Monolog?

21st August 2008, 23:10
Ruy Horta
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Amstelveen, The Netherlands
Posts: 1,134



Re: 1939-45 airpower and professional historians
I'm closing what is little more than a monolog, with a dose of name calling in between...

Grozibou :

I dare disagree. What monolog? Look better. The by far greater part of the thread on historians (professional or not?) was written by me simply because some other persons asked questions which I - with my usual generosity (my supply of time is not unlimited) and
good-will - answered as well and as completely as possible, taking my stupidity and my incompetence into account. Of course I could give much shorter replies and save myself a lot of time and effort, but these short replies would be far from satisfying. You failed to discover, to this day, that I never get involved in approx. 95 to 99 % of all threads! Don't you think this gives an acceptable average? If you don't like my "monolog", as you put it, just don't read it! You could call Ed West's photo threads "monologs" too because in many cases the main part is written by Ed. There are other examples of this kind.

As for name-calling you also failed to discover that a few trolls - and you know them - are PERMANENTLY looking for any opportunity to attack me viciously. The result : almost every time I post anything (even just a reply) there is trouble, dog-fighting and name-calling. Your naïve conclusion is that there is always trouble with me, which is a pain in the ass. This is precisely what the trolls are wanting. Remember a few years ago, when one of them (a well-known "member" (?) attacked me under a false name in such a clever way that everybody knew who he was. EVEN HE felt compelled to apologise by you (not by me!). Quite generally your patience is ALWAYS much shorter-lived for me than for those trolls who attack me systematically and unprovoked.

Why do they do this? I am NOT paranoid, quite on the contrary. I think there are two main reasons, close to each other :

1. 1985 I published the very first French translation (deserving the name) of Adolf Galland's book "Die Ersten und die Letzten / Les premiers et les derniers / The First and the Last". Galland himself told me that it was the best of all (16) translations. Indeed, I had made every possible effort to produce a comprehensive (not one single cut...) and very exact translation. In 23 years there never was one single justified criticism. The worst criticism was published by Mr. Michel Bénichou in "Le Fana de l'Aviation", October 1985 : "La traduction est par trop exacte, c'en est énervant" - "The translation is all too exact, this goes on your nerves." Some criticism! In the same issue (or in the following one) M. Bénichou published his translation of an English article on "Typhoons" (and "Tempests" I think). "The 4th Tactical Air Force" was mentioned, which gave the following in Bénichou's translation : "La 4th Tactical Air Force (4e Force aérienne tactique). Thanks God he was there to help the readers for without his help nobody could possibly have guessed that "4th Tactical Air Force" reads "4e Force aérienne tactique" in French. Here you can see who avoids all too precise translations. He simply had found nothing he could criticise in my book but he wanted to criticise something... I published this book about May 15, 1985. Already in July it received a fairly prestigious prize, presented to Galland in a big aviation festival before an audience of WW II aces and astronauts of the time. Galland having been unable to come I received the prize (and later forwarded it to him) and made a short speech to explain why Galland could not come. As you can see I had "my 15 minutes of fame", or something, much earlier than some people thought... (in fact much earlier than that).

In any case, at least 99 % of the interested people were absolutely enthusiastic but a few individuals almost died of envy and jealousy and, to this day, never "forgave" me for this feat, which they afterwards died of not having achieved themselves. They "only" forget that in order to produce such a faultless translation and earn the esteem, friendship and respect of Adolf Galland (who sent me some very clear letters on this) you need to have the necessary competence, will and skill to translate such a long and complex text (700 typed pages), which discusses many different, difficult subjects, and to become a publisher in the first place in order to publish it because all the existing publishing companies refused my proposal. These Internet-worms (not the publishers, although...) are going to persecute and harass me, mostly under false names, until I eventually die and even afterwards and they'll go and spit at my grave - some revenge! (Wonferful : no risk of a counter-attack or of retaliation... they naïvely think). "Who is that bl... Michelet anyway?" Just the son of a French Air Force major murdered by German soldiers as a member of the Résistance (some people still today prefer the nazis...), a parachutist, a reserve Air Force officer, combat aircrew and top-ranking international translator, in particular for German and having worked mainly in Germany, sworn translator and interpreter with German courts (including the highest court) from about 1969 to 2002 (with a few interruptions when I was not in Germany - it ends when you leave the region).

