[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: revising air war kill tallies-Sources
Re your original comment to Jose on US DOD v. foreign sources. I would
distinguish along the lines Jose did. If one is looking at US claims v. real
enemy losses I think the key information item is enemy loss records, not US
claims. Aerial claims are never entirely correct and contrary to some
conventional wisdom are not incorrect by some constant or altogether
predictable %. That said the apparent degree of US incorrectness in Korea is
rather in line with that for late WWII, which is reassuring.
I believe that if reported air combat loss totals are accurate tallies from
records which were secret when compiled then loss records beat claims and
it's not so much a matter of which country is more credible. That "if" has
to be satisfied though. I think it's approximately satisfied for Russian
records (comes from then secret records?: seem to; totally complete?: some
question in my mind at the margin), not really for Chinese (a total said to
come from such records but relatively few details), and not at all for NK
though smaller than other 2.
IMO only going in the other direction (MiG claims v. US losses) is your
statement correct that the US records have to be proved wrong to be
overturned. As we know this general discussion (Korean Air War) often
features people taking the position that US loss records must be wrong or
mistallied because MiG claims so greatly exceed them. I do believe people
who say that have to prove it and haven't that I've seen for any appreciable
number of cases. But as Jose pointed out, that side of the topic hasn't
actually been brought up.
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "rbmooney" <rbmooney@bellsouth.net>
To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: revising air war kill tallies
> Jose,
> Sorry, old sport, but I seldom get angry these days. You did make me
laugh
> when you said, "there seems to be a lot of hostility in both your
> responses." No hostility--just reading your posts objectively as I did
> thousands when editing for publishers. In the old days--and still in many
> places in the US today--your posts would have been "lost" and you would
have
> received a postcard saying "sorry--we don't accept anything over the
> transom." For the most part, Jose, you wouldn't get even that mundane
reply
> at the remainder of publishers today. You'd get zero response because
they
> immediately spot the "begging the question" problems you and other writers
> have and out would go another rejection postcard.
>
> Analysis from a magazine or any Internet publisher: Fox, MSNBC, C-Span,
> etc., can be very harsh and coldly blunt. For this reason, I encouraged
you
> to complete this work diligently and thoroughly. This requires one to
> separate fact from fiction, and to employ great editing skills to their
> writing even if that means bringing in outside line editors who can
> literally do a re-write. That's why the writer has a requirement to
present
> his or her ideas logically and without any bias and petulance. However,
the
> reasoning I see here is simply too narrow and careless. You have a good
> idea based on what others told you. Yet, when you agree with certain mild
> criticism of your generalities in one post, but return with more
> generalizations and speculations on the very same subject in a latter
post,
> I seem to get the feeling that a refusal to state your argument clearly
and
> coherently exists for a specific reason. I do not know what your reason
is
> for that. Personally, Jose, I think many of your problems are the inexact
> way your sentences and choice of words--grammar/syntax--are constructed
thus
> weakening and distorting your points. Some of your words are volatile and
> rash and only produce negative reactions in certain readers. Think of
> D'Artagnan, in the Three Musketeers by Dumas, and realize that Dumas
pushed
> his great story just a bit beyond the serious to super-serious and ended
up
> with a masterpiece of bathos that roaringly embraces the comedic side of
> life. Therefore, cheer up and take heart as you chase down the data you
> need to present a serious piece of history and not a burlesque.
> Blake
> rbmooney@bellsouth.net
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jose castillo" <felizguajiro@yahoo.com>
> To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu>
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 4:46 PM
> Subject: Re: revising air war kill tallies
>
>
> > blake,
> > i'm not sure what i'm doing to make so so angry. there
> > seems to be a lot of hostility in both your reponses.
> > maybe you are not angry, but talk to everyone this
> > way? i love debate, but i'm not sure that i want to
> > engage you when you seem to express your ideas so
> > stridently, and yes, self-rightously. anyway, there it
> > is.
> >
> > --- rbmooney <rbmooney@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Jose,
> > > Your 2nd and following paragraphs below are slightly
> > > bonkers! Actually,
> > > they're doctrinaire and arbitrary. I once got a
> > > text book thrown at me in
> > > grade school for being so subjective during a
> > > debate! However, you have
> > > something here that is awesomely generalized!!!
> > > The following para's
> > > should have been started with, "In my opinion..." as
> > > they are your opinions
> > > though you clearly write them as facts! Tat's
> > > generally the area of a
> > > politician. You do, however, seem to have
> > > difficulty with "begging the
> > > question" or statements that only produce circular
> > > arguments. Like: "Did
> > > you stop beating your wife?" Any answer is wrong to
> > > that question ,
> > > according to Chief Justice Byron White of the US
> > > Supreme Court, except:
> > > "That question is totally irrelevant to the case at
> > > hand, therefore, I
> > > reject it as fallacious posturing since I never beat
> > > my wife." I know
> > > you'll do well once you get started on your
> > > research, Jose. I'm looking and
> > > waiting for that factual and documented sourcing on
> > > your "kills" story.
> > > Indeed, a great story idea. I know you will be sure
> > > and give attribution.
> > > Take care.
