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

[FalkeEins]

the relentless self-aggrandisement of the Facebook/twitter/X generation. She should really look at Dr. Sarah-Louise Miller's humble and modest posts on these platforms. Miller is a Defence Studies lecturer at Oxford and King's College and author of 'The Lancaster Story' (Michael O'Mara, 2024).

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

'Cornerstone of the next generation of Battle of Britain historiography.'

The humility and sense of proportion just shine through, don't they?

Originally Posted by John Vasco

'I didn't want this to be a nice book'

Writing about a series of events in which thousands of people died or were seriously injured, that particular objective can't have been unduly challenging.

[Not thinking the Battle of Britain was nice comes easy to me, perhaps: on 17 September 1940 my Grandparents and my Dad (then 12) got back from the cinema to find themsleves bombed out while next door four brothers aged 3, 8, 12 and 17 had been killed.]

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

From her 'X' account. The latest 'self-publicity...



'Cornerstone of the next generation of Battle of Britain historiography.' What a load of pompous poppycock!

'written on the same old topics' - Yeah, Simon Parry's 'Battle of Britain Combat Archive' series on the actual events of the period skins your book alive!

'I didn't want this to be a nice book' It wasn't...

The author clearly does not know what she is doing. Or why. She neither understands the average reader or historian. Facts, so far as they can be known, are not subject to debate.

It appears she has created a fantasy world for herself where she can dictate how her work is received and how it is talked about.

I am not trying to be impolite, but this is called self-delusion.

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

the relentless self-aggrandisement of the Facebook/twitter/X generation. She should really look at Dr. Sarah-Louise Miller's humble and modest posts on these platforms. Miller is a Defence Studies lecturer at Oxford and King's College and author of 'The Lancaster Story' (Michael O'Mara, 2024).

I must point out the sharp dividing line that must exist between the expert and the amateur. The professional and the dilettante. This divide must exist at all costs.

Some who are enamored by the instant gratification that comes from posting online must understand that the time and effort that are always required to produce quality work is what you are paying for when you buy a book. Someone else did the work, checked it for accuracy, and put it into a form for others to enjoy and profit from.

This is not about any particular "generation." This is about the Communist/Anarchist construct called the internet where everyone is "equal." But the exact opposite is true, isn't it? Add to that the fact that the internet is the greatest manure spreader ever invented by man.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by edwest2

The author clearly does not know what she is doing. Or why. She neither understands the average reader or historian. Facts, so far as they can be known, are not subject to debate.

Facts are however open to interpretation and reinterpretation, part of the historian’s job.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

Facts are however open to interpretation and reinterpretation, part of the historian’s job.

Sorry Nick, wrong.

Facts are 'non-negotiable'.

The reason why a fact happened is open to interpretation. As I have said before: Fact - Erprobungsgruppe 210 hit Croydon on 15th August. The correct target was Kenley. WHY the unit attacked Croydon is open to anyone's interpretation/viewpoint. However, the fact is indisputable.

The same problem arises with Dowding. People STILL believe today that he was sacked at the end of the BoB, when in fact he took retirement that had been deferred three times.

[edwest2]

Nick,

I strongly disagree. The job of the historian is to give an accurate account, whether about a particular battle or particular tank or aircraft.

Interpretation is not the job of the historian. Any gaps in the information are simply acknowledged. Context should be provided to give the reader, historian or not, the necessary background in which a historical event occurred.

Speculation is not allowed. Or statements like "it appears that," this or that event occurred without supporting documents.

Finally, a bit of writing skill is required so that the material reads smoothly as opposed to being a dry repetition of facts.

When new material is uncovered, especially something unexpected and which calls for a reassessment of what has gone before, then and only then can a revised version of a book, or a new one, appear.

[Nick Beale]

The interpretation comes in two forms that I can think of offhand:

1. In inferring the links between data that is inevitably incomplete (much as an archaeologist ‘reconstructs’ a broken vase or a mosaic, drawing on the pieces they have and on their accumulated knowledge of similar objects). Bridging the gaps, in other words.

2. Putting forward a hypothesis consistent with all the available data — scientific method.

The point in either case is that you do not pretend to certainty but acknowledge openly what you are doing, so that others may assess the evidence and come to their own conclusions.

Historians do not simply amass facts, they also try to find meaning in them.

[edwest2]

Facts only mean what they mean. Motivations for a particular action or battle, if not known, are not subject to speculation. At least not in a history book. Like a puzzle with some pieces missing, if the bulk of the documented events tells the historian what happened then you're done. Full stop.

Others may take up the job of looking for those missing pieces. And I have books on military subjects that have little or nothing that has come before them. In other words, they only cover some parts of the story.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by edwest2

Nick,

I strongly disagree. The job of the historian is to give an accurate account, whether about a particular battle or particular tank or aircraft.

Interpretation is not the job of the historian. Any gaps in the information are simply acknowledged. Context should be provided to give the reader, historian or not, the necessary background in which a historical event occurred.

Speculation is not allowed. Or statements like "it appears that," this or that event occurred without supporting documents.

Finally, a bit of writing skill is required so that the material reads smoothly as opposed to being a dry repetition of facts.

When new material is uncovered, especially something unexpected and which calls for a reassessment of what has gone before, then and only then can a revised version of a book, or a new one, appear.

Excellent post again, Ed.


Your next-to-last paragraph. Looks like my writing skills are down the pan!


Your last paragraph. There will be some 'unexpected's in the second edition of 'Zerstörer' later this year...