Most helpful critical review
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful
Very badly proof read and ultimately unconvincing
on 18 July 2014
I started off full of enthusiasm, eager for the new perspective. First thing to say however is that I have never read a book with so many proof-reading mistakes (fault of the publishers) or simply so many ungrammatical sentences, many that do not make sense (fault of the author).
P91 - In 1924 the Johnson-Reed immigration act, which imposed quotas based upon the 1890 census of the ideal proportions of 'Nordic' races and Southern and Eastern European immigrants (around two percent). Er?
Numerous instances where condemned prisoners were "hung" instead of correctly "hanged", and enemies "sunk" each other's ships instead of "sank".
I think if we are being asked to pay top dollar for a new book the least we can expect is that it is correctly written, spelled properly and actually makes sense.
As for the content, I nearly gave up at this point on page 107 "To make them follow orders without asking why, armies had training." (Honestly! I paid £15 for this?)
I am even closer to capitulation with this from page 132. "Britain and Germany continued to avoid direct engagement on each other's territory until 1944, when Britain invaded the continent, on the way to the German frontier. Before then, British and German forces carried on their war in other people's countries." (Britain invaded the continent??)
There are dozens of such examples. Mostly I can see where the author is coming from, and I'm aware that it's a revisionist book, but the conclusions Mr Heartfield draws from his evidence often seem completely unjustified or at least highly selective. The book is so badly written that the arguments lose most of their force. I wanted to believe in a new perspective but disappointingly the book is not remotely convincing.