> > > Blake
> > > rbmooney@bellsouth.net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "jose castillo" <felizguajiro@yahoo.com>
> > > To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 11:54 AM
> > > Subject: Re: revising air war kill tallies
> > >
> > >
> > > > dan-- i would love to communicate with cookie! i
> > > also
> > > > intend to educate myself personally on this
> > > > interesting subject! i'm new to the game, so give
> > > me
> > > > some time to get up to speed.
> > > >
> > > > as for relying too heavily on any one
> > > interpretation,
> > > > it is good advice to stay away from that mindset.
> > > i
> > > > don't believe in "silver bullet" histories that
> > > > explain everything...or even in "correct" answers.
> > > > history is contested terrain, and i think that is
> > > > healthy for the discourse.
> > > >
> > > > since you ask, here are jose's motives for
> > > > "revisionism." i have no hubris about us, or
> > > anyone,
> > > > "settling" historical questions; all history is
> > > > provisional. each generation does the best job
> > > they
> > > > can with the information available, then passes
> > > the
> > > > project on to the next generation. i think you & i
> > > are
> > > > reading off the same page regarding this.
> > > >
> > > > if we put out revisionist information, we should
> > > do it
> > > > in a modest & humble way, like to say, "hey,
> > > here's
> > > > another way of looking at it," rather than
> > > arrogantly
> > > > saying "look, we got it all figured out."
> > > > (by the way, is revisionism a dirty word among
> > > > military historians? i like the idea, as long as
> > > it is
> > > > done evenhandedly, and like you say, in a quest
> > > for
> > > > knowledge rather than to invoke an agenda...)
> > > >
> > > > ok, somebody else's turn...
> > > >
> > > > --- Love Shack <Home@DanSources.com> wrote:
> > > > > Blake ...
> > > > > You make good points as this NG has had
> > > extensive
> > > > > discussion with Harold and Diego
> > > > > on this topic in the past. They have their
> > > opinion
> > > > > and facts others have theirs, most notably
> > > Cookie.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jose needs to do his own research outside of the
> > > > > three NG references.
> > > > > He can then come back and discuss the findings.
> > > > >
> > > > > If his intention is to be a revisionist instead
> > > of
> > > > > putting facts together then he will not learn
> > > > > anything.
> > > > > Nothing wrong with revising and updating
> > > history.
> > > > > There is if you are defending an ideology.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan Fahey
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: rbmooney
> > > > > To: KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu
> > > > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 12:24 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: revising air war kill tallies
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jose,
> > > > > First thing that comes to mind is that your
> > > > > premise is not acceptable: who are these 2
> > > sources
> > > > > you refer to and how do they know such accurate
> > > US
> > > > > Defense Dept. details; Chinese details; Soviet
> > > > > Union details? Where is the evidence that
> > > anything
> > > > > is different from what the US Defense Dept.
> > > says?
> > > > > You offer 2 names, but at Defense they offer
> > > > > thousands. Rather "begging the question" to
> > > submit
> > > > > 2 names of "aces" or researchers who offer
> > > nothing
> > > > > by way of US Defense Dept. statistics which base
> > > > > their stats on the ultimate premise: "we
> > > maintain
> > > > > and hold the official records." Prove those
> > > records
> > > > > wrong, or some aspect of them wrong, and write
> > > that
> > > > > up. Woodward & Bernstein did it with Deep
> > > Throat--a
> > > > > false alternative--in their book, but you'll
> > > need
> > > > > more than you have: you're appealing to our
> > > > > ignorance. The conclusion you've reached is
> > > > > interesting but wrong because the premise is an
> > > > > "assumed premise." How would anyone accept it?
> > > > > What you've produced is, I'm afraid, a non
> > > sequitur:
> > > > > a conclusion that does not follow from the
> > > premises.
> > > > > Statements by "harold fisher" and "diego" are
> > > > > interesting, in themselves, but hardly the
> > > > > foundation of any premise as you've derived. We
> > > > > simply don't know what is completely true.
> > > > > Layout--side by side--3 columns, and include the
> > > > > actual stats of kills sourced from the leaders
> > > of
> > > > > the separate Defense Departments of China,
> > > Soviet
> > > > > Union, and the United States and let us draw our
> > > own
> > > > > conclusions. As it stands your premises are
> > > > > irrelevant to your conclusion. However, I hope
> > > you
> > > > > pursue the subject further. It could be an
> > > > > historical contribution!.
> > > > >
> > > > > Blake Mooney
> > > > > remooney@bellsouth.net
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Love Shack" <Home@DanSources.com>
> > > > > To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:46 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: revising air war kill tallies
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > My opinion:
> > > > > > It seems the US system was fairly accurate.
> > > > > > Jose:
> > > > > > My suggestion, identify the reasons each
> > > kill
> > > > > was over claimed.
> > > > > > At the same time some kills may have
> > > occcured
> > > > > and not counted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One of the issues was that I suspect more
> > > Migs
> > > > > were
> > > > > > shot down by Prop planes then recorded. What
> > > > > were these?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mustang pilots dogfighting the Migs stated
> > > they
> > >
> > === message truncated ===
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> > http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
> >
>