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

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by edwest2

Well, there are those rare occasions that warrant it.

Those when you can't construct a reasoned rebuttal, for example.

[John Vasco]

Nick,

1. I posted 'bollocks' to what you had posted. NOT that life was bollocks. Do try to keep up!

2. You said 'confirmation bias', not me. I pointed something out that was, 100%. Now you deflect. Richard had scoliosis, no one is denying that. And Philippa's thrust is towards the evidence presently uncovered POINTS to the princes being alive after the time that More at al say they were killed. As a member of the Richard III Society, and recipient of the quarterly bulletins, I can tell you that there is more to be revealed in that direction.

3. As I have said before, Nick, I am not into hypotheses. I am not going to write paragraphs/chapters on 'perhaps this', 'perhaps that', and 'what if'.

4. Nick, the TNA reports that you posted are interesting with regard to the day-to-day business of the unit. Enjoyed reading them. Interesting to read of the transfer of aircraft between Staffeln. Couple of interesting photos in the forthcoming book show that with regard to ZG 26.

Nick, for those not involved in the back-and-forth of posting recently, our cut-and-thrust posts and replies might be of some interest to them. Defending our own corner, and learning little bits at a time. Good stuff, Nick.

Now get yerself to Hawkinge Battle of Britain Museum on Sat 9th or Sun 10th August (I'll be there both days giving short talks), and we can have a good old chat, and I'll stand you a meal and a drink at the Jackdaw! Can't say fairer than that!

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

Those when you can't construct a reasoned rebuttal, for example.

So it's come to this. I would quote John Vasco since his facts are about facts. But I'll leave it here.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Nick,

1. I posted 'bollocks' to what you had posted. NOT that life was bollocks.

I'd argue that that's where your line of argument points!

Originally Posted by John Vasco

2. You said 'confirmation bias', not me. I pointed something out that was, 100%. Now you deflect. Richard had scoliosis, no one is denying that.

I was referring to Langley's insistence, in the absence of any evidence, that R III's scoliosis was propaganda. It would (as per my previous arguments here) have been entirely legitimate in historical terms to point to the Tudors' interest in denigrating the man they usurped and to argue that this cast doubt on anything they said about him. But equally, as she didn't acknowledge on camera, they had an interest in playing up any real qualities that suited them. The exhumation provided evidence and (to my eyes) she appeared crestfallen.

Originally Posted by John Vasco

3. As I have said before, Nick, I am not into hypotheses. I am not going to write paragraphs/chapters on 'perhaps this', 'perhaps that', and 'what if'.

Me neither, but did you ever write an introduction or conclusion? Did you ever write anything about where the evidence points? Would you mention what seem to be missed opportunities? You contributed to Stephen Bungay's book, I think you said. He offered analysis of the Battle (excellent in my view) but should he not have done so?

Originally Posted by John Vasco

4. Nick, the TNA reports that you posted are interesting with regard to the day-to-day business of the unit. Enjoyed reading them. Interesting to read of the transfer of aircraft between Staffeln. Couple of interesting photos in the forthcoming book show that with regard to ZG 26.

Three or four full days of uninterrupted snapping and page-turning and the BoB ULTRA could be yours (followed by God knows how long to actually read it and extract the bits that appear useful).

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Nick, for those not involved in the back-and-forth of posting recently, our cut-and-thrust posts and replies might be of some interest to them. Defending our own corner, and learning little bits at a time. Good stuff, Nick.

Kind of you but to be honest I'd have been happier keeping this stuff churning around in my head while I got on with writing up some research, too many uncompleted projects on the go …

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Now get yerself to Hawkinge Battle of Britain Museum on Sat 9th or Sun 10th August (I'll be there both days giving short talks), and we can have a good old chat, and I'll stand you a meal and a drink at the Jackdaw! Can't say fairer than that!

