May 14th 1940 and few little things

[Franek Grabowski]

Rob

Originally Posted by Rob Philips

Who is calling others "ugly liars"?

The one who is not present.

Once more, we are talking about opinions here, hardly about facts.

In history, almost every fact is an opinion, actually. We constitute facts based on opinions.

It is quite normal to see opinions, given by others at a certain time and under certain circumstances, in new lights as new and more information becomes available. There is a difference between reporting the opinions of the past, in their setting in time and circumstance, and in presenting these as the one and only true view of things.

No doubt about it, but please tell me what are you going to prove?
I am just pointing out, that most of Polish veterans of FC were highly critical about French effort, to say the least. Lionel asked for details that could help him to verify those opinions, and suggested that I am selective with the choice of the units involved. Otherwise, he suggested that those accounts were not what they meant, so I have provided him with an exact quote.

If you wish to go beyond reporting and enter the field of judgements, you need to be prepared to consider all evidence.

I consider all the evidence, and in general Poles were very negative about French soldiers. More, they describe numerous events, where they were entertained as heroes fighting for France, this combined with some bitter remarks about French army.
This is the area of my judgement - that the opinions of Polish airmen (and soldiers) were negative.

Voytech gave information from the sphere of sociographical evidence, that is relevant and should not be ignored. This is a systematic point, that needs to be considered when writing about history.

Voytech provided his very own opinion. This may be true or may be not.
The problem is, that this does not contribute to the general picture of the French Campaign as seen by Polish, Czechoslovak or even British soldiers. This may add a little to the explanation of such and no other behaviour, but does not help to establish the truth.

Therefore, feel free to report whatever you find, but be careful with giving verdict about the opinions in these finds.

I am afraid some people are mixing opinions of Polish airmen with the ones of myself.

Originally Posted by VoyTech

1) It would be good for you and everybody else if you read other people's posts carefully, and tried to understand what they said, before you reply.

Therefore I have invited you to read the another thread, where the discussion actually started.

2) It would also be good if you re-read your posts before posting them, preferably using some sort of spell-checking device. That would help others understand what you wanted to say.

No spell checker. Is that everything constructive, what can you say?

3) If I don't reply to any further posts it might be because I will be off the forum (and internet in general) for several days. But it might also be because I can't see the point.

Are you going to be elected for a president?

[Rob Philips]

Thanks, Franek. "Ugly liar" source understood.

I was not out to prove anything. I offered ideas for you to reflect upon.

In as far as you report negative statements by Polish servicemen about the French in the early days of the war, that's perfectly OK. I'm no specialist in this area, but I'm sure that you are reporting this correctly.

In as far as you imply that these statements were true, then you sit in judgement, and my advise was to be very careful with that. If I misunderstood you, I apologize for that. I realize that we are both expressing ourselves in a foreign language, and that this may cause some confusion.

No doubt the negative statements were true to those who gave them. Please be advised that "the truth", to which you refer in one of your statements, does not exist. We are talking about human behaviour, not about mathematics. Historical "truth" is what you and I agree to be so. If we do not agree, for instance because we do not share the same set of premises, then we shall have two truths: yours and mine. Then others can decide which of these is the better one, by looking at all premises involved. Their input shall ideally be learning material for us.

My example of the "Arbeitseinsatz" is there to demonstrate that "the truth" of 1950 is no longer "the truth" of 2008, meaning that "truth" is not a rock solid item, but an idea that changes over time, as new information becomes available, and as new ways of looking at old issues are developed.

Please be careful with statements such as "the general picture of the French campaign", and "all evidence has been considered". These are actually variants of the "the truth" statement. Generalizations are always opinions, and you cannot be sure that you have seen all the evidence.

You said: In history, almost every fact is an opinion, actually. We constitute facts based on opinions. Actually, I disagree. The negative statements can be demonstrated to be facts because the statements were given. Aircraft crashed, and aviators died, all facts. Any value we choose to attach to these facts is an opinion. It is wise to make a clear distinction between these two terms. In fact, this is essential when writing about history, or about anything else, if you wish to make sense. It is perfectly OK to offer opinions, but then it is wise to make it clear which of the statements are opinions rather than facts. If everybody would share our opinion, then still this opinion does not transform into a fact. The fact here would be the mutual agreement, that holds until some-one presents evidence that changes this agreement.

