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

[Jukka Juutinen]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

I'd be interested to hear your reactions to reading Dr. Taylor's thesis on the dams raid. My own impression, as I posted earlier, was that she was more interested in reviewing others' writings and angles they might not have looked at (historiography). What she seemed less concerned with was herself exploring said neglected areas and presenting her findings.

I have not read it. But, one of the basic diktats of such a thesis is that the writer must sonehow show the reviewing opponents that he has read the previous research on the topic. Illogical or not, but a historian pursuing a degree will not likely get fullest score if previous research is not discussed. I have recently browsed a few such theses prepared by the students of the Finnish Military Academy and everyone of them has substantial chapters explaining previous publications on the topic and methology of the study at hand. The professors require that.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

No, I am not suggesting that because my favourite aircraft authors have either aircraft engineering or test pilot background. But I am suggesting that Ms. Taylor's academic credentials have something to do with aviation history in the deepest sense. Which is very different from e.g. what that coalminer-looking man in a recent British Dambusters TV documentary had; that guy's credentials were in cultural history with zero connections to Dambusters. He was obviously chosen for the same reason the doc did not name Gibson's dog.

What are you suggesting, then? You state 'academic credentials' - what is the point you are making with regard to academic credentials? That academic credentials elevate someone to the point of being a better writer than others who do not have academic credentials? Or that academic credentials are a prerequisite to write history.
Please explain further...

[Jukka Juutinen]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

What are you suggesting, then? You state 'academic credentials' - what is the point you are making with regard to academic credentials? That academic credentials elevate someone to the point of being a better writer than others who do not have academic credentials? Or that academic credentials are a prerequisite to write history.
Please explain further...

1. While academic credentials do not quarantee a good writer or good research, often it gives tools to deal with issues like source criticism and in general in scientific approach. That is especially true in the past when The academia was more merit-driven than politically-driven (=woke) .

2. Do the forumites have such a lousy memory here? Years ago a member by the nick "Rabe Anton" frequented here and he attacked with quite strong expressions any books not written by Ph.Ds while being very derogatory towards one's written by "amateurs". I do not remember anyone subjecting Rabe Anton to 3rd degree interrogation.

[Edward]

After reading the publisher's synopsis of the book with its description of primary source German documents and eyewitness accounts, I am certainly interested in Dr. Taylor's Eagle Days.

However the first paragraph is pretty awkward and reads like a first draft by an intern.

“By the summer of 1940, Great Britain watched as France succumbed to the might of Adolf Hitler’s forces. Her forces driven off the continent, many rescued from capture at Dunkirk, only the Royal Air Force, supported by the country’s newly established radar system, now stood in the way of the country being invaded. . . . "

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Edward

After reading the publisher's synopsis of the book with its description of primary source German documents … I am certainly interested in Dr. Taylor's Eagle Days.

It helps that there are lots of those free online now: Luftflotte 3 mission reports; Luftwaffe western theatre daily ops reports; Lw. 10-daily unit strengths and operational readiness stats; Quartermaster General loss reports … plenty of rabbit holes for the researcher to disappear down. I'd imagine that the team working on the revised Battle of Britain Then and Now will be scouring those as well.

[Chris Goss]

I always have an input to my book covers albeit I don't always agree with the end result. As to academic qualifications, I am one of the rare ones having a Masters with Merit in War Studies from Kings College London. When I added to my thesis to produce Luftwaffe Fighter Bombers over Britain, was told I should have put this forward for a PhD!

[Nick Beale]

I added to my thesis to produce Luftwaffe Fighter Bombers over Britain

And it's greatly to your credit that it reads like a proper book. I've read a few theses about Second World War aviation (they're often online at the university concerned) and books based on them. The prevailing academic conventions seem to result in something a long way from anything that an 'outsider' would enjoy reading or even learn much from. Much of the object seems to be demonstrating how thoroughly familiar you are with the work already done by others in the field. For example, you can download Dr. Taylor's 'Après moi, le déluge : redressing the wartime and postwar mythologization of Operation CHASTISE in Britain' here: https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/output/4221081

To me, it just seemed that far more words were devoted to what other writers said (or didn’t) about the raid rather than presenting anything new that she might have unearthed from her own research.

[Bombphoon]

Originally Posted by Edward

After reading the publisher's synopsis of the book with its description of primary source German documents and eyewitness accounts, I am certainly interested in Dr. Taylor's Eagle Days.

However the first paragraph is pretty awkward and reads like a first draft by an intern.

“By the summer of 1940, Great Britain watched as France succumbed to the might of Adolf Hitler’s forces. Her forces driven off the continent, many rescued from capture at Dunkirk, only the Royal Air Force, supported by the country’s newly established radar system, now stood in the way of the country being invaded. . . . "

What's wrong with that?

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Bombphoon

What's wrong with that?

Using the word "forces" twice, so close together.

[twocee]

And why "Adolph Hitler's forces", rather than "the German Army". They don't say "Chamberlain watched" or "Churchill watched".

And, anyway, "Great Britain" is wrong as it should be "The United Kingdom"!

Did not the Navy, too, stand in the way of invasion?