"Adolf Galland" is something of a magic name particularly in France. This has some historical reasons (too long to elaborate on). So the man who "suddenly" (after a career of 25 years already!) became Galland's translator, publisher and friend MUST expect incredible hostility from petty-minded, rather stupid, jealous people who quite simply can't accept that others are successful. This is very widespread in France and I understand in Great-Britain too. I guess Ruy Horta, too, was at the receiving end of similar attacks simply because TOCH was and is succesful.

Some insane worms, who possibly are not very far from here, even added something to Galland's Wikipédia-biography in French : "The translator has added many pages of his own without asking the author, etc. Keep clear of it!" This is quite simply a lie. So you see how far such people are prepared to go just to try to destroy a honest man (in my case they have NO CHANCE of success so they'd better give up!). Galland and also his wife, who both could read French pretty well, were delighted with my translation. What's more, thousands of German veterans who understood French were perfectly able to check it, which they did and they were fully satisfied and full of praise. What a difference with the usual nonsense in translations! (Recently, in an important historical book translated from German, "one single tank" (it was a French char B1bis, 1940 the by far heaviest in Western Europe, and it destroyed 13 German tanks III and IV, or perhaps only IVs, as well as several anti-tank guns) became "a minuscule tank" (!) just like "my seat-pack parachute" had become "the ejection seat" on June 22, 1941, in Galland's Me 109 F, in the old, terrible French translation (1954).

Besides, a few months ago one of the main moderators or members (I can't remember) at LEMB gave the advice, to people who understand written French, to read my French translation, which is much better, instead of the English one. A British citizen giving such a piece of advice in favour of a horrible French frog, this is certainly a unique historical event. We are right in the middle of History again!

2. The 2nd reason, close to the first one, is that some bilious, envious people simply can't stand other people being successful. Many females HATE famous top-models and actresses, many men hate successful men etc.

3. Well, in fact there is (at least) a third reason : some people consider me a competitor and want to kill any competitor, if possible. I need not insist on how stupid this behaviour is. I for my part am extremely glad and grateful that Docavia (Editions Larivière) and "Histoire de l'aviation" (Editions Lela-Presse) and more (in France), Schiffer, Crandall, D. Caldwell, "After the Battle" (with i.a. author Peter Cornwell), Motorbuch-Verlag and last but not least Jochen Prien (in spite of many errors), and all the others, exist and publish lots of extremely good and useful books.

It is quite disappointing, I have to say, that nobody ever intervenes and says, "Stop this, just leave him alone!" They're visibly afraid of being targetted too, and think that I am quite able to defend myself and hit back, which I am, but unfortunately Mr. Ruy Horta has a visible anti-Michelet bias and often deletes or locks my posts etc. but virtually never deletes insults hurled directly at me. I call this BIAS. OK, OK, I know this is no f... democracy here - nazism was not one either. "Qui se ressemble s'assemble?"

Don't insult me or any airmen (not the French alone) and I won't hit back - very simple!

If some of you wonder why most well-known authors abstain from appearing here as far as possible I think the main reason for this is to be found above.

[mhuxt]

"Arrest driver, impound vehicle."

Originally Posted by mhuxt

"Arrest driver, impound vehicle."

The usual intolerant stuff and censorship. I presume you are one of these highly-civilised people who immediately punch others in their face if they dare disagree with you. Well, I dare disagree with you. Be careful, though, for some people use to hit back with a vengeance...

Why don't you mind your own business and let other people mind theirs?

"There is always trouble with that fellow", hey?

[galgos]

Gentlemen, fellow forumites:
May I suggest that henceforth we ignore this rude man: perhaps when he sees that nobody is rising to his bait, he'll just go away.
Max

Originally Posted by galgos

Gentlemen, fellow forumites:
May I suggest that henceforth we ignore this rude man: perhaps when he sees that nobody is rising to his bait, he'll just go away.
Max

Who is "this rude man"? You're meaning yourself I presume.

