Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

... ...The author has impressive credentials... he has written many books that set the standard. But something happened here. The problem isn't that he left out Patton (he has covered Patton elsewhere and while he turned around a front, he did not turn around a war.) The choice of Sherman is not a problem... Sherman doubtless saved the Union from throwing in the towel. ...No, the problem is that in the piece on Ridgway there are many errors that should not have been made by anybody who has read at least one history of the Korean War. Why these errors made it into print baffles me. ...The author (as observed in another review) includes Eisenhower as a four star general in a group... then specifically lists MacArthur as only having four. Worse, he lists Ned Almond as a "Marine General..." Anybody who has read anything about the Inchon-Chosin Reservoir period knows that he was an Army General who had a single Marine divison attached to his Corps command. There was bad blood, and calling Almond a "Marine General" would be like calling Bin Laden an "Israeli..." None of the parties would have been able to stomach it. ...The author implies that Almond's Corps was a Marine organization. He wildly asserts that the lack of communication and coordination between X Corps and Eighth Army was because of Marine/Army differences. This is the kind of mistake that one would expect of a college freshman. How could this happen? ...There are supposed to be safeguards to prevent something like this from happening. The publisher is not only supposed to have the work checked for highly improbable grammar and syntax, but read by somebody with at least a basic grounding in the field to catch "howlers..." Did this not happen? ...Sometimes an author gets hard up against a publishing date and spends a few days without sleep "rushing" the completion. No "well rested" check is made and... ...Sometimes an author has an assistant that takes the author's notes on general direction and writes a chapter. Hopefully not in this case. ...I have seen where authors have brilliantly researched a particular subject... and then blow it addressing a related matter. The author who wrote a wonderful history of one Indian tribe... then referenced the Custer Massacre... not only got the year wrong, but stated that "The entire 7th Cavalry was wiped out..." (Actually, more than half survived the campaign...) An author can write brilliantly on what he has researched... and then make some massive errors in an area where his knowledge is lacking. ...Quo Vadis? (What happens now?) I am obviously not the first reader to be shocked by such egregious mistakes by a superb author. Will the author/publisher issue a statement? Will future editions be corrected... or just pumped out? The reputations of both the author and the publisher depend on what happens next. ...This is an important book by an important author. The writing is excellent and it covers some new ground. But readers who find glaring historical errors are reluctant to give credence to information that is new to them... when what they already know has been so badly mangled. YP