Two New Book Reviews Published

Just an update on two new book reviews done by yours truly. The first has been published by the Michigan War Studies Review. In February I was asked to join their stable of reviewers and I wholeheartedly agreed. For those of you who haven't had a chance to take a look at the work done by the Michigan War Studies Review I can't recommend it enough. The Michigan War Studies Review (MiWSR, formerly MWSR) is an online scholarly journal affiliated with the Michigan War Studies Group and edited by James P. Holoka. Items are published on a rolling basis and gathered in annual volumes.

My first review for MiWSR is Nathan N. Prefer's The Battle for Tinian: Vital Stepping Stone in America's War Against Japan. I am happy to say that I was able to recommend the book. Don't be afraid to take a look at what I thought of it. Nor should you be afraid to pick up a copy for yourself if you are in the mood for a quick, engaging read about a little known battle from the Second World War. I will also let you know when my next MiWSR review is published.

In the meantime I took the time to review David Stahel's Kiev 1941: Hitler's Battle for Supremacy in the East. Though there is much that is problematic with Stahel's work, there are some commendable qualities about the book. That said it is hard to get past the fact that Stahel struggles to establish and defend his primary thesis even though it is virtually the same thesis as that of his first book in his larger Barbarossa trilogy. Please note that I am not in the habit of giving out negative reviews. In fact, this is the first review I have done whereby I was not able to fully recommend the author's work. It's just that it is hard to ignore the reality that Stahel appears to have set an agenda first, and then contorted the facts to fit his loosely defended position. This is the complete antithesis of what a historian should be doing in terms of clarifying the historical record. For instance, and in regards to my own book, I have explained elsewhere how my research led to the establishment and testing of my thesis, not the other way around.