If you would be using a very different definition of the terms "fact" and "opinion", then please clarify.

Please do not take these comments too personal. Even those who are held in the highest esteem by many occasionally appear to have difficulties with these two terms. There is a body of knowledge about what knowledge is, and that's also under constant debate, ever evolving. Let's call that "methodology". As this subject is hardly ever mentioned in works about history, it may be true that many historians are happily oblivious of the subject. Still, if you wish to engage in science, you need to give the methods some thoughts too.

Regards,

Rob

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Rob Philips

In as far as you report negative statements by Polish servicemen about the French in the early days of the war, that's perfectly OK. I'm no specialist in this area, but I'm sure that you are reporting this correctly.

Well, I am trying to.

In as far as you imply that these statements were true, then you sit in judgement, and my advise was to be very careful with that. If I misunderstood you, I apologize for that. I realize that we are both expressing ourselves in a foreign language, and that this may cause some confusion.

They are true in the way there were honestly written (I have no reason to to believe they were not) in the period immediately following the Battle of France.

No doubt the negative statements were true to those who gave them. Please be advised that "the truth", to which you refer in one of your statements, does not exist. We are talking about human behaviour, not about mathematics. Historical "truth" is what you and I agree to be so. If we do not agree, for instance because we do not share the same set of premises, then we shall have two truths: yours and mine. Then others can decide which of these is the better one, by looking at all premises involved. Their input shall ideally be learning material for us.

Nope, this is not logical. The truth is the actual course of events, which happened in their own unique way. Researching history, we are just only trying to find out the truth, but for several reasons we can only present our views on it.

My example of the "Arbeitseinsatz" is there to demonstrate that "the truth" of 1950 is no longer "the truth" of 2008, meaning that "truth" is not a rock solid item, but an idea that changes over time, as new information becomes available, and as new ways of looking at old issues are developed.

Nope, the truth was there in 1950 and is there in 2008. The thing that has changed is our approach, and our knowledge. Another thing is the political (financial) influence, which is always present.

Please be careful with statements such as "the general picture of the French campaign", and "all evidence has been considered". These are actually variants of the "the truth" statement. Generalizations are always opinions, and you cannot be sure that you have seen all the evidence.

Indeed, but the evidence is overwhelming. There is very little if any enthusiasm, in kind of 'with the bunch we could have win the war', that should appear otherwise. On the other hand, generalisation is perfectly known scientific tool, known from statistics for example. Talking about the general picture of events, we cannot talk about exceptions.

You said: In history, almost every fact is an opinion, actually. We constitute facts based on opinions. Actually, I disagree. The negative statements can be demonstrated to be facts because the statements were given. Aircraft crashed, and aviators died, all facts. Any value we choose to attach to these facts is an opinion. It is wise to make a clear distinction between these two terms. In fact, this is essential when writing about history, or about anything else, if you wish to make sense. It is perfectly OK to offer opinions, but then it is wise to make it clear which of the statements are opinions rather than facts. If everybody would share our opinion, then still this opinion does not transform into a fact. The fact here would be the mutual agreement, that holds until some-one presents evidence that changes this agreement.

The fact, let's say the crashed aircraft, for us is only a opinion, because it is always based on some sort of account, be it in document or verbal. Even if we have the wreckage, and we can establish that this is the aircraft, everything else, time, course of events, is based on opinions, and it is the latter that makes the core of the history.

Please do not take these comments too personal. Even those who are held in the highest esteem by many occasionally appear to have difficulties with these two terms. There is a body of knowledge about what knowledge is, and that's also under constant debate, ever evolving. Let's call that "methodology". As this subject is hardly ever mentioned in works about history, it may be true that many historians are happily oblivious of the subject. Still, if you wish to engage in science, you need to give the methods some thoughts too.

The problem is that in history, methodology is a very fluent term. This, mixed with political nature of it, must always lead to 'astonishing' results.

[Rob Philips]

Thanks, Franek. I rest my case, feel free to continue to believe that an absolute truth exists. Look around to find others who saw it that way too, and decide if you want to belong to that group. Your choice.