There is no bait (I am not the type) - you're just too bête to understand. Simple-minded people always think there must be some trap.

You'll be delighted to learn that I am the greatest angler in the world : mainly pike and perch, cod too. I know a lot on baits...

Interestingly my threads and my posts are always read eagerly by very numerous people (see right column "Views", mostly 1,400-2,000 after a week). It seems that lots of people find my "nonsense" most interesting after all. This is precisely what Luftwaffe-worshipers and nazi-lovers can't stand, hence the permanent calls for censorship and gags on my all too candid mouth. So what people like you really want is to prevent others from reading what I have to say : the facts, the truth, the proofs. May I remember everybody that you can send me private messages in the case of renewed censorship.

[John Beaman]

OK, people. If you do not "act nice" and be civilized, I will shut this thread down. it is serving no purpose...............

[Rob Philips]

Gentlemen,

Allow me to offer some clarity.
1. A historian is some-one who has studied, and still is studying, history during a significant portion of his/her time.
2. A licenced historian is some-one who studied the science of history, and got a degree in that. The document proves that he/she has managed to learn the tools of the trade, as taught in a university.
3. A professional historian is some-one from either one of the two categories above, who managed to make a profession out of this activity.

The combinations yield additional types: one can be a professional historian without university training in that field, or a licenced historian who is not a professional because he/she did not find a matching job, or a historian who is neither licenced nor a professional. The last category is also called "amateur historian". If that is understood as "beginner", then the term would not do justice to many "amateurs".

Please note that in these proposed definitions, undefined phrases such as "quality" have no place. Any scientist is as good as the arguments he/she produces, structured by logics, and based on facts that were searched and found in directions that may have been exploited by system, by vision, or by chance. Many licenced historians seem to be amateurs when it comes to methodology. Or at least the tools of the trade are never discussed, as if these are perfect and unquestionable. I find that "unprofessional".

A lot of the proceedings in this thread, and the closed one from which this one sprouts, confuse the man and the ball. The argumentum ad hominem has no place in science, and not on this forum either. What counts are arguments, based on facts and insights. Arguments with which the other guy can disagree in all liberty, if the premisses of the argument can be demonstrated to be in error, and/or if the logic used is at fault.

The utterly inconsistent loss numbers presented by Arnaud Gillet can be called a classical case of how NOT to write history. Or anything else, if one wishes to make sense to others. In prose or poetry one can be as inconsistent as one pleases. In a work of history, if conveying meaningful results of historical research is the target, one had better get such basics right. Meaning the data as well as the method. As lengthy as Grozibou tends to be, he usually scores on this count. His proficiency with languages, and his strong use of that, seem to trigger in others reactions that can hardly be called to the point.

However, Grozibou falls into the experience trap. He states that one has to have read very many books before a qualification to write about history can be called sufficient. As tempting as this statement may seem, there is no logical validity in experience. Nevertheless it is obviously a very good idea to be as widely informed as one can. The more you know, the more it becomes clear that there is much more yet to be known. I would like to expand the statement to other fields of knowledge. It seems that many historians have little more than a working knowledge of the technological fields. If you want to write about firepower of fighter aircraft, you had better understand a few basics of ballistics too. Again Arnaud Gillet's treatment of that subject leads to a merciless, but also a fully justified criticism from Grozibou, who does understand the basics of iron projected at high velocity, and the multiplying factor of explosives carried within such iron.

Grozibou hits the mark with his plea for criticism. That's not designed to annoy others, but to increase knowledge by questioning almost anything. The productive historian never ceases to study. Asking questions is the elementary tool. This may seem too elementary to mention. However, Grozibou is the first that I have read on this forum, or on the rafcommands forum, who raises a methodological issue. That's part and parcel of the science of history too.

