[edwest2]

A troubling trend is this. Instead of telling the story of a particular battle with appropriate context/background, some self-described historians/scholars are reexamining it through multiple lenses. I'm not looking for psychology or bias, but that's what I'm seeing, along with some speculation.

None of that qualifies as history. However, especially for those under 30 who might be exposed to such books, the breathless praise they receive might lead some in a direction away from proper scholarship. It is said the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. In this case, the price of selecting good military history books is to watch for the widely praised but highly biased and off-topic examples which contribute little to nothing to the historical record. And to expose them. Every time.

What should also be exposed are the people who provide the praise and those who claim to be reviewers who identify a version of the Emperor's new clothes. To write "new sources and analysis" as opposed to "the author wrote the book as she pleased. Buy it." The former being false, and what amounts to more unwarranted praise. This needs to be nipped in the bud.