Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rldunn
Unfortunately as shown in this thread of comments, there seem to be folks who will question whatever information challenges their preconceived notions.
While this might have been acceptable a few decades ago, recent recantations of inaccurate information (even if providing interesting detail from the Allied side) can only be considered shoddy history and over-priced book selling. On the other hand, if the reader enjoys the book and thinks he has paid a fair price, good for him.
RLD
|
Oh, come on Rick. Call a spade a spade! What are the "recent recantations of inaccurate information"?
The tone of superiority so typical of some American researchers and writers is not worthy of you! Any disagreement, it appears, must be "put down" with a patronising sneer. Poor children, they know not what. Please don't you go down this route too - please respect the other guys view even if you don't agree with it. You won't change his mind with the intellectual equivalent of a battering ram.
"As is the case with any such records, however, it is probably preferable to check the results of the aerial combat or bombing reported therein with Australia records for greater accuracy."
Oh yea! What makes the Japanese records so accurate and the Australian records so inaccurate? A "preconceived notion" maybe?