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

[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?

[Nick Beale]

2. I’m not asking for counterfactuals, merely what you would consider legitimate in connecting facts into a narrative, making a book rather than a list.

4. The Most Dangerous Enemy — I liked it and I wondered what you thought.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

2. I’m not asking for counterfactuals, merely what you would consider legitimate in connecting facts into a narrative, making a book rather than a list.

4. The Most Dangerous Enemy — I liked it and I wondered what you thought.

2. Everything I have done has been to connect facts to my narrative. And any books regarding combat necessarily produces lists, either in the ongoing flow of the narrative, or as lists of damaged/lost. I really don't know where you are going with this sentence.

4. I liked it. Gave a completely different slant than had been the case before with BoB books. Far better than a certain book that came out recently, IMO.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

2. Everything I have done has been to connect facts to my narrative. And any books regarding combat necessarily produces lists, either in the ongoing flow of the narrative, or as lists of damaged/lost. I really don't know where you are going with this sentence.

4. I liked it. Gave a completely different slant than had been the case before with BoB books. Far better than a certain book that came out recently, IMO.

2. What I mean by a list is what I'm continually stopping myself from doing, just putting down each KTB item, radio message, ORB entry in sequence and letting the reader work it out. I LOVE this stuff but normal readers probably not so much, and so authors craft the raw data into a narrative, trying make sense of it. Yes, you are trying to not to distort the original but you inevitably do something more than simply compile, e.g. drawing attention to omissions, discrepancies, apparent errors etc. You may even draw conclusions but—and I think we agree here—you do not make stuff up ("Göring would have thought …" etc.).

4. Me too because I found his analysis clear and well-argued.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

2. What I mean by a list is what I'm continually stopping myself from doing, just putting down each KTB item, radio message, ORB entry in sequence and letting the reader work it out. I LOVE this stuff but normal readers probably no so much, and so authors craft the raw data into a narrative, trying to make sense of it. Yes, you are trying to not to distort the original but you inevitably do something more than simply compile, e.g. drawing attention to omissions, discrepancies, apparent errors etc. You may even draw conclusions but—and I think we agree here—you do not make stuff up ("Göring would have thought …" etc.).

4. Me too because I found his analysis clear and well-argued.

I do believe we are on the same page, Nick!
You will see from the content of my book on Erprobungsgruppe 210, and the 'Zerstörer' book with Peter Cornwell, that the narrative contains details of combats and damage/losses, as well as tables of the same. I think this works in two ways: 1. The reader can see the losses/damaged as they read through the text, or, 2. if they want to examine the losses/damaged as a single entity, to see how hard the type or units were hit on a particular day/week, it is there for them also.

[John Vasco]

An interesting critique on the Amazon.co.uk site for 'Eagle Days' from Neil Page.

'I was initially rather sceptical of the publisher's claims for this work. But as author Victoria Taylor is a 'professional' historian, this is not some random re-telling of the Battle, what the Germans refer to as the 'Luftschlacht um England'. Taylor has not used too many post-war accounts from those directly involved, preferring period diaries and letters.

The book creates an 'atmosphere' -briefly put, it would appear that nowadays we all think of the men of the Luftwaffe as being mostly 'honourable opponents' and 'worthy foes' - who suffered and died as did our own brave RAF heroes. This is largely the influence of people like Galland and movies like 'The Battle of Britain'.

The reality is that in some instances the men of the Luftwaffe were hard-bitten Nazis, some of whom relished anti-semitic violence; '..the chivalrous fighter pilots did not cancel out the small pool of ruthless killers who already lurked in all branches of the Luftwaffe by the summer of 1940..'

Other Luftwaffe men were already disgusted at the treatment meted out to Jews and civilians and not just in Poland - Lehweß-Litzmann - former Kommodore of KG 3 who went over to the Russians - flew his first sorties over England during late 1940. The author goes so far as to state that '[..] the German 'knights of the air' should not be detached from the crimes that the regime committed..'
Victoria Taylor's goal? Well, this is not a 'who shot down who' type of book. You'll need to have some knowledge of the 'battle' itself to appreciate the point the author is trying to make - to 'remind' us that the Luftwaffe crews were not brave 'ordinary men' - the myth of 'just like us' - but ideologically driven and intent on furthering a tyrannical dictator's ambitions of conquest...

Unfortunately for the reader looking for a 're-telling' of the battle from the German side - which is after all what the title is selling - the author's attempts to drive home this point leads her to wander way off topic in places; from medical experiments on political prisoners to the beginnings of mass murder etc etc. The lengthy chapters covering Poland, Norway, France and the campaign in the West don't so much set the stage for the Battle of Britain as ram home what 'nasty' people the German Wehrmacht actually were. Chapter 18 entitled 'Better liars than flyers' (incidentally, not in quotation marks...) details a Luftwaffe pilot (unnamed) participating in a random mass-killing of Jews in Poland. The author pads out her text with the 'views' of the German media - heavily controlled by the Propaganda Ministry so I'm struggling to understand the value of these - and personal accounts from the home front that have little or no connection to the Battle of Britain. Additionally, Taylor - and her publisher - seem wholly unaware of some areas of research and of some of the experienced authors out there in the Luftwaffe enthusiast fraternity. Has she even read Bungay or Vasco or Goss? The notion that somehow her book is 'ground-breaking' and 'revelatory' is just silly hyperbole and insulting to those that have gone before her. Has she even heard of Wingleader and their BoB Combat Archive series? At best, 70% of this book pertains to the title, the rest is discourse to prove the point being rather clumsily made. There are no new revelations. And, as another commentator has suggested, regardless of Taylor's credentials, her book should have been more accurately titled - eg 'A random essay about the early years of WWII, including brief mentions of the Battle of Britain'. Of course her publisher would never have gone for it...'


