More Noted Things

by Cliopatria

History Carnival LVII is up at Osprey Publishing Blog!

Our" colleague", Rachel Leow, recommends The"Blog" of"Unnecessary" Quotation Marks and adds:

there totally needs to be an academic counterpart for this. the preposterous number of words that are fearfully scarequoted in academic writing today deserves attention too. viz.,"truth","text","the west","bias","history" …

The "Devil's Bible", a 13th century manuscript produced in a Benedictine monastery near Prague, is currently on display there for the first time since it was taken by Swedish troops at the end of the Thirty Years War. Thanks to Manan Ahmed for the tip.

[Robert Ellman],"The Industrial Revolution Unplugged: An Interview with Author Gregory Clark," Progressive Historians, 29 September, is a good companion to Cliopatria's symposium on Clark's A Farewell to Alms.

Edward Rothstein,"Letting World War II Unfold as a Story from the Heart, Not the Maps," NYT, 1 October, is critical of Ken Burns' The War for its fixation on the emotional impact of individual stories and consequent failure to feature the historical significance of the war.

Rick Perlstein,"The Best Wars of Their Lives," Nation, 15 October, is a damaging review of Mark Moyar's Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965 and Lewis Sorley's A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam. Hat tip.

Stuart Taylor,"Free Speech and Double Standards," National Journal, 1 October, argues that the academic left hasn't defended free speech until it defends speech with which it disagrees.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Grant W Jones - 10/4/2007

I have read it and Perlstein mischaracterizes both books. Sorley used the Abrams tapes in order to illustrate that there was a major change in strategy after Abrams took command. Sorley's selected biblio is over twenty pages long. He used many primary and secondary sources to support his thesis, not just the Abrams tapes as Perlstein would like to imply.

Perlstein is also shocked, SHOCKED, that Moyar and Sorley have differing views. He seems to think they are collaborators in some "neo-con" conspiracy. He even fails to note that their respective books deal with entirely different eras and issues. Moyar's book from 1954-65, and Sorley's from 1968-1975.

I learn new things from Cliopatria on occasion, but I have nothing to learn from Nation rag hit pieces.

Ralph E. Luker - 10/3/2007

Grant, Don't be a bloody idiot! I didn't say that Perlstein's piece was the final word on the subject, but you *still* haven't read it! What's the point of your commenting at Cliopatria? You don't learn anything here because you *know* everything already. Why not take your brilliance elsewhere and share it with people who appreciate it.

Grant W Jones - 10/3/2007

Your sense, in this case, is dead wrong. I have read numerous books, monographs, articles and primary documents on the war from a wide variety of prespectives. As difficult as it may be for you to understand, one can honestly come to the opposite conclusions of a Nation rag hit piece on the Vietnam War.

If you are really interested in reading something that challanges your assumptions, I suggest two works by Marine officers who had extensive service in Vietnam: Lewis Walt, "Strange War, Strange Strategy." In "The Betrayal" William R. Corson pulls no punches on the ill-conceived American strategy and tactics used in the war.

Ralph E. Luker - 10/3/2007

Actually, Grant, 20th century American military history isn't my field and I read very little in it, as you'd imagine. I often *do* read work that challenges my own assumptions, however. My sense is that you read *only* to re-enforce yours.

Grant W Jones - 10/3/2007

Ralph,

I have read Sorley's, Moyar's and Hanoi's books, have you? Sorry if the views from the PAVN don't square with your and the Nation's misconceptions.

Chris, suprisingly the PAVN tome provides a great deal of candor despite its Nation magazine level of "progressive" bombast. It is a very helpful source when used carefully.

Chris Bray - 10/3/2007

I think the news here is that Grant Jones considers "the commies" to be a credible and reliable source of information. Who knew?

Ralph E. Luker - 10/2/2007

Grant, Did you bother to *read* Perlstine's review of Sorley's book? Why don't you surprise us sometime with a comment indicating that you have an interest in history *other* than for its propaganda value? As it is, your comments are boring and predictable.

Grant W Jones - 10/2/2007

Sorley's thesis in "A Better War" was confirmed by the commies. See "Victory in Vietnam: the Official History of the People's Army of Vietnam, 1954-1975" published by the Military History Institute of Vietnam, especially chapter 10, pp. 237-252. It was originally published in Hanoi in 1988 and revised in 1994. Kansas University Press published an English translation in 2002.

No greater praise was ever given Creighton Abrams: "The enemy's horrible, insidious pacification program and his acts of destruction created immeasurable difficulties and complications for our armed forces and civilian population." (p. 240)