blowing smoke up your own arse'. To give you an example from my own legal training: One cannot impute into a legal document something that is not there. In other words, one CANNOT infer any links where there is a complete lacuna in the first place.

Your point 2 - oh jeez, not this crap about a 'scientific' method again. Pray teach me, after 45 years of research and writing, where I have gone wrong in never deliberately or otherwise applying a scientifi method.

Your last paragraph is true in part, but to 'try to find meaning' in facts is flawed, for the simple reasoon that one does not need to find a meaning with a lot of facts. One does not need to find a meaning to the attacks on Manston, for example. The Germans were trying to bomb the place into oblivion. No need to search for the 'why', or 'meaning' - it's as plain as the nose on your face.

[Jukka Juutinen]

I must say that edwest2 is incorrect in stating that historian may not speculate. He in fact can, as long as he makes it clear that he is speculating. A historian is also not a simple chronicle, he must be an analyst too. One part of that analysis may be e.g. comparing conflicting statements and through both logic and source critique arriving at a, logical conclusion. That conclusion cannot be something that no source supports.

The main goal of a historian is to answer the question "why". For example, why did an aerial engagement end the way it did. This requires making historical events and their causalities understandable.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

I must say that edwest2 is incorrect in stating that historian may not speculate. He in fact can, as long as he makes it clear that he is speculating. A historian is also not a simple chronicle, he must be an analyst too. One part of that analysis may be e.g. comparing conflicting statements and through both logic and source critique arriving at a, logical conclusion. That conclusion cannot be something that no source supports.

The main goal of a historian is to answer the question "why". For example, why did an aerial engagement end the way it did. This requires making historical events and their causalities understandable.

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???

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Nick:
You say interpretation is inferring the links between data that is incomplete. I call that 'academic blowing smoke up your own arse'. To give you an example from my own legal training: One cannot impute into a legal document something that is not there. In other words, one CANNOT infer any links where there is a complete lacuna in the first place.

Are you seriously suggesting that historians do not and indeed should not attempt to identify patterns from the incomplete data available to them? That they do no more than, in effect, make a list and hope that that tells the story? Would it be illegitimate to say (totally hypothetical case) 'There is no record of what ZG 27 was doing in June 1943 but it is noteworthy other units on that front had been ordered to rest and refit'?

Your point 2 - oh jeez, not this crap about a 'scientific' method again. Pray teach me, after 45 years of research and writing, where I have gone wrong in never deliberately or otherwise applying a scientifi method.

I make and have made no criticism whatsoever of your writing, nor would I presume to teach you anything about it. However, I doubt that your books have been written without some effort on your part to choose between conflicting pieces of information; without consideration as to the reliability of your various sources; without taking into account potential bias; without looking at when and by whom something was said, why they might have said it and how well-placed they were to know. Did you never compare veterans' testimony with (say) contemporary records of dates/times/targets, a map, the speed and endurance of their aircraft, loss reports?

That, whether you like the word or not, is what I understand to be scientific method.

… one does not need to find a meaning with a lot of facts. One does not need to find a meaning to the attacks on Manston, for example. The Germans were trying to bomb the place into oblivion. No need to search for the 'why', or 'meaning' - it's as plain as the nose on your face.

So you have readily identified a meaning in this case. Now take the BoB attacks on Ford or Thorney Island, places they also tried to render unusable. The 'meaning' attributed to that by historians is flawed intelligence, that they had no idea of what they needed to hit to cripple the defences — an interpretation based on the evidence of Schmidt's intelligence assessments. The attack on Newton Abbot station on 20 August? A significant target in its own right back then (major junction on a main line, marshalling yards, warehouses, adjacent power station) but the interpretation, after seeing German reports of the day's attacks is 'they got lost'. The German bombing of Ouessant next day? You find 'meaning' in that by comparing it to their own report that they had attacked a wireless station on the Scillies. You COULD just place those two facts side-by-side and leave it to the reader to make a connection (i.e. find a meaning) but is it wrong to offer an explanation?

[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.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

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.

'...You have completely misunderstood what I wrote...' No I have not!

'...Just ask any university trained historian (by the way, I am not an academic) as to what are the cornerstones of scientific history writing...' There is no feckin' way on this earth I would ask a university-trained historian anything. I have found that those with a university education who spout are the most self-opinionated, arrogant, bastards on this earth, who accept nothing except what they say and believe.

'...am quoting simply what professional academic historians consider the duties of a professional historian..' So what they say is gospel, then? Do me a feckin' favour!!!

'...if one cannot speculate on anything, writing a coherent history becomes impossible...' So speculating equals a coherent history? Do you realise how stupid your remark is? Probably not...

[John Vasco]

Nick, I have put my answers to each paragraph in red, so that those who read the post can follow it easier. Hope you don't mind me doing it this way.

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

Are you seriously suggesting that historians do not and indeed should not attempt to identify patterns from the incomplete data available to them? That they do no more than, in effect, make a list and hope that that tells the story? Would it be illegitimate to say (totally hypothetical case) 'There is no record of what ZG 27 was doing in June 1943 but it is noteworthy other units on that front had been ordered to rest and refit'?
Nick, as you know from your own research, patterns appear all the time once one starts research. I don't need to say any more on this paragraph.


