WW2 Soviet aviation ?

[perdue3]

1. Thanks for your permission but not needed.

2. Not caring and just commenting on how you don't like the content is fine, I suppose. Endlessly droning on about it gets kinda old.

Take care and thank you for your professionalism.

I said you are free to post whatever you want, of course. As in, obviously you will keep posting because you have that right. Wasn't me giving you permission, don't play that card.

And, if you are who I think you are, I'm sure you'd be a loud voice if someone posted some rubbish book by a "history fan" or whatever they claim to be with no context. Imagine, someone just posting the cover of some Kilmeade or O'Reilly book. I'd hope, being a fellow historian, you'd critique it accordingly. If not, I again, beg your forgiveness.

I'm down with mastering the literature, but we have to define what constitutes as scholarly literature first.

[Arlo]

And, if you are who I think you are, I'm sure you'd be a loud voice if someone posted some rubbish book by a "history fan" or whatever they claim to be with no context. Imagine, someone just posting the cover of some Kilmeade or O'Reilly book. I'd hope, being a fellow historian, you'd critique it accordingly. If not, I again, beg your forgiveness.

Who I am is someone very much less emotional about my opinions on such things. It came with age and experience. There's not enough years left in my life to waste time in that way. If our positions were reversed, in this instance, and I had issue I would have brought up the specifics I found that were questionable and not held on to make my critique about you nor would I have gone beyond my critique to make a generalized attack on the source (that was more than the clip/images used). It wasn't a peer reviewed paper nor did it seem to pretend such.

Yes, I noticed it included a description of the Yak9-T in both design and use that ran contrary to your opinion. Such wasn't thrown at you as a 'you're wrong and this proves it.' There's room for dissent (as there always in amongst historians be they old or young, amateur or professional) and such need not be made emotional or aimed at someone personally.

So, don't beg me for forgiveness. Just approach it as professionally as you claim to be capable of doing.

(I can't go on like this. If neither of us, or even one of us, aren't interested in academically picking apart the source with even some room for concessions then this has become the waste of time I mentioned earlier.)

[perdue3]

Who I am is someone very much less emotional about my opinions on such things. It came with age and experience. There's not enough years left in my life to waste time in that way. If our positions were reversed, in this instance, and I had issue I would have brought up the specifics I found that were questionable and not held on to make my critique about you nor would I have gone beyond my critique to make a generalized attack on the source (that was more than the clip/images used). It wasn't a peer reviewed paper nor did it seem to pretend such.

Yes, I noticed it included a description of the Yak9-T in both design and use that ran contrary to your opinion. Such wasn't thrown at you as a 'you're wrong and this proves it.' There's room for dissent (as there always in amongst historians be they old or young, amateur or professional) and such need not be made emotional or aimed at someone personally.

So, don't beg me for forgiveness. Just approach it as professionally as you claim to be capable of doing.

(I can't go on like this. If neither of us, or even one of us, aren't interested in academically picking apart the source with even some room for concessions then this has become the waste of time I mentioned earlier.)

If you can't go on like this, then stop. I am not trying to waste your time, merely responding to you in kind. I did not watch the Yak video, just piggybacked on what others said about the channel when they critiqued it. The Pup one, on the other hand, I watched and mildly critiqued.

It is not an academic source, we both agree on that fact. That is where it can end. If not, I am happy to continue beating this horse.

[Arlo]

I am happy to continue beating this horse.

Really? 

[perdue3]

Really? 

If you like. I take your replies to mean you are interested in chatting.

The other day, I read a very long post on a facebook page where the guy claimed opinion and rhetoric as fact regarding NC History. I called him out and after a while, he claimed to just be a "history buff." Essentially, that same disclaimer. Just because you are not an academic source does not mean you get to pass off things as fact or even develop ideas that are not at least loosely backed by evidence. Anyway, that is all I was doing with this particular post/video. Just adding my opinion about the channel, which is that for someone like me, it is not helpful. But, for the basic aviation fan, one who may not be as enthused as others, it is a good place to find interest. Perhaps a gateway source, if you will.

[Arlo]

If you like. I take your replies to mean you are interested in chatting.

Sure. PM me. We can trade anecdotes, if you want. If I don't reply right away it'll be because I was lucky enough to have real life get in the way or I might have died (always a possibility).

 

[perdue3]

Sure. PM me. We can trade anecdotes, if you want. If I don't reply right away it'll be because I was lucky enough to have real life get in the way or I might have died (always a possibility).

 

No need to be condescending, sir. 

[Arlo]

No need to be condescending, sir. 

I understand though I wasn't resorting to such. 

[perdue3]

I understand though I wasn't resorting to such. 

Seemed that way with the "life" comment.

Anyway, the channel in question would be so much better if he/they would take the time to find footage of the aircraft or event they are showing. That would be a great place to start and a great way to become a more credible source. Then, the writing must improve. It is amateur (as they admitted) and the pronunciation comes off as people who know almost nothing about aviation. For me, that is a huge red flag, because I want to be challenged. I understand that for many people it is still quite informative. I would think that many people on this board would share my feeling, however.

[Arlo]

A reminder of their disclaimer on their 'about' page:

"As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.

All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas."

They are apparently quite open to receiving the material from others that they could not find on their own. I would be just as grateful to see such provided here on the forum.

[perdue3]

A reminder of their disclaimer on their 'about' page:

"As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.

All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas."

They are apparently quite open to receiving the material from others that they could not find on their own. I would be just as grateful to see such provided here on the forum.

Yea, that would be cool to give them all the footage and do all the research needed, etc. I do not have that kind of time, even though I have time to fiddle about on the forum. Not to mention, I am no expert in VVS and do not have the research capabilities here aside from the internet.

It is a good thing they are so open about it. I just wonder what they were thinking when they showed Tiger Moth's and Jungmann's flying about while rattling on about the Strutter? It comes off as they do not know the difference or are just SUPER lazy. Perplexing.

[Arlo]

I am no expert in VVS and do not have the research capabilities here aside from the internet.
~~~~~~~~
It comes off as they do not know the difference or are just SUPER lazy.
~~~~~~~~
Perplexing.

Indeed.

[GasTeddy]

Not exactly Soviet history but Russian made documentary about Finnish Air Force.

Didn't know should I laugh or cry what they tell about WW2. Deliberately not mentioning anything else than Fokker D XXI and Messerschmitt 109s, in which Finns were "quite competitive against Soviet pilots". Russian way to make history, especially what comes to "forgetting" Brewster B239 with its 32:1 kill ratio and the fact that Finns were the most successful pilots after Germans in the whole world during WW2.

[perdue3]

Indeed.

And furthermore, it's not like they aren't making money. So, why not upgrade your research purse? I suppose if I was making money producing fairly low quality, low academic, and low budget videos without doing proper research I would just keep making them and cashing them (Michael Bay style). There are likely better alternatives to Dark Skies and Smithsonian. But, I do not spend a lot of time on youtube for docs, I am usually working or reading. I do love a good economic or religiosity documentary.

[Volron]

I thought this was about books on Soviet Aviation...