Title: Argumentative History
Product review: Cortesi's book argues about numbers of ships involved, planes, air groups involved, losses and even positions. It seems like a fruitless set of arguments, and he can't offer war-records anymore than he offers sources for his numerous "personal conversations" and "quotes" from the participants. While McAulay's book is so confusing because of duplicate war-reports, at least he offers reasons for his book's vast confusion. Cortesi doesn't - he just argues, just to argue with Samuel Morison's version as if this makes his book more sellable.But it's not very readable. And difficult to believe because of the vast number of "personal conversations" he invents.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