I make and have made no criticism whatsoever of your writing, nor would I presume to teach you anything about it. However, I doubt that your books have been written without some effort on your part to choose between conflicting pieces of information; without consideration as to the reliability of your various sources; without taking into account potential bias; without looking at when and by whom something was said, why they might have said it and how well-placed they were to know. Did you never compare veterans' testimony with (say) contemporary records of dates/times/targets, a map, the speed and endurance of their aircraft, loss reports?
Of course one comes across conflicting information. Of course one gives due 'weight' to the sources. I set more store by what Otto Hintze, Wolfgang Schenck, and the other members of Erprobungsgruppe 210 told me in interviews and correspondence than what Galland said in his A.D.I.(K) 373/1945 interrogation report. Ditto for the Bf 110 crew members I interviewed and corresponded with rather than the speculative things one sees in print from those who did no such thing. And of course all of the things you mention in the last sentence are done (I can say 'have been done' by me).


That, whether you like the word or not, is what I understand to be scientific method.
It's not 'scientific' at all. It's the basic skeleton of research. I've mentioned this before, so I don't care that I am repeating it again, THIS is the 'cornerstone' of all research, on whatever subject:
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


So you have readily identified a meaning in this case. Now take the BoB attacks on Ford or Thorney Island, places they also tried to render unusable. The 'meaning' attributed to that by historians is flawed intelligence, that they had no idea of what they needed to hit to cripple the defences — an interpretation based on the evidence of Schmidt's intelligence assessments. The attack on Newton Abbot station on 20 August? A significant target in its own right back then (major junction on a main line, marshalling yards, warehouses, adjacent power station) but the interpretation, after seeing German reports of the day's attacks is 'they got lost'. The German bombing of Ouessant next day? You find 'meaning' in that by comparing it to their own report that they had attacked a wireless station on the Scillies. You COULD just place those two facts side-by-side and leave it to the reader to make a connection (i.e. find a meaning) but is it wrong to offer an explanation?
As you know, Nick, one of the biggest problems for Intelligence Officers/Sections is not knowing what is 'on the other side of the hill'. And so, in the BoB, targets were attacked that did not appear to make sense (i.e. non-Fighter Command airfields). Sometimes, you HAVE TO simply place facts before the reader and leave it at that. As I have said in this thread, I cannot say why Croydon was attacked on 15th August 1940, and I would not speculate on that. You say: 'is it wrong to offer an explanation?' with regard to certain facts. I say 'yes', because no one knows why, so there is no hard-and-fast explanation.

[edwest2]

Gentlemen,

Look at any original documents, Allied or Axis. That's all you have to work with. That's it. There is a short list of reasons as to why an aircraft is lost. If the document reads: "Lost. Cause unknown." That's it. It may sometimes be the case that another pilot saw the aircraft go down over a certain spot but under combat conditions, that exact spot might be difficult to pinpoint on a map once all pilots have returned from a mission. Perhaps the mission report states that flak was observed. That never means anyone thinks: A ha! There you have it!" NEVER.

Think of historical research as being like preparing for a court case. You must present a series of facts to the jury. The jury being your readers. And like a court case, you are not allowed to guess or to bring in some irrelevant information.

Just because you have a THEORY, that is never as convincing as: "Aircraft seen to go down over X. Parachute observed."

Again, a theory should not be added even if marked as such. It is perfectly alright to state that the loss is due to unknown causes.

Yes, as has been pointed out here, some Luftwaffe entries are either not fully legible or just plain wrong. But the correction should be based on something more than a guess.

I find it wrong to go on and on about "meaning" or why something happened as it did without some evidence to support the claim. Accounts from pilots who were actually there are most helpful, but it boils down to Pilot A shot down Pilot B and that's that. No meaning is required. No further analysis is required.

If there are indeed conflicting pieces of information then present both to the reader. "Aircraft A was listed as lost due to mechanical failure while another account states that it was attacked by an enemy fighter." For all anyone knows, both could be true. The aircraft was suffering from engine trouble and losing altitude when it was also attacked. This does NOTHING to establish a fact for the historical record.

I find I have to stress the point that no one buys a book for its lack of information. Books about air combat are expected to be accurate just like posts here are expected to be accurate, followed by the relevant document reference.

And if there is a large gap for any unit then that's that. Perhaps more documents will turn up, perhaps not. In the meantime, a book is written about that unit which includes: "Actions of this unit for 1943 are unknown due to a lack of documents."

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

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.

What does ancient Roman history have to do with anything here? We would have zero Roman history if it was not recorded by someone. And even in those cases, we don't know what was left out. Are we going to begin discussing Livy and Tacitus here? If we read that the Romans had occupied a city, but don't know why, what to do? Guess?

WW2 political history? Are you kidding? Just like today, a lot of politics happens in secret. The public is not fully informed.

There is no documentation on everything? So what? That does not justify guessing or making broad statements that may appear factual but are just assumptions.

As more documents are uncovered, more pieces of the puzzle get added. But it takes time. One of the biggest problems among some online is the thought that everything will be uncovered in a short period of time. And by short, I mean a few days at the most.

Look at some of the most praised books here. How long did it take to collect the information and put it into a book or series of books? 10, 20 and 30 years.

The internet gives the false impression that quick and easy applies.

No one starts as a "university trained historian." Everyone starts as an amateur with a desire to be a professional historian. University training includes where to find references that apply to the subject. The student needs to submit a paper, with the necessary references, to earn a degree.

I have seen a handful of these papers and find them lacking in terms of covering the subject matter in depth. The writing is usually stilted and awkward. It requires discipline to go through the boring and uninteresting stuff before you get to those parts that interest you personally. It also requires a commitment to continue. Without that commitment, the student, degree or not, may decide that being a historian is not for him.

That said, I have seen too many books by academic publishers that focus on some uninteresting aspect of a subject or that focus on certain things to set them into a wider context. Now there may be something of interest in those books but I'm not going to pay $190 USD to find out.