MengJiaoRedux Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 What ... Clancy couldn't find anyone to go on his committee that knew what a map was? Wow. That's a rather extreme reaction. I've moved in the opposite direction, and now seldom read anything not written in the last 10-20 years. There's been some wonderful analysis and synthesis written in that time, able to use recently opened archives and leverage off some questionable earlier works. I find books written before the 1980s* tend to be quite superficial, lacking in resources, and tend to have a very narrow perspective. Jon * I'm specifically thinking about WWII books here. I was unclear. I'm staying away from books about anything more recent than the 1980s at least if I'm looking for plausibility. In the area of WWII things have gotten much, much better lately -- Frank on things in the Pacific, Glantz on Russia, Adam Tozze on Germany for example. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I was unclear. I'm staying away from books about anything more recent than the 1980s at least if I'm looking for plausibility. Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, even books on the Falklands War are still a bit flakey, although they're getting a LOT better than the ones written in the immediate aftermath. There's an absolute torrent of first-person memoirs coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of them are ok as far as they go, but they understandably tend toward the jingoistic, and of course there's practically nothing from the other side of the hill yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.