Kilduff: Revisionist or Historian?

[Alan]

Ok. I've heard Peter Kilduff bashed, lauded, criticized, and praised here. As a fledgling WWI aviation researcher, I own several of his books, even tracked him down by e-mail and asked a polite question (to which I got a rather "buy my book for your answer" response.) With all of this in mind, fellow formites, what are your thoughts on his scholarship? I've seen him accredited on WWI aviation shows on THC and Discovery: Wings, so he is a somebody.

That being said, thanks in advance, and have at it!

[StephenLawson]

I am the great and Powerful PK!!!! Pay no attention to that man behind the screen!!!!

[Barrett]

I've had no contact in at least 4-5 years but he's always been cordial and helpful.

[Alan]

Ah, but Barrett, can it be because you are among the published? *you know, professional courtesy and whatnot?

To us aspirants, are we just pond scum beneath his notice? *

You know, I have had contact with numerous authors before, not more than are present here mind you, and they have all been cool people. *And here, well, all of the professional writers have been much more forthcoming and helpful. *It's quite encouraging.

And the other folks here, the avid fans and scholars, have been so much more helpful than Mr. Kilduff.

I'm really digressing from the post because ultimately, I'm just soliciting for what the formites think of his works and I guess Mr. Lawson has let us know how he feels....sorta... *

[Richard_Schrader]

Alan;
I have several books by Mr Kilduff and I think he does very good research. I consider him "the" MvR historian.

Richard Schrader

[Cigogne]

I think Peter Kilduff is a serious researcher. I'll say for one thing... he is the Endnote King! If you want to find out the sources he sure lists them there. I have benefitted by the perusal of them a great deal. They are an art in and of themselves. I don't think you'll find a Stephen Ambrose problem here.

Cigogne

[Gregvan]

First of all, I must state that I've known Peter Kilduff for almost 20 years, and consider him a friend and colleague; so I'm biased. Back in those long ago days when I was an ignorant idiot (there are those who will say I haven't progressed much ) he was very helpful and generous to me, and has remained so.

He is certainly a dedicated researcher and a historian who brings a professional journalistic approach to his writings. I think his works on MvR are the best that have ever been done. Some may ask why he's written so much on MvR in recent years, but I can tell you from personal experience that that's the kind of stuff publishers want and what they commission authors to write about. I think Peter is actually much more interested in the more mundane two-seater operations, etc and has written extensively about recon and bomber operations for "OtF", and before it, for "Cross & Cockade". This also brings me to the fact that, despite being one of the most popular and busiest WWI aviation writers around, he continues to contribute very scholarly (and fascinating) material to the non-profit journal "Over the Front" - so he's not just in it for the money (not that anybody could make much of a living writing solely on WWI aviation - it's such a small market base).

Alan B's original question of this thread asks "historian or revisionist ?" Having read the other "revisionist" thread several times, it seems to me that there are several operating definitions of this term, but I don't see any reason one can't be both a serious historian and someone who revises past incorrect or inaccurate versions of history. Having said that, I'm not sure why Peter Kilduff has been described as a revisionist - unless his penchant for carefully going back to original primary sources and documenting his sources with endnotes (a penchant I greatly admire - like Cigogne, I've learned a lot from them) makes him one. I think he's done more to present accurate, carefully documented WWI aviation history to the public than many. In that he is in good company, of people like Rick, Gunnar, Dan-San, Mosen,Rammjaeger, Alex Revell,J M Bruce, Gregori Alegi, Mike W, and many, many more on this forum, and elsewhere.If correcting the inaccurate material published in the past makes one a revisionist, then perhaps the estimable Peter Grosz certainly qualifies as one for his unfailing efforts to tell the real story behind the A R Weyl/Reinhold Platz-as-designer myth - and we are much better off for it.

I've probably muddied the waters even more with my ramblings, but I felt I had to put in my 2 cents worth. In my opinion, Peter Kilduff is one of the best historians in the field of WWI aviation writing today; fortunately for us, there are so many others doing equally good work, both on this forum and elsewhere.

Greg

[Barrett]

Concur w/Greg.
A small addendum:
I always respond to queries from readers, even when the appropriate reply might be "RTFM." However, the depth of my reply (assuming I have the desired info) depends on my workload. If I don't have the info I try to refer the reader elsewhere. But if I'm looking at a no-kidding deadline, my reply will reflect how much time I have to help the reader. I'm a professional writer, which means I gotta do MY thing before I help do somebody else's thing. Presently I'm writing two books and three articles, all but one with specific deadlines. It's possible that Peter K's in the same position.
Break-break
A separate but related subject: generating new historians. It's a pet topic of mine, since the aero history community is necessarily self-perpetuating. There are no schools for producing aviation historians, and most of the folks active in the field are devoted amateurs with day jobs. Therefore, it's in everyone's interest to help nurture new blood, which is what I try to do. But before I'll commit much time beyond an initial reponse, I gotta be convinced it's worth my effort. Two questions: how serious is this individual and how capable is he likely to prove? (A lesser question is how valuable is the topic he's studying? There are some REAL esoteric interests out there!) Unfortunately, sometimes it's hard to ID the serious ones. Recently an ace passed an e-mail to me from a "writer" wanting info for an article on living US aces. The tone and wording of the e-mail convinced me he was a wannabe in search of an outlet. Turned out he's a photographer for a major magazine, but he didn't say so at the start.

[Billy9]

I agree with Barrett and Greg, I have been associated with Peter Kilduff for many years dating back into the 1960's. He had always been helpful and supportive and in the beginning a mentor.


Bill

[Lufbery]

Break-break
A separate but related subject: generating new historians. It's a pet topic of mine, since the aero history community is necessarily self-perpetuating. There are no schools for producing aviation historians, and most of the folks active in the field are devoted amateurs with day jobs. Therefore, it's in everyone's interest to help nurture new blood, which is what I try to do. But before I'll commit much time beyond an initial reponse, I gotta be convinced it's worth my effort. Two questions: how serious is this individual and how capable is he likely to prove? (A lesser question is how valuable is the topic he's studying? There are some REAL esoteric interests out there!) Unfortunately, sometimes it's hard to ID the serious ones. Recently an ace passed an e-mail to me from a "writer" wanting info for an article on living US aces. The tone and wording of the e-mail convinced me he was a wannabe in search of an outlet. Turned out he's a photographer for a major magazine, but he didn't say so at the start.

Barrett, as a dedicated amateur and historian wannabe, I can say that (a) your help has been very valuable, and (B) it's not easy getting published. Until I can hone my craft a bit, and figure out how to do what I need to do, things are going to go slowly and I'll keep my day job.

I think like a lot of things, writing about aviation history simply takes experience. I fear I'm going to come across as a wannabe for a while until I get some clips.

Regards,