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

[edwest2]

Thank you John.


Well, when reading history, I'd gladly accept writing based on the evidence even though it is not written a certain way. I recently picked up a book about anti-aircraft artillery where I would describe the writing as adequate.

I am always looking for something new. If a book can give me new details and new photos then I'm likely to buy it.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by 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.

Nick:
You say interpretation is inferring the links between data that is incomplete. I call that 'academic blowing smoke up your own arse'. To give you an example from my own legal training: One cannot impute into a legal document something that is not there. In other words, one CANNOT infer any links where there is a complete lacuna in the first place.

Your point 2 - oh jeez, not this crap about a 'scientific' method again. Pray teach me, after 45 years of research and writing, where I have gone wrong in never deliberately or otherwise applying a scientifi method.

Your last paragraph is true in part, but to 'try to find meaning' in facts is flawed, for the simple reasoon that one does not need to find a meaning with a lot of facts. One does not need to find a meaning to the attacks on Manston, for example. The Germans were trying to bomb the place into oblivion. No need to search for the 'why', or 'meaning' - it's as plain as the nose on your face.

[Jukka Juutinen]

I must say that edwest2 is incorrect in stating that historian may not speculate. He in fact can, as long as he makes it clear that he is speculating. A historian is also not a simple chronicle, he must be an analyst too. One part of that analysis may be e.g. comparing conflicting statements and through both logic and source critique arriving at a, logical conclusion. That conclusion cannot be something that no source supports.

The main goal of a historian is to answer the question "why". For example, why did an aerial engagement end the way it did. This requires making historical events and their causalities understandable.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

I must say that edwest2 is incorrect in stating that historian may not speculate. He in fact can, as long as he makes it clear that he is speculating. A historian is also not a simple chronicle, he must be an analyst too. One part of that analysis may be e.g. comparing conflicting statements and through both logic and source critique arriving at a, logical conclusion. That conclusion cannot be something that no source supports.

The main goal of a historian is to answer the question "why". For example, why did an aerial engagement end the way it did. This requires making historical events and their causalities understandable.

What a load of absolute bollocks this post is!

'...I must say that edwest2 is incorrect in stating that historian may not speculate...' edwest2 is spot on! Whether you call yourself a 'historian', 'researcher', or anything else, speculation is worthless. It counts for absolutely NOTHING in the great scheme of things. Absolutely nothing!

'...The main goal of a historian is to answer the question "why"...' Sorry, but this is a crock of shit! Do you really know what you are talking about? Or have you lapsed into your academic scientific persona again? You really are posting rubbish, and it has to be called out! This kind of comment is an insult to the research work done by all reputable researchers and writers, simply because it is only ONE small part of the research process, and a lot of the time, doesn't need to feature at all. It IS NOT the main goal.

'...For example, why did an aerial engagement end the way it did...' If you have ever done any long-term research, or long-term writing (which I susupect you have not, but correct me here if I am wrong), that particular point falls out naturally from what is actually written. One does not have to delve into that at all, as I said, it falls out naturally.

Finally, this: '...This requires making historical events and their causalities understandable...' Do you really think writers DO NOT make events and casualties understandable?

Just disappear, and stop trying to denigrate the work of researchers and writers, or preach to us. Who the hell do you think you are???