Nice idea and thanks for the offer but can't make it I'm afraid. Have this instead:

CX/JQ/312
16/9/40 D/0350/16/9/40
18. Source saw a document, addressed to Luftflotte 3, in which Chief Engineer of Luftflotte 2 referred in great detail to trouble experienced with Me 110 aircraft, type Do. (cf. CX/JQ/231).
These aircraft are frequently damaged in the fuselage, near the dinghy stowage, at spar 18, due apparently to ice-formation. This is stated to come not only from the dinghy stowage, but also from the tail-wheel support and loading on Spar 18.
A galaxy of senior engineer officers from Luftflotte 2, as well as Hauptmann Lutz of Erprobungsruppe 210, had been conferring, writing and telephoning about this trouble, and it has been agreed with Gruppe 210 that aircraft so damaged would be flown back by Gruppe 210 to Messerschmitt’s at Augsburg for the necessary repairs and strengthening. Luftzeug Z was requested to instruct the firm, and furthermore, it would be necessary to determine the measures for the strengthening of other Do. type (Me 110) aircraft.

[John Vasco]

Nick:

'...You contributed to Stephen Bungay's book, I think you said. He offered analysis of the Battle (excellent in my view) but should he not have done so?...' He spent a day with me going through all of my files and was able to extract for his own use anything that he wished. That's all. Again, don't try to hang a 'should he' around my neck. Go ask him...

[John Vasco]

nick:

'...I was referring to Langley's insistence, in the absence of any evidence, that R III's scoliosis was propaganda. It would (as per my previous arguments here) have been entirely legitimate in historical terms to point to the Tudors' interest in denigrating the man they usurped and to argue that this cast doubt on anything they said about him. But equally, as she didn't acknowledge on camera, they had an interest in playing up any real qualities that suited them. The exhumation provided evidence and (to my eyes) she appeared crestfallen...'

Nick, go read up fully on the history of RIII. He has been denigrated for centuries as a result of Tudor propaganda. It wasn't a 'hunchback' as has been portrayed, but scoliosis. RIII fought at Bosworth and killed Brandon, close to the Tudor usurper. Whatever his infirmity, he rode into battle and engaged in combat. Go check it out. If you have a problem with any particular matter re Philippa Langley's presentations, go ask her!

[John Vasco]

Nick.

'...Did you ever write anything about where the evidence points? Would you mention what seem to be missed opportunities...' I'm not going to read through every single sentence in every book that I wrote/co-wrote to answer these two sentences. Suggest you do so to answer it...

[John Vasco]

Nick,

'...CX/JQ/312
16/9/40 D/0350/16/9/40
18. Source saw a document, addressed to Luftflotte 3, in which Chief Engineer of Luftflotte 2 referred in great detail to trouble experienced with Me 110 aircraft, type Do. (cf. CX/JQ/231).
These aircraft are frequently damaged in the fuselage, near the dinghy stowage, at spar 18, due apparently to ice-formation. This is stated to come not only from the dinghy stowage, but also from the tail-wheel support and loading on Spar 18.
A galaxy of senior engineer officers from Luftflotte 2, as well as Hauptmann Lutz of Erprobungsruppe 210, had been conferring, writing and telephoning about this trouble, and it has been agreed with Gruppe 210 that aircraft so damaged would be flown back by Gruppe 210 to Messerschmitt’s at Augsburg for the necessary repairs and strengthening. Luftzeug Z was requested to instruct the firm, and furthermore, it would be necessary to determine the measures for the strengthening of other Do. type (Me 110) aircraft...'

Thanks for posting that, but I read that in the PRO in the 1980s.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Thanks for posting that, but I read that in the PRO in the 1980s.

In a file that wasn't opened to the public until 1996 (my source)? VIP access?

Originally Posted by John Vasco

I'm not going to read through every single sentence in every book that I wrote/co-wrote to answer these two sentences

It's a general question of how you/me/anyone goes about presenting their material in written form so that it's something more than a list of facts.

Originally Posted by John Vasco

He has been denigrated for centuries as a result of Tudor propaganda.

Yes, and one of the things about propoganda is that, where expedient, you use what's already there and if that isn't enough you make stuff up too. It needn't be all true or all false.

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Again, don't try to hang a 'should he' around my neck.

Not trying to, just wondered what you thought of a Battle of Britain book whose analysis impressed me.

[John Vasco]

Nick,

1. Oh yes it was. Not with your reference. But as you know, information is circulated to more than section of the Air Ministry.

2. Well you won't get an answer from me about that because, as you know by now, I'm about facts that happened, not the 'possible why because we don't know', or any kind of counterfactuals...

3. Yep, agree.

4. Which book is that?