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

[Nick Beale]

Ed,

The courtroom analogy is interesting because UK courts operate on two standards: beyond reasonable doubt (criminal cases) and on the balance of probabilities (civil ones). Note that neither demands absolute certainty but each standard is used to arrive at a verdict. Courts routinely make inferences from patterns of behaviour or documentation to bridge the gap between what is known for certain and what is not.

The Roman period is as relevant as any other when discussing historical method. We have a certain amount of writing from the period (copied and recopied over centuries, and occasionally modified to suit the tastes of intervening periods) but we also have archaeology which has yielded original, unmediated writings and physical evidence — weapons, clothing, crockery, artworks etc. — illuminating things that were written about by Pliny, Tacitus or whoever. We have soil and pollen analysis, landscape archaeology, DNA, aerial photography, the list goes on.

We understand the Roman period better as a result and there is no reason to suppose that the same will not be true of the 20th century and its wars.

[John Vasco]

Nick,
Interesting post #231.

Notwithstanding what you say, the legal tenet of: He who asserts must prove still applies. So, whether reasonable doubt, or balance of probabilities, are applied, 'He who asserts must prove' is still the over-riding factor.

As for the last sentence of your first paragraph, I'll ask my daughter about that - she is a Magistrate.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Nick,
Interesting post #231.

Notwithstanding what you say, the legal tenet of: He who asserts must prove still applies. So, whether reasonable doubt, or balance of probabilities, are applied, 'He who asserts must prove' is still the over-riding factor.

As for the last sentence of your first paragraph, I'll ask my daughter about that - she is a Magistrate.

1. No disagreement from me about the assertion-proof bit.

2. If you're seen after dark approaching a house wearing a striped pullover and a black mask, then seen leaving the area with a bag labelled 'swag' over your shoulder then you're probably getting done for the robbery, even though no one saw you actually take the silver candlesticks.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

2. If you're seen after dark approaching a house wearing a striped pullover and a black mask, then seen leaving the area with a bag labelled 'swag' over your shoulder then you're probably getting done for the robbery, even though no one saw you actually take the silver candlesticks.

Circumstantial, ye 'onour, m'lud. I'm an honest lad, Guv!

[MW Giles]

Do some of you really think that a proper historian only presents facts and does not seek to interpret them. Really?

On a whim I would like to try to answer the question - "Was the zerstörer programme a good use of resources by the Lw in WW2?"

I might gather evidence about how much it cost in time, trouble, effort, life etc. to set up and run the programme

I would then try to work out what it achieved? Where did it fail?

Now it gets difficult, what were the opportunity costs of following the course they did. If they had invested the same resources elsewhere or used the a/c differently, would they have got a better result.

I weigh up the different factors and present to you my findings.

I think it would be possible on the balance of probabilities to come to a rational answer. I am sure that I could not show it beyond reasonable doubt.

Another historian comes along, looks at my hypothesis and conclusions and weighs the different factors differently or adds things I have not thought of. They draw their conclusions and present them.

The world judges which version they like more, or creates their own synthesis.

There is not just one truth out there for God's sake

Martin

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

Ed,

The courtroom analogy is interesting because UK courts operate on two standards: beyond reasonable doubt (criminal cases) and on the balance of probabilities (civil ones). Note that neither demands absolute certainty but each standard is used to arrive at a verdict. Courts routinely make inferences from patterns of behaviour or documentation to bridge the gap between what is known for certain and what is not.

The Roman period is as relevant as any other when discussing historical method. We have a certain amount of writing from the period (copied and recopied over centuries, and occasionally modified to suit the tastes of intervening periods) but we also have archaeology which has yielded original, unmediated writings and physical evidence — weapons, clothing, crockery, artworks etc. — illuminating things that were written about by Pliny, Tacitus or whoever. We have soil and pollen analysis, landscape archaeology, DNA, aerial photography, the list goes on.

We understand the Roman period better as a result and there is no reason to suppose that the same will not be true of the 20th century and its wars.

Nick,

I could care less how the courts work in the UK. Let me be blunt: We either know something through artifacts or we don't. Knowledge is not found in the following statements: "Most historians believe..." "It is widely accepted that..." Followed by comments that are based, as far as Romans are concerned, on their behavior elsewhere. Example:

"The Romans passed through the city of Y on their way to attack a city north of Y. There are no physical records or burials or what have you, but based on previous accounts - which were written down - the Romans likely attacked Y on their way to the target city."

Is there a known pattern? Yes. Did we learn anything in this case? No.

Churchill allegedly said that history would be kind to him since he would write the history. In my years of doing historical research, I do not color it to taste. Whatever the references say is what they say. The end. I am not running for any office or need to tailor my research to any group/party and so on.

I have spent a number of years studying the Second World War and the Cold War. That study becomes more substantial when more than one source is available. The U.S. and UK classified quite a few records by the end of hostilities. These were unavailable to researchers until the mid-1990s. The Germans had petitioned the United States for a return of these records because the German People Wanted to Recover their History. Allied intelligence had recovered and also produced millions of pages of documents from the period. One aspect finally played out by 2001 when records created by the OSS, and inherited by the CIA, were reviewed.