I believe that he is also perfectly right that language skills are essential if you wish to study an episode of history that spans several languages, in our case foremost the German, French and English language. When my wife took ill on a journey in Italy, some 30 years ago, I was amazed to find that none of the doctors in the Verona hospital spoke English. How the hell can these guys have followed the international literature in their own field?

There is one point of view that I would like to add to Grozibou's forceful plea for common sense and good scientific manners. It seems that a few of the targets of his arrows are unable to deal effectively with criticism, and that may have resulted from never having learned how to do that. This requires some knowledge, some training, and some ability to see the self not as the Napoleontic centre of the universe. As a generalization, scientists score better on this count than non-scientists.

Regards,

Rob

Originally Posted by John Beaman

OK, people. If you do not "act nice" and be civilized, I will shut this thread down. it is serving no purpose...............

The purpose is this :

To try to show for some thick-skulled, simple-minded, intolerant fellows that opinions differering from theirs and proven facts opposed to what they have been told for all their life have a right to exist and to be made public - which nobody will be able to prevent eventually for I am working on some books and books have the nasty habit of being here to stay at least for centuries, probably more - without having to expect immediate censorship nor ten-ton bombs. I feel Rob Philips' post, which contains some criticism directed at me, is one of the very best ever seen at TOCH for about 10 years, possibly THE very best one. Read it carefully, please (not diagonally...). I think it's the first time I see his name or in any case take notice of it (what I mean is that I don't know him).

John Beaman, I know you're a good man meaning well but here I feel you're misguided - maybe I'm wrong.

There are other subjects in WW II-history than aircraft serial-numbers, aircrew first names and places of burials etc. These other subjects (theory, strategy, tactics, military leaders, politics, industry, technology and more) inevitably are much more controversial than the difference between Me 109 E-3 and E-4 or some RLM paint colour shade. Precisely, some people here clearly can't stand any discussion at any level which is a little higher than the fin of a Fw 190. It ought to be possible to discuss everything as civilised people, without being called names nor threatened with a big club or a "big stick". You don't like it? That's fully all right for me - don't read it! If you happen to walk past a big bookshop you don't feel like buying and reading all the books there do you. You read what you like.

Last time I mentioned that the Dewoitine D.520 was a superlative fighter, which hardly anybody in the world disputes, this triggered a lot of mockery and "evidence" to the contrary from a so-called "Senior Member" of TOCH, who also was so kind and sent me 3 times insults as 3 private messages (I saved them in my PC pending a decision on legal proceedings). These insults have something to do with some natural opening of the human body. But remember : the "rude man" is me!

If you can't find anything constructive in this thread look again, please.

[John Beaman]

There are other subjects in WW II-history than aircraft serial-numbers, aircrew first names and places of burials etc.
I agree, but the primary purpose of this board is to exchange information of that sort.

These other subjects (theory, strategy, tactics, military leaders, politics, industry, technology and more) inevitably are much more controversial than the difference between Me 109 E-3 and E-4 or some RLM paint colour shade.
Certainly, but on a non-accusatory level. It accomplishes nothing to say someone is stupid or pig-headed simply because you disagree with them, even if they state something incorrect.

Precisely, some people here clearly can't stand any discussion at any level which is a little higher than the fin of a Fw 190. It ought to be possible to discuss everything as civilised people, without being called names nor threatened with a big club or a "big stick". You don't like it? That's fully all right for me - don't read it!
Unless the owner of this board corrects me, I will continue to call people down for personal attacks or name-calling. If you do not like that, stay away from this board. This is your warning.

[Ruy Horta]

John,

This has always been about method, not the message.

The method (what you call accusatory) is what either drives away or infuriates many community members. If you insult and accuse, expect to be insulted and hurt in return. It is a simple tit for tat situation, no innocent parties.

Members are free to question moderator action, but it doesn't help your case if you include insults, threats etc.

As a host I have to take notice of this matter, as a person I don't wish to have anything to do with Mr. Michelet (which is unfortunate because I am interested in the subject matter and general message). He knows why, but he is still free to participate (which must tell you something).

I won't close this thread, because I can be accused of bias, but I see absolutely no use for it.

This is the only comment I make or action I will take in this thread.