Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

I was quite anxious to read this book thinking it would be a good complement to "A War to Be Won" (Murray / Millett). As with all books, I reviewed the author's approach, adjusted to the writing style and settled in read and enjoy. The actual review of the Casablanca Conference was cursory; no new insights there. Maybe I missed something, but I let it ride. Then the errors appeared. At first I let them ride, but by 100 pages in, it was grossly apparent that major logical, factual and basic research errors were occurring with too much frequency. Out came the red pen... Sadly it appears that little to no effort was made by the editor to do fact checking. And I don't mean obscure facts: simple dates - wrong (Verdun was 1916,not 1917), photo captions - wrong (its an Me262 Night Fighter (B1) not a Fighter-Bomber (A2), aircraft detail - wrong (Ju52s did not participate in the Battle of Britain as bombers). The author's analysis consists of very board generalization compiled to validate existence of "feedback loops" that result in statements of conjecture. The kind of writing that gets you an automatic C in college. You get the sense that the History Channel was the primary research base. And yes there are typos in the text, at least I don't think 'amd' is a conjunction. I am not quite finished with the book, but it's getting the red pen treatment here on out. If the author, editor or publisher wants notes, drop a line. But I doubt this book will see a second printing.