It seems that not everyone likes those tough-minded ‘Military History’ reviews
Remember last month I said how much I like the no-holds-barred reviews in The Journal of Military History? Well, it turns out that not everyone agrees — especially some of those getting reviewed.
Remember last month I said how much I like the no-holds-barred reviews in the Journal of Military History? Well, it turns out that not everyone agrees — especially some of those getting reviewed.
Remember last month I said how much I like the no-holds-barred reviews in the Journal of Military History? Well, it turns out that not everyone agrees — especially some of those getting reviewed.
In the October issue, Edward Erickson takes some exception to two reviews of his book on how the Ottomans carried out the Armenian genocide.
“Imagine my shock when I found myself libeled as an apologist for the Armenian genocide,” he begins.
One reviewer, he adds, “misses the point of my argument.” He found the review contained “condescending and virulent ad hominem attacks.” He calls this “personal mud-slinging.” He ends where he begins, alleging that he is a victim of “libel and defamation.”
He sounds pissed.
Image credit: Flickr
More from Foreign Policy

At Long Last, the Foreign Service Gets the Netflix Treatment
Keri Russell gets Drexel furniture but no Senate confirmation hearing.

How Macron Is Blocking EU Strategy on Russia and China
As a strategic consensus emerges in Europe, France is in the way.

What the Bush-Obama China Memos Reveal
Newly declassified documents contain important lessons for U.S. China policy.

Russia’s Boom Business Goes Bust
Moscow’s arms exports have fallen to levels not seen since the Soviet Union’s collapse.