Statistics follow mathematically well defined rules, leading to probabilities and likelyhoods, which are not the same as generalizations. The generalizations seen in writings about history, do not usually follow rules, let alone well defined ones, let alone mathematically defined ones, let alone that such rules are declared, so that others can understand and check and, perhaps, disagree.

Throwing in politics confuses the issue even further. I refrain from trying to clarify all that. If you consider everything else but the wreck to be the result of opinion, then you have dismissed several fields of science, such as forensics, but also any science of history. Be advised that I shall challenge generalizations when methods leading to these remain unstated, unexplained, and can therefore not be checked. Claiming that all the historical evidence has been considered, is not going to help as it can never be true. In your theory this claim is even nonsense, as you believe that evidence equals opinion. Finally, the claim is contrary to your theory of generalization, in which exceptions by your definition "cannot be talked about". These ideas need some rework to make them a bit more consistent.

Regards,

Rob

[Franek Grabowski]

Rob

Originally Posted by Rob Philips

Thanks, Franek. I rest my case, feel free to continue to believe that an absolute truth exists. Look around to find others who saw it that way too, and decide if you want to belong to that group. Your choice.

Yes, I firmly believe that there are no parallel worlds, and that the past happened in its single, unique and very own way.
Of course I do not have anything against people believing the earth is flat and on a big turtle.

Statistics follow mathematically well defined rules, leading to probabilities and likelyhoods, which are not the same as generalizations.

Statistics is based on generalisation or approximation, whatever you call it. Of course it is based on mathematical rules, but most importantly it has some limitations.

The generalizations seen in writings about history, do not usually follow rules, let alone well defined ones, let alone mathematically defined ones, let alone that such rules are declared, so that others can understand and check and, perhaps, disagree.

Indeed, and I may add, that historical writings usually do not refer to mathematical methods at all. That is why so many illogical conclusions are drawn by historians.
I will add at the moment, that there are several mathematical methods and models, that are being used to describe the reality in which we live. For some reason they are rarely used in history.

Throwing in politics confuses the issue even further. I refrain from trying to clarify all that.

It is very simple. History is often used as a political propaganda tool. Take for example various claims in regard of Kosovo, and trying to legitimise power over this province.

If you consider everything else but the wreck to be the result of opinion, then you have dismissed several fields of science, such as forensics, but also any science of history.

I do not know why do you call forensics here. Anyway to make it more clear.
Somewhere in the past an aircraft crashed. Now, if we find remains of the aircraft, we may probably find several information, like that the aircraft crashed at high speed or that it was burning or not, but note that those analysis will be done by human beings with the tools available to them at the moment. Therefore those findings will remain opinions, perhaps better founded, or based on good evidence, but still just opinions. It will be just your belief, perhaps based on some experience, considering those findings as facts. The same goes for various reports, accounts, etc. describing the event. They were always prepared by human beings, and as such based on observations and opinions of witnesses, hence so many conflicting reports. It is again a matter of your research, experience and belief, finding some of those more accurate than the others. We still have an opinion, perhaps better founded, but still an opinion.
There were just too many cases, when established facts turned to be false, because the new evidence appeared.

Be advised that I shall challenge generalizations when methods leading to these remain unstated, unexplained, and can therefore not be checked. Claiming that all the historical evidence has been considered, is not going to help as it can never be true.

Okay, if I will state that generally, French fighter pilots were, err, Frenchmen, would you challenge this claim?

In your theory this claim is even nonsense, as you believe that evidence equals opinion.

No, it is not true. I find the difference between evidence itself, and further conclusions drawn from it. The latter is an opinion, perhaps better founded, but just only opinion. You see, burned piece of wood is an evidence, but claim that it burned seven days ago is just an opinion.

Finally, the claim is contrary to your theory of generalization, in which exceptions by your definition "cannot be talked about". These ideas need some rework to make them a bit more consistent.

My theories demand tools that are applicable to each case. Therefore I can generalise Polish opinions about French soldiers, when we talk about the conflict. It would be a serious mistake to apply such generalisations, when discussing relationship between particular pilots in a particular unit. But this comes from mathematical methods of statistics.

