Quote:
Originally Posted by CCIP
You could also argue, though, that Blair somewhat discredits himself by really pressing an agenda onto the data - his research is excellent, but the way in which he writes it up is very aggressive and seeks to undermine and break down any and all achievements by the U-boat force, to the point where he really comes off as seriously anti-German. All the more so because of his writing on the US Submarine campaign (which is far better as writing goes, IMO), which further hints at that bias. That's really a shame from my perspective, because his writing makes his excellent data seem more suspect (due to his apparent bias) than it should be. I really wish his writing were more neutral and balanced- it'd only strengthen his main point, not undermine it. The data already speaks for itself, he really didn't have to push it as hard as he did.
|
CCIP, I would disagree with your assessment. I have read both works and have seen no evidence of a anti-german or pro-U.S. bias. Both works are written in a dry, Time-corporate
"just the facts, ma'am!" style, but that is not surprising since he worked as a Time journalist for a long time.
In his blurbs on individual patrols, he is respectful of individual skippers and crews, whether German or American. He is critical of the German high command for several reasons, but he is equally critical of the U.S. high command for their mistakes in the Pacific.
Most of the criticism of Blair comes from the fact that he never saw the U-boats as a serious threat, but the facts are there and uncontested, 99% of all ships that sailed in convoys made it safely to port. In any event, that discussion is a very small part of the 2 books, 99% of which is a narrative of the U-boat war.
I have read many books where the author has a clear bias. I don't put Blair in that category at all, his research is solid and he keeps his opinions to a minimum.