"The Cactus Air Force: Air War over Guadalcanal" by Eric Hammel & Thomas McKelvey Cleaver

[Alfred.MONZAT]

"Using diary entries, interviews and first-hand accounts, this vivid narrative brings to life the struggle in the air over the island of Guadalcanal between August 20 and November 15, 1942.
For 40 years from 1961, the late Eric Hammel interviewed more than 150 American participants in the air campaign at Guadalcanal, none of whom are still alive. These interviews are the most comprehensive first-person accounts of the battle assembled by any historian. More importantly, they involved the junior officers and enlisted men whose stories and memories were not part of the official history, thus providing a unique insight.
The battle of Guadalcanal was the first offensive operation undertaken by the US and its allies in the Pacific War. Cactus, the code name for the island, became a sinkhole for Japanese air and naval power, experienced forces whose losses could never be made good. The three months of air battles between August 20, 1942, when the first Marine air unit arrived on the island, and November 15, when the last enemy attempt to retake the island was defeated, were perhaps the most important of the Pacific War. After November 15, 1942, the US never looked back as its forces moved across the Pacific to the war's inevitable conclusion.
The Cactus Air Force is a joint project between the late Eric Hammel and Pacific War expert Thomas McKelvey Cleaver, and is unlike any other of the many histories of this event that have been published over the years."



Expected for the 1st of September 2022 in Hardback, Audiobook and other electronic formats.

Source: https://ospreypublishing.com/the-cactus-air-force

[Larry deZeng]

There have been a number of books on this subject since 1969. Google the title for a list of the books. Makes ya' wonder what Hammond & Cleaver could dig up in 2022 to give fresh input to this well-covered subject?

Miller, Thomas G. (1969). Cactus Air Force. Admiral Nimitz Foundation. ISBN 0-934841-17-9.

L. deZ.

[twocee]

The fact that they need to label one of the authors as a "Pacific War expert" immediately sows seeds of doubt.

[NickM]

Originally Posted by twocee

The fact that they need to label one of the authors as a "Pacific War expert" immediately sows seeds of doubt.

Looking at the Amazon reviews of Mckeevey's book on the Korean Air War, made me dubious. As one guy in the review section pointed out, his rather uncritical 'acceptance' of the USSR Mig regiments' vic claims and other matters (like his personal political prejudices, leaking into the story; his 'mile wide, but inch deep understanding of matters military') makes it hard to accept the work.

[SteveR]

I've read a couple of Cleaver's books. I won't make that mistake again.

[NickM]

Originally Posted by SteveR

I've read a couple of Cleaver's books. I won't make that mistake again.

Sounds interesting! Care to elaborate--if even on a PM?

[Alfred.MONZAT]

Originally Posted by SteveR

I've read a couple of Cleaver's books. I won't make that mistake again.

Which ones? I'm also curious what you have against them/him.

[SteveR]

I truly do not care about and do not want to know about the political views of an author of a history book. Doesn't matter if I agree, disagree, or am indifferent to those views. If I'm reading history I want to read history, not an author's personal political opinions.

Making it worse, IMO, is when the author tries to present their subjective opinion about someone with whom they agree politically as if it is objective fact, usually through a massive amount of cherry-picking, gaslighting, ignoring things inconvenient to the political narrative they're espousing, and/or whataboutism. "He was just a freedom fighter!" "He didn't want to but those bad guys, who were bad for having different political ideas, forced him to." "But he did so many good things that those few accidental missteps, which totally aren't his fault, shouldn't be held against him!"

Finally, when an author makes alignment with his own political biases be the determining factor on whether or not source material is factual and credible, rather than letting those sources stand or fall on their merits, I'm done with that author.

Cleaver is very guilty of that last point in his books on Korea (I haven't, and won't bother, reading anything he's written on Viet Nam). As an example of what I mean, according to Cleaver, anything asserted in Russian, Chinese, or North Korean sources (like an aircraft being shot down at a given place, date, and time) is 100% true and factual even though there's no corroboration from American records, because American records are full of errors, lies, omissions, and gaps whereas communist records aren't because communists don't lie, they have no reason to, and they don't make errors.

Umm, at the most basic level humans are still humans and thus subject to the same errors and foibles before you start adding in other things/factors.

Never mind that the truth is often somewhere between what that side says and what the other side says in terms of objective facts.

[Stig Jarlevik]

Admittedly I have only one book by Cleaver, a WW 2 one which made at least me a bit disappointed.

Pacific Thunder was written in 2017 and by that time writing such a book without any acknowledgement
to any kind of Japanese sources is strange to say the least.
It contains no claims nor loss lists from any side meaning its value is very limited (to me)

That is even more strange since he obviously is referring to various "other side" data when writing about Korea.
I know nothing of his political views, but perhaps he is totally unaware of the revision now done by Russian
researchers with regard to the Soviet (communist) side of things in WW 2?

Why anyone today should still think claims made by any side, during any conflict is gospel, is
completely beyond me....

Cheers
Stig

[SteveR]

Originally Posted by Stig Jarlevik

Why anyone today should still think claims made by any side, during any conflict is gospel, is
completely beyond me....

Cheers
Stig

Yes! 100% agree!

You've touched on another thing about his WW II Pacific books (at least the ones I've read) that disappoints me - there's nothing new in them. No new info, no new perspectives or analysis, etc. Simply a regurgitation of the same stuff that's already been published many times in the past.

As an example, Cleaver's book on Rabaul - Under the Southern Cross I think it was called - offered nothing new at all on the subject. Very disappointing. Based on his track record I can't imagine this book on the Cactus Air Force will have anything new or anything from the Japanese side.

Now when the first book in the new series by Michael Claringbould on the Solomons comes out (not long now!) I'll get it immediately...