THAT is how actual research is done. That is how and why the period will be written about. It will not be based on patterns. It will not be based on guesses, no matter how educated.

A new book just landed on my desk. It is following a pattern of what I call "the new idiocy." The title: The Hand behind Unmanned. Quick, anyone. What is this book about? Anyone? Surely, there is a pattern at work. But, like the book being discussed here, it is beyond the knowledge of the average book buyer. The subtitle offers a clue: Origins of the U.S. Autonomous Military Arsenal. But, again, it falls flat. Autonomous what? Military arsenal? A bit broad, don't you think? How about: The Origins of U.S. Unmanned Military Weapons, Aircraft and Related Equipment, followed by, I don't know, the time period in question?

Note to the publisher (includes American slang): A complete fail as far as keyword searches go. Don't do this again.

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by MW Giles

Do some of you really think that a proper historian only presents facts and does not seek to interpret them. Really?

On a whim I would like to try to answer the question - "Was the zerstörer programme a good use of resources by the Lw in WW2?"

I might gather evidence about how much it cost in time, trouble, effort, life etc. to set up and run the programme

I would then try to work out what it achieved? Where did it fail?

Now it gets difficult, what were the opportunity costs of following the course they did. If they had invested the same resources elsewhere or used the a/c differently, would they have got a better result.

I weigh up the different factors and present to you my findings.

I think it would be possible on the balance of probabilities to come to a rational answer. I am sure that I could not show it beyond reasonable doubt.

Another historian comes along, looks at my hypothesis and conclusions and weighs the different factors differently or adds things I have not thought of. They draw their conclusions and present them.

The world judges which version they like more, or creates their own synthesis.

There is not just one truth out there for God's sake

Martin

Fer cryin' out loud! The U.S. is under assault by a bankrupt idea called 'my truth.'

With all due respect to Europeans, I see a rather unhealthy obsession with statistics and "what ifs". What if the Germans had allocated their resources to something better or more effective or which could have been fielded sooner?

This is not how the world judges, not by a long shot. Facts are facts. How hard is that for anyone to understand? And they remain so until new documents and new sources become available. As I wrote earlier, millions of pages were classified by the Allies during and partly after the war. I say partly, because there were literally millions of pages to sort through.

Books are published that are read by thousands if not millions of people. There is no logic in taking the position that the same data will be "interpreted" differently just because someone else comes along. One does not guess with data from primary sources.

Sure, people can and have filled in the blanks after the war about rumored developments by the Germans. As the years passed, these turned into "facts" for some. But they were stories created to fill those gaps, both by official and civilian sources. Again, in reference to OSS documents classified since the war, once they were declassified, there was a scramble to look through them. But since these were in the hands of the CIA, who decided to hold some back, other references in the documents that were released pointed to the rest. There was great resistance to releasing the remainder. Delays were attempted. These failed.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by edwest2

Nick,

I could care less how the courts work in the UK. Let me be blunt: We either know something through artifacts or we don't … Allied intelligence had recovered and also produced millions of pages of documents from the period… THAT is how actual research is done.

How then do the courts work in the USA, because nothing that reaches us over here suggests that absolute and unassailable certainty is the criterion they invariably impose in reaching their judgements?

Knowledge is not confined to your reductionist model. We know things with varying degrees of certainty. We constantly form working hypotheses which we use until new information requires their rejection or modification. If you demand absolute certainty at all times and in all things, what history would we have left? The job of the historian is to present hypotheses while making clear their basis and the limitations of his/her knowledge so that others can test those claims against the cited evidence or factor in new information.

As for researching among millions of declassified intelligence documents, what do you think I've been doing with most of my spare time for the last 40 years?

[edwest2]

My courts analogy was just that, nothing more. How many facts have been posted here, including by yourself, that require the related document reference? Those who ask about a particular Ju 88 want certainty. So when Rottler replies, that problem is solved, followed by the next.

I fail to see how you can possibly miss that. Is Rottler's reply unassailable? Is it open to interpretation? I think not. But, apparently, that is NOT obvious here. A sad state of affairs.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

How then do the courts work in the USA, because nothing that reaches us over here suggests that absolute and unassailable certainty is the criterion they invariably impose in reaching their judgements?

Knowledge is not confined to your reductionist model. We know things with varying degrees of certainty. We constantly form working hypotheses which we use until new information requires their rejection or modification. If you demand absolute certainty at all times and in all things, what history would we have left? The job of the historian is to present hypotheses while making clear their basis and the limitations of his/her knowledge so that others can test those claims against the cited evidence or factor in new information.

As for researching among millions of declassified intelligence documents, what do you think I've been doing with most of my spare time for the last 40 years?

Sorry Nick: bollocks! The 'academic historian' loves that kind of shizz!

The true historian presents the known facts (which are not negotiable), and the variables for the reader to consider. One doesn't waste time delving into hypotheses. Why did 264 (Defiant) Squadron claim 39 Luftwaffe fighters on 29th May 1940?; why did RAF fighters claim so many Stukas on 16th & 18th August 1940 (massive overclaiming on both days)?; why did ZG 26 claim over 50 RAF fighters in one day? There are variables to each of those points, and there is no answer...