3 of 35 people found the following review helpful
A work of fiction,
This review is from: Spitting on a Soldier's Grave (Paperback)
This book is a work of fiction.
Its full of lies and made up stories.
It claims the "Irish Navy" rescued wounded British soldiers from the beaches of Dunkirk even though the Irish Naval Service wasn't established until 1946, six years after the Dunkirk evacuation.
Don't waste your money or time on this book.
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 14 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 17 Oct 2011 14:25:30 BDT
I'm struggling to take your comments on board as you only write negative reviews on books and you clearly made a mistake with the definition of the Irish Navy at the time.
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Oct 2011 14:43:40 BDT
What mistake did I make with the "definition of the Irish Navy at the time"?
There was no "Irish Navy" in 1940.
The Irish Naval Service wasn't established until 1946.
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Oct 2011 15:22:16 BDT
definition: The Marine and Coastwatching service
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Oct 2011 15:36:25 BDT
I know about the Marine and Coastwatching service but the book says an "Irish Navy" rescued wounded British soldiers from the beaches of Dunkirk which is just lies.
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Oct 2011 15:46:23 BDT
and that is my point. The book does not lie, it used the wrong terms which alluded to what the Irish would like to have thought of as the start of a real Irish Navy. You clearly have a passionate interest in the history but you seem 'angry' in your reviews. If the Marine and Coastwatching service didn't rescue any wounded British soldiers from Dunkirk, then you are correct and I can retract what I said.
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Oct 2011 16:14:03 BDT
The Marine and Coastwatching Service didn't go anywhere near Dunkirk.
It saddens me to think people read this book and believing it is true.
If you would like to read about the true history of the Service I would recommend A History of the Irish Naval Service.
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Oct 2011 16:56:20 BDT
Thanks for clarifying Mr Review For You. Perhaps you could add these sorts of structured comments on your reviews so potential readers could see the 'errors' and not assume you were just at odds with the writer. As an Irishman living in England, I never know when a review is just a tirade at the mass indoctrination which is evident in so-called history books.
Posted on 28 Dec 2011 12:59:12 GMT
Kipper Sandwich says:
It's not 'lies', it's an error where the wrong name was used that wasn't spotted in the editing process. It's petty to dismiss an entire book and body of research as being false simply because you found an error in it. Go and research and write your own book and see how difficult it is to write it and put it through a publishing house without errors creeping in.
In reply to an earlier post on 28 Dec 2011 13:16:01 GMT
What about the Dunkirk lies?
Was all that an error as well?
In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jan 2012 20:52:28 GMT
Kipper Sandwich says:
Quite possibly, but the review didn't say that. Your review dismissed the entire book as a load of rubbish and 'a work of fiction' because you found an error where an incorrect date and name were used. It would be 'lies' (i.e. deliberately misleading) if it claimed the moon is made of cheese and homeopathy is an effective medicine, and it would be 'fiction' if it were an adventure story about Indiana Jones digging up a fossilised dragon on the beaches of Dunkirk. It would be far more reasonable if you did not like the book to say you found too many errors in it and it should have been edited and checked better. As it is, it looks more like it was motivated by a conspiracy theory or a personal vendetta against the book's author.