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

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

If you demand absolute certainty at all times and in all things, what history would we have left?

Most of what is in my books, for starters, and I'm not being facetious here...

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by edwest2

My courts analogy was just that, nothing more.

Actually it was John who brought up legal process originally, you just said you couldn't care less about it.

How many facts have been posted here, including by yourself, that require the related document reference?

Well, I try to provide source references these days because I hope people will follow them up.

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.

I fail to see how you can possibly have missed posts where members were trying to resolve conflicting information in different primary sources and where suggestions are made as to the most probable answer.

Is Rottler's reply unassailable? Is it open to interpretation? I think not. But, apparently, that is NOT obvious here.

No it is not unassailable, any more than anything I ever posted. ALL of it is predicated on a judgement about the reliability of the source and the possibility that new information may emerge at some point.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Sorry Nick: bollocks!

The legal training is reasserting itself I see.

Originally Posted by John Vasco

The true historian presents the known facts (which are not negotiable)

So who do you believe about Richard III, Thomas More or Philippa Langley or Alison Weir or … ?

Originally Posted by John Vasco

and the variables for the reader to consider. One doesn't waste time delving into hypotheses.

Exactly my point. Offering the reader variables to consider is to invite him/her to consider hypotheses.

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Most of what is in my books, for starters, and I'm not being facetious here...

Yet 30 years ago you wrote a book which you have now rewritten. Was there nothing in the original which subsequent research has led you to change, even though you believed it true at the time?

[John Vasco]

Nick:
1. Sometimes, the vernacular needs to be used!

2. Re Richard III. I don't believe Thomas More re the princes in the tower and their fate. Recent research by Phillippa Langley (ongoing) points to them not being killed in the tower. Note I say POINTS, not definitively so. Loyaulte me lie, Nick.

3. Not your point at all. You're looking through the telescope from the wrong end! I don't delve into hypotheses. Others can do that if they wish. In my book on Erpr. Gr. 210 surfacing in 1990, things were set down that were not 100% defineable, and so the info was provided and left at that. Why Croydon, not Kenley, as you know. Why didn't they continually, day after day, pummel the RDF stations, not just odd days. Why did the bomber Commanders get their way and have the fighters flying 'close escort' (mainly Bf 110 units) instead of having them range ahead of the bomber formations at greater height and speed to pounce on the RAF fighter squadrons rising to intercept (thank God they didn't, as if they had done so, the toll on RAF fighters and pilots may have been far greater - see that hypothesis, Nick!). These are all hypotheses, and people may wallow in them forever and a day, and may never get nearer the truth (I'm choosing my words carefully here, Nick - oh for a smilie emojo!).

4. The update and re-write of 'Zerstörer' by Peter Cornwell and myself. OK, so I'm giving a bit away here. From Peter's comprehensive research, combats in the Western Campaign are expanded upon, which now includes the French involvement. From Ludiwg von Eimannsberger (RIP), who produced the excellent work on V.(Z)/LG 1, permission was given by him to Peter and myself to use all the research that he had published - his book came out in 1998, three years after our book. Simon Parry allowed us to draw upon what he has written/published in his excellent 'Battle of Britain Combat Archive' series, so details of combats are expanded. So a lot of information is now included that was not in the first edition. Without re-reading the 121,000 words of text again, I cannot recall having to completely change anything in it. There is the odd bit of new information, which caught me on the hop, but I believe it is nothing that was in the first edition. Around 750 photos, far more than in the first edition. The internet and e-bay have their uses after all...

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Nick:
1. Sometimes, the vernacular needs to be used!

Unsubstantiated hypothesis!

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Recent research by Phillippa Langley (ongoing) points to them not being killed in the tower.

I've only seen her on TV and she strikes me as a textbook example of confirmation bias.

Originally Posted by John Vasco

I don't delve into hypotheses.

If not, then you present information to your readers which requires interpretation on their part to acquire meaning (humans have this thing of looking for patterns) so hypothesis is still in the mix.

Originally Posted by John Vasco

The update and re-write of 'Zerstörer' … a lot of information is now included that was not in the first edition … I cannot recall having to completely change anything in it.

You wrote a first version that was as true/complete as you could make it. I am sure that version two will nonetheless improve on it. However, neither is The Truth With Capital Letters because experience suggests to us something new will be discovered in the next 30 years (or the day after your book goes to print).