[Rob Philips]

Hi Franek,

I shall not challenge the claim that French fighter pilots were generally French, because the statement is circular, too uninteresting to do so. I note that in your theory anything conceptually produced by humans needs to be called opinion. I note that you express agreement with many of my statements, using the curious form of "nope" to begin with. I conclude that this is likely to be based in confusion about definitions of terms. I repeat that clarifications are needed, if we wish to make sense to the other. If you claim that generalizations follow "mathematical methods of statistics", then please declare which, rather than engage in such phraseology. It could help if you took another look at what others had to say about the game of science. That could sharpen your view on what is opinion and what can be called fact, and why, by whom, and for how long.

Regards,

Rob

[Brian]

Hi guys

It appears to me that this discussion is rapidly following the lines of those that disgraced Grozibou. Let's stop all the bickering - 'cos we all know how its going to end!

Why not agree to disagree and get on with the subject dear to all of our hearts - aviation research.

That's my humble opinion!

Brian

[Franek Grabowski]

Rob

Originally Posted by Rob Philips

I shall not challenge the claim that French fighter pilots were generally French, because the statement is circular, too uninteresting to do so.

Well, this is just a generalisation, so the question is if you find it true or not.

I note that in your theory anything conceptually produced by humans needs to be called opinion. I note that you express agreement with many of my statements, using the curious form of "nope" to begin with. I conclude that this is likely to be based in confusion about definitions of terms. I repeat that clarifications are needed, if we wish to make sense to the other.

Well, there is perhaps some oversimplification, also in terminology, but yes, every intellectual product of human being must be treated with criticism, and we must be aware of all deficiencies of any human statements. This may be followed with several examples. Of course it may look paranoic a bit, but that is the reality.

If you claim that generalizations follow "mathematical methods of statistics", then please declare which, rather than engage in such phraseology.

Yes, an old method of approximation, and the general rule that you cannot apply statistics to individual cases.

It could help if you took another look at what others had to say about the game of science. That could sharpen your view on what is opinion and what can be called fact, and why, by whom, and for how long.

Oh yes, I am looking for other sciences, and in view of explaining views of Polish airmen, thesis of Voytech should be considered as valid. Actually, we have written together an article about understanding of documents concerning air combats, and we have stressed the point of psychological approach to every account (the issue which remains unknown to just too many historians).
My point in this discussion is, that the general Polish opinion about Frenchmen was negative, with such and such arguments. Lionel found them slandering, and suggested that it is an expression of my personal views. I did not add my opinions and I was not selective with my comments, however, and just only tried to explain this. That is all.
BTW
I have found Łaszkiewicz's account of Fonck's visit.
It happened on 6 May 1940. Fonck arrived for lunch (or dinner, depending how to translate the main afternoon meal), and is described as a man full of energy and force to achieve his goals, and also with a natural air of authority. Fonck was disappointed with poor results of French fighters, and compared them to British ones. When Rougevin complained about poor performance of French aircraft comparing to Spitfires(!), Fonck noticed, that it is still possible to win on a worser aircraft. Then Łaszkiewicz described a combat that occurred just two days before (Ju 88 flew just above the ceiling of MS-406C-1, so pilots were unable to reach the enemy), and Fonck replied that the enemy will not fly that high all the time, and apart of that, they will receive better aircraft.

[Ruy Horta]

I'd invite starting a new thread on the original subject if there is an interest and also start a new one on methodology.

Although I dislike policing subject matters, I do think it is a shame that certain subjects tend to become derailed and drift into endless bickering. As Rob mentioned elsewhere, this is in part due to style. Grinding down the opposite view is not constructive debate.

I'm not even entering the problems of letting politics (or political views) color the debate.

[Juha]

On methodology
in principle the key is critical appraisal of available documents.
An old example
Swedish king Gustav Vasa ordered in late 16th century the commander of Hämeenlinna castle (in southern Central Finland) to move a cavalry unit to Viipuri castle (in SE Finland) because of Russia was planning to invade Finland (then part of Sweden).
Is this a proof of that Russians were planning invasion? NO
Is this a proof that Gustav Vasa thought that Russians were planning invasion? NO
What it proofs? It proofs that for whatever reason GV wanted to move the cavalry unit from Hämeenlinna to Viipuri.

Same principle can be applied for example a combat report in which pilot X claimed that he had shot down a dark blue enemy type Y a/c at 08.15 am over place z.

Juha