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

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

A review of 'Eagle Days' in the September issue of 'Britain at War' … Reviewed by Toby Clark. Words fail me …

'Taylor provides new sources and analysis. Writing in English about the German side is rare, besides the likes of James Corum and Robert Kershaw, there are few tomes … Luftwaffe surgeons asked for and received human test subjects drawn from camp inmates for experimentation.

Where do they find these people?

1. Robert Kershaw's a bloody good writer on German ground forces (cf. It Never Snows in September for starters) but what has he ever written about the Luftwaffe?
2. A character's discovery of Luftwaffe human experimentation was a major plot point in Len Deighton's novel Bomber, published a mere 55 years ago! That does not fit my definition of news.

[John Vasco]

I looked Up James Corum's book on the 'Luftwaffe' and was able to view some sample pages. I stopped after I read: '...one must look well into WW II, starting with the night bombing of selected British towns in 1942, to see a Luftwaffe policy of terror bombing in which civilian casualties are primary desired result...' How about you start on 7th September 1940, Corum? James Sterling Corum is an American air power historian and scholar of counter-insurgency. He is a retired lieutenant colonel in the US Army Reserve. No surprise there, then...

[edwest2]

A troubling trend is this. Instead of telling the story of a particular battle with appropriate context/background, some self-described historians/scholars are reexamining it through multiple lenses. I'm not looking for psychology or bias, but that's what I'm seeing, along with some speculation.

None of that qualifies as history. However, especially for those under 30 who might be exposed to such books, the breathless praise they receive might lead some in a direction away from proper scholarship. It is said the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. In this case, the price of selecting good military history books is to watch for the widely praised but highly biased and off-topic examples which contribute little to nothing to the historical record. And to expose them. Every time.

What should also be exposed are the people who provide the praise and those who claim to be reviewers who identify a version of the Emperor's new clothes. To write "new sources and analysis" as opposed to "the author wrote the book as she pleased. Buy it." The former being false, and what amounts to more unwarranted praise. This needs to be nipped in the bud.