[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Anvilfolk

I was under the impression that his book was interesting. When I read it, if he stated his facts correctly, his thesis that the BoB wasn't a close call seemed plausible, or at least worth consideration.

Like I said, I didn't like him as a writer, maybe even as a person, but as a historian I got a good impression of him. Is the book wrong? Erroneous statements, lies? I am honestly asking, since I've mainly read good things about the book, and honestly don't recall getting the "we won 'os we're better" feeling when I read it.

Thanks for any further info!

let me try and put things down clearly. When you work on a history book there are three important factors to take into account: sources and references, elaboration of these in order to make the read somewhat interesting/readable, chucking in some sort of conclusion that justifies why you wrote the book and what your conclusions are. Now the last bit it's something that makes the difference between a good or a bad writer.
Being a library rat, going to the national archives and digging under thousands of papers is something that you can learn, but when you put down personal opinions you ALWAYS need to bear in mind two words: respect and fairness.

His view of the BoB not being a close call has been criticised by historians and history professors, simply because it's too much a big assumption, and in several cases it was demonstrated (and RAF historians agree with this view) that the Battle of Britain was won by Great Britain mainly because of the strategic mistakes made by the Luftwaffe, not because of the RAF aerial superiority.

Think about it for a minute: redirecting the bombers to the airfields and factories would have seriously affected aerial superiority, and as demonstrated in the Operation Merkur, an airborne invasion could be put together with the help of aerial superiority.

Barges and boats were being put together to cross the channel, and yes, the Royal Navy could have joined the party, but again the Luftwaffe would have given it a very very hard time. Besides many argue that putting the Royal Navy fleet in such a confined space would have turned the whole situation into a fish in a barrel one, risking the fleet like that would have been crazy.

But other than that, it's the somehow questionable taste with which he put down several sentences that really leaves me perplexed, and although being worth reading (if anything to know what you're talking about), I still consider it a biased one. I haven't touched it since I read it some time ago, I will give another quick glance at it to show what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by No1 Cheese

Lonely Warrior is a must!!!
Sternjaeger hope you dont mind me asking but whats your age and where are you from?

Cheese

I'm 31 and live in England.

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Then neither you nor your so called historians or your close friend have read the book thoroughly enough, as it's precisely that sort of propagandist claptrap that Bungay sets out to disprove, on both sides.

Nor would any Englishman, to my knowledge, end a sentence with the word 'period'. It's called a 'full stop' here.

'Periods' are something else entirely.

I never said I am an Englishman. Besides, what's your point exactly?

Originally Posted by MB_Avro_UK

You really know how to draw attention to yourself don't you.

period.

I don't understand why one isn't entitled to a personal opinion, or at least one that is different than the others, without being tagged as one that wants to draw attention. I do always motivate my statements, and I know I'm blunt, but hey..

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

So is Christer Bergström but he does put out good books.

Hey, Gary Glitter must have made some groovy tunes, but I wouldn't listen to his music