Interesting...

[edwest2]

That book should have been titled My Personal Impressions of the Second World War with Brief Mention of the Battle of Britain.

The author is not adding to the historical record. Her book amounts to shoving various things in front of the reader and deciding that everyone will find it just as important as she does. This is not proper historical writing, just self-indulgence.

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

An interesting critique on the Amazon.co.uk site for 'Eagle Days' from Neil Page.

'I was initially rather sceptical of the publisher's claims for this work. But as author Victoria Taylor is a 'professional' historian, this is not some random re-telling of the Battle, what the Germans refer to as the 'Luftschlacht um England'. Taylor has not used too many post-war accounts from those directly involved, preferring period diaries and letters.

The book creates an 'atmosphere' -briefly put, it would appear that nowadays we all think of the men of the Luftwaffe as being mostly 'honourable opponents' and 'worthy foes' - who suffered and died as did our own brave RAF heroes. This is largely the influence of people like Galland and movies like 'The Battle of Britain'.

The reality is that in some instances the men of the Luftwaffe were hard-bitten Nazis, some of whom relished anti-semitic violence; '..the chivalrous fighter pilots did not cancel out the small pool of ruthless killers who already lurked in all branches of the Luftwaffe by the summer of 1940..'

Other Luftwaffe men were already disgusted at the treatment meted out to Jews and civilians and not just in Poland - Lehweß-Litzmann - former Kommodore of KG 3 who went over to the Russians - flew his first sorties over England during late 1940. The author goes so far as to state that '[..] the German 'knights of the air' should not be detached from the crimes that the regime committed..'
Victoria Taylor's goal? Well, this is not a 'who shot down who' type of book. You'll need to have some knowledge of the 'battle' itself to appreciate the point the author is trying to make - to 'remind' us that the Luftwaffe crews were not brave 'ordinary men' - the myth of 'just like us' - but ideologically driven and intent on furthering a tyrannical dictator's ambitions of conquest...

Unfortunately for the reader looking for a 're-telling' of the battle from the German side - which is after all what the title is selling - the author's attempts to drive home this point leads her to wander way off topic in places; from medical experiments on political prisoners to the beginnings of mass murder etc etc. The lengthy chapters covering Poland, Norway, France and the campaign in the West don't so much set the stage for the Battle of Britain as ram home what 'nasty' people the German Wehrmacht actually were. Chapter 18 entitled 'Better liars than flyers' (incidentally, not in quotation marks...) details a Luftwaffe pilot (unnamed) participating in a random mass-killing of Jews in Poland. The author pads out her text with the 'views' of the German media - heavily controlled by the Propaganda Ministry so I'm struggling to understand the value of these - and personal accounts from the home front that have little or no connection to the Battle of Britain. Additionally, Taylor - and her publisher - seem wholly unaware of some areas of research and of some of the experienced authors out there in the Luftwaffe enthusiast fraternity. Has she even read Bungay or Vasco or Goss? The notion that somehow her book is 'ground-breaking' and 'revelatory' is just silly hyperbole and insulting to those that have gone before her. Has she even heard of Wingleader and their BoB Combat Archive series? At best, 70% of this book pertains to the title, the rest is discourse to prove the point being rather clumsily made. There are no new revelations. And, as another commentator has suggested, regardless of Taylor's credentials, her book should have been more accurately titled - eg 'A random essay about the early years of WWII, including brief mentions of the Battle of Britain'. Of course her publisher would never have gone for it...'


Interesting...

I also read this review and found parts of it inexplicable. When, exactly, did the Nazis stop being the baddies? When, exactly, did any attempt to rehabilitate their image in the mind of the general public occur? The Luftwaffe? Well, we are told, a few apologists left out the fact that they were just as bad as the rest of the Nazis and some killed Jews with glee.

What publishers and authors say in private usually remains private. Certain legal problems can occur if certain things are made public. But even for many specialists, the legal aspects of publishing are a black box. The contents of that box being unknown, with a fear to even glance inside. No one has to be a lawyer to learn the basics of what can be said and what should always remain private. I think Neil was wrong to speculate on what may or may not have been said between the author and her publisher. Too many, referring to no one in particular, view publishers as an evil lot. And one would think that ebooks and Print on Demand has solved that problem, but it hasn't. The publisher, as an established entity, has a reputation and that reputation must be maintained by choosing the best offerings.

Authors and publishers can work well together but for books of this type, and military history books in general, a vetting of the contents needs to occur. I mean someone has to take the blame if the book is panned by the public and research community. Better for this to happen before publication. But, too often, it doesn't. Not all publishers are negligent in this regard but too many are.

Book editors are not just looking for the easy parts, spelling and grammar. When any book I get contains historical information, I'm expected to understand it. To review it to make sure it follows the proper form of proper research. That way, I can point out missing information or unwarranted conclusions.

This author is not the first, and will not be the last, to have her book preceded by glowing press. What she cannot do is exert her will on anyone. It's one thing to write a press release, it's quite another when the author, in her own words, tells us that this book will be a "cornerstone," of anything.