[edwest2]

Nick,

Pure, 100% nonsense.

I never, ever assume or concern myself with the gaps. Should someone make the EFFORT to look for new material, fine.

I have never bought a book filled with guesswork. I always assume the author has done his best with the material known at the time.

I refuse to tie myself into knots about an obsession called "what if." It is unhealthy.

To other readers here, what are the best books on your shelf about any particular aircraft and its combat history? Anyone? What makes them the best? Guesses or accuracy?

I don't mean to be rude Nick, but you are writing crap.

[John Vasco]

Nick,

1. Fact. Everything else is bollocks! (Stop laughing, Nick!)

2. Confirmation bias, yeah right! Only found the remains of Richard III - you could say THAT was confirmation bias 100% in excelsis!

3. '...If not, then you present information to your readers...' Jeez, Nick, that's what I've been doing since 1990!!! That's all that one can do!

4. '...However, neither is The Truth With Capital Letters...' Everything that is 'Truth' is not negotiable. Hans-Ulrich Kettling was shot down into captivity on 15th August 1940. Truth. NOTHING new will be discovered to counter that fact. '...experience suggests to us something new will be discovered in the next 30 years...' Only on those things that are not factually proven 100%...

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by edwest2

I don't mean to be rude Nick, but you are writing crap.

But somehow you managed it despite yourself.

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

But somehow you managed it despite yourself.

Well, there are those rare occasions that warrant it.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

1. Fact. Everything else is bollocks! (Stop laughing, Nick!)

You, me, everyone is constantly navigating life on best guesses/things that have worked so far. If that leads you to conclude that life is bollocks, so be it.

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Only found the remains of Richard III - you could say THAT was confirmation bias 100% in excelsis!

I was referring rather to the bit where, on TV, she was insisting Richard didn't have a spinal curvature, it was all Tudor propoganda. Her face when the skeleton emerged was an absolute picture!

Again with the Princes in the Tower documentary, her supporters had uncovered some undoubtedly interesting documents in mainland Europe but for her there was only one interpretation of them.

Originally Posted by John Vasco

3. '...If not, then you present information to your readers...' Jeez, Nick, that's what I've been doing since 1990!!! That's all that one can do!

You can also try and make sense of it, indicate what you think it supports or discredits.

Originally Posted by John Vasco

'...experience suggests to us something new will be discovered in the next 30 years...' Only on those things that are not factually proven 100%...

You mentioned V.(Z)/LG 1. they seem to come up quite a lot in ULTRA from 1940, I guess because of the particular networks being broken at the time. TNA HW 5/2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 cover France and the BoB; about 450 pages each. If you've used those, then well done for some very heavy lifting but if not, here's a couple I found in passing:

CX/JQ/264

3. At 0700/29 ZG 76 stated that they probably required no more weather reports on 29/8. At 0800/29 a report was sent to V.(Z)/LG 1 saying that the 14. Staffel were delayed in starting by weather.

4. At 0930/29 Lt. Adametz reported to V.(Z)/LG 1 that the 14. Staffel, who were apparently at LIGESCOURT, could not get through on account of bad weather. Further orders were awaited.

CX/JQ/269

16. On 30/8 Oblt. Haarmann informed ZG 76 and V.(Z)/LG 1 that the Staffeln of the latter were to exchange unfit a/c for fit ones from the “Ablasskommando”, whenever they fell short of the strength of 6 a/c in readiness, as returned through OC Fighters in Luftflotte 3.

It was added that the OC Fighters could not countermand this order — in fact he handed over the responsibility for protecting the aerodrome of V.(Z)/LG 1 to its group-commander.

CX/JQ/309

14. On 14/9 Obltn. von Gravenreuth informed V.(Z)/LG 1 (Rocquancourt) that immediately after the arrival of 15. Staffel in Rocquancourt, 14. Staffel was to be ready to move to Ligescourt. 14. Staffel would leave a/c ‘A’ and ‘H’ behind in Rocquancourt for 15. Staffel; and, in exchange, would take over a/c ‘G’ and ‘I’ in Ligescourt. The remaining crews of 14. Staffel would be transported on 14/9 to Ligescourt by the Geschwader Ju 52.

Probably won't change the world but not without interest, I thought.