B-17's and Strategic Bombing (Was:Was D VII a good plane)

BTW trying to having a debate with Walt M140 is about as
entertaining as talking to a concrete wall :-)

Are you -ever- going to apologize for saying that Martin Caidin fabricated the
story of the B-17 that survived a head on collision with an FW-190?

Should I post the serial number of that B-17?

Walt

You just can't
use Caidin as a reliable source; but modern standards, he is not.

I know of two instances where very good historians have used Caidin as a
source. Both Robert Caro and Geoffrey Perret cite Caidin's account of how
Lyndon Johnson got his Silver Star, an account that is utterly bogus.
I attended a talk given by Caro during his book tour promoting his latest
volume of LBJ biography and during the Q&A brought this up. Unfortunately,
Caro reacted as if his own research was being faulted and defended Caidin. I
asked if he could recommend any Caidin books by name. He could not. So I don't
think he is familiar with Caidin at all. I suspect the Caidin piece on LBJ was
dug up by a research assistant and Caro took it at face value.
This is not to blast Caro, who seems to be a very diligent researcher and an
engaging writer--his Johnson volumes are wonderful. But it is a reminder of
why people should be cautious when a writer relies on secondary sources for
information--the author is at the mercy of these other authors' accuracy and
integrity.
Perret cites Caidin's LBJ account in his biography of Douglas MacArthur.
Now that these two respected historians have cited Caidin, others will, too,
not even bothering to go to the original Caidin source, but picking the story
up from Caro and Perrot, helping make it respectable (in a sense making _them_
the authors of the account, not Caidin, who fades into the background).
And so the fictional account assumes the form of fact.


Chris Mark

Subject: B-17's and Strategic Bombing (Was:Was D VII a good plane)
From: ost (Chris Mark)
Date: 4/18/04 11:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

You just can't
use Caidin as a reliable source; but modern standards, he is not.

I know of two instances where very good historians have used Caidin as a
source. Both Robert Caro and Geoffrey Perret cite Caidin's account of how
Lyndon Johnson got his Silver Star, an account that is utterly bogus.
I attended a talk given by Caro during his book tour promoting his latest
volume of LBJ biography and during the Q&A brought this up. Unfortunately,
Caro reacted as if his own research was being faulted and defended Caidin. I
asked if he could recommend any Caidin books by name. He could not. So I
don't
think he is familiar with Caidin at all. I suspect the Caidin piece on LBJ
was
dug up by a research assistant and Caro took it at face value.
This is not to blast Caro, who seems to be a very diligent researcher and an
engaging writer--his Johnson volumes are wonderful. But it is a reminder of
why people should be cautious when a writer relies on secondary sources for
information--the author is at the mercy of these other authors' accuracy and
integrity.
Perret cites Caidin's LBJ account in his biography of Douglas MacArthur.
Now that these two respected historians have cited Caidin, others will, too,
not even bothering to go to the original Caidin source, but picking the story
up from Caro and Perrot, helping make it respectable (in a sense making
_them_
the authors of the account, not Caidin, who fades into the background).
And so the fictional account assumes the form of fact.


Chris Mark


Guess you can't believe anything you didn't see for yourself.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

(ArtKramr) wrote:


Guess you can't believe anything you didn't see for yourself.


sigh
--

-Gord.

On 18 Apr 2004 18:35:30 GMT, ost (Chris Mark) wrote:

I know of two instances where very good historians have used Caidin as a
source. Both Robert Caro and Geoffrey Perret cite Caidin's account of how
Lyndon Johnson got his Silver Star

I always read a history or biography with my right thumb (or if I'm
really interested, a moving Post-it Note) in the citations. My
amazement was total when I discovered that Caro used Caidin's book as
his sole source. It shook me for a while, but I finally got back to
enjoying the book. But I still think of it whenever I read Caro or see
him on TV as an expert: the man who cited Martin Caidin!

I don't know Perret. Is it possible that he was simply parotting Caro?
(Or vice versa, I suppose.) This is how the story perpetuates itself
about "the Flying Tigers, who were fighting the Japanese in China
before Pearl Harbor." You see that line in serious histories to this
day, by reputable historians. The actual source of the myth is a John
Wayne, Republic studios, wartime B flick


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

I've seen some errors in Perret's book, although I enjoy his work.

Both Robert Caro and Geoffrey Perret cite Caidin's account of how
Lyndon Johnson got his Silver Star

Speaking of LBJ, I have one of the Squadron/SIgnal books called: "Flying
Fortress, the Boeing B-17".

On page 21, there's a photo caption that says it's LBJ standing next to the
Swoose, but it's a picture of Thomas E. Dewey!

Walt

I've seen some errors in Perret's book, although I enjoy his work.

I doubt there is an error-free history published, and some of them seem
inexplicable. I remember reading David Halberstam's "The Reckoning," and
coming upon his explanation of why Perry's armada was described as "black
ships." Halberstam said it was because his ships were ironclads. Halberstam
was obviously unaware that ironclads were largely a product of the ACW, some
years in the future at the time of Perry's mission. He was also obviously
unaware of Perry's role in introducing steam power into the US Navy and that
three (iirc) of his Japanese armada ships were steamships belching black
smoke---and thus the Japanese name for them (supposedly).
Even though this was a minor error in a book on a different topic (the auto
industry), I still thereafter viewed what Halberstam said with skepticism I
otherwise wouldn't have had.
Justified skepticism, as it turned out, since Ford was about to embark on a
huge comeback and Nissan was soon to take a header towards bankruptcy (H. wrote
about how Ford had messed up and Nissan had got everything right.)



Chris Mark

On 19 Apr 2004 17:35:16 GMT, ost (Chris Mark) wrote:

I doubt there is an error-free history published, and some of them seem
inexplicable. I remember reading David Halberstam's "The Reckoning,"

In "A Bright and Shining Lie," there's a photograph of a B-26 Marauder
of the type used in Vietnam

That of course probably wasn't the author's fault, though he ought to
have checked the photos as well as his text.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

I don't know Perret. Is it possible that he was simply parotting Caro?

Perret's "Old Soldiers Never Die" was published in 1996. He cites Caidin's
"The Mission" specifically.
Of course, there is always the possibility he is lifting the info and citation
from another work. That's a fairly common way for authors (or students!) to
pad out their list of references. But Perret's speciality is writing from
original sources wherever possible, and he seems to do a good job of digging
out previously unaccessed documents so that he can present fresh insight about
oft written about subjects (Eisenhower, JFK, MacArthur, Lincoln, Grant).
Still, the Caidin cite leaps from the notes.
Caidin may be cited as freely as he is by more serious writers simply because
they can't imagine someone writing about serious subjects (such as
then-president Johnson) would simply present flights of imagination as fact,
that he would freely "adjust" a story to make it a better read.
Since Caidin embellished to make his subjects look better, not worse, he tended
to get away with it. Few feel the need to defend themselves against praise,
even when undeserved.



Chris Mark

Subject: B-17's and Strategic Bombing (Was:Was D VII a good plane)
From: "Emmanuel Gustin"
Date: 4/18/04 2:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


Those who talk of the innacuracy of our bombing have never seen Germany in
1945. We left damn little standing.

Art, "leaving damn little standing" seems to me to be an
indication of inaccuracy, not accuracy...

--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel dot Gustin @t skynet dot be
Flying Guns Books and Site: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/



Not when the goal is to leave nothing standing.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer