Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternjaeger
I know, I'm renown for my insightful reviews...
That's what several historians think of him, it's a sort of common knowledge in the sector, and the way he writes is the reason of this judgement. I never met him personally, but according to a close friend who met him at a book signing event he apparently fits the bill of the typical "we English won the war cos we're better, period" delusional individuals.
|
I was under the impression that his book was interesting. When I read it, if he stated his facts correctly, his thesis that the BoB wasn't a close call seemed plausible, or at least worth consideration.
Like I said, I didn't like him as a writer, maybe even as a person, but as a historian I got a good impression of him. Is the book wrong? Erroneous statements, lies? I am honestly asking, since I've mainly read good things about the book, and honestly don't recall getting the "we won 'os we're better" feeling when I read it.
Thanks for any further info!