General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: Allied Atrocities - U 85
Posted by:
Webmaster@U-35.com
()
Date: June 13, 2001 02:40PM
<HTML>RB:
I see your point. However, researchers know that unsubstantiated information - especially on the Internet - is of little value by itself.
The page is a good one in the sense that it is the beginning of a collection. It is a starting point for more serious researchers, who are obligated to provide the \"critical view\". It is not a book or a peer-reviewed publication; only a poor researcher would treat it as such.
It would be unwise to totally dismiss a source based on the presence of some bad, incomplete, or one-sided information. After all, we don\'t ignore uboat.net just because of typos, incomplete information, and one-sided content.
Rainer Bruns wrote:
-------------------------------
Hi,
I emphatically disagree with your statement, that a.m. webpage is a good one. Reason in short: It alledges war crimes, without making the slightest attempt to double-check the facts. Most \'crimes\' cited are single-source without any attempt to get the viewpoint of the other side. It is a glaring example of a bad internet publication being accepted and passed around without a critical view. Rgds, RB</HTML>
I see your point. However, researchers know that unsubstantiated information - especially on the Internet - is of little value by itself.
The page is a good one in the sense that it is the beginning of a collection. It is a starting point for more serious researchers, who are obligated to provide the \"critical view\". It is not a book or a peer-reviewed publication; only a poor researcher would treat it as such.
It would be unwise to totally dismiss a source based on the presence of some bad, incomplete, or one-sided information. After all, we don\'t ignore uboat.net just because of typos, incomplete information, and one-sided content.
Rainer Bruns wrote:
-------------------------------
Hi,
I emphatically disagree with your statement, that a.m. webpage is a good one. Reason in short: It alledges war crimes, without making the slightest attempt to double-check the facts. Most \'crimes\' cited are single-source without any attempt to get the viewpoint of the other side. It is a glaring example of a bad internet publication being accepted and passed around without a critical view. Rgds, RB</HTML>