warspite1 -> RE: What Book Are You Reading at the moment? (9/14/2017 6:49:03 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 quote:
Harman states that Fighter Command had 1,400(!) 'ultra-modern' fighters in 1940 - and you don’t see any possible flaws with the book? Are you disputing the number, quality, or both? warspite1 With regard to this 'fact' I am certainly disputing both the number and the quality. But remember this is more than that. I don't want this to become just a discussion on the campaign (although of course that will naturally and quite necessarily feature heavily). I also want to discuss the presentation of the 'facts', the research carried out, the sources, and what 'new' information this author has actually brought to the party. Re the 'fact' above, the author quotes this number in Chapter 4 but does not say from where it comes and I have never seen this from any other source. His notes to chapter 4 - one short paragraph - seem to refer mostly to the army, and 'Official British Histories, taken with a pinch of salt'???? You have championed this book across a number of threads and a couple of forums as being 'awesome' and using 'info released after Britain's Secrets Act expired on the info'. You also states 'It reveals war crimes and deception of her [UK] allies worse than you could imagine than what happened at Mers-el-Kebir'. But I can't see that it does. When I think of 'awesome' books I think of, for example, Shattered Sword. This book seeks to explain the battle in almost forensic detail - and truly dispels myths. Importantly, in so doing the authors state where their new information comes from, they explain the source of the myths and why they believe them wrong. This author troubles himself with no such effort. I presume you have read other books on the Western Front in 1940 and so am really keen to understand what elevates this work into the 'awesome' category and is not just some hack trying to sell a book on a subject much written about by making a number of unsubstantiated statements that he hasn't bothered to properly research or explain.
|
|
|
|