 | Military History
Availability: Your first issue should arrive in 12-16 weeks. Average customer review: (3 customer reviews) |
Product Description
The nation's oldest and most popular magazine devoted to the history of warfare. Each issue contains incisive accounts from top writers and historians of land, naval and air warfare. Spanning the ages, readers find themselves immersed in battles from a variety of historical periods.
- Amazon Sales Rank: #608 in Magazine Subscriptions
- Format: Magazine Subscription
Most helpful customer reviews
4 of 6 people found the following review helpful.
By Timothy J. Curtiss
I hold the Premier Issue of Military History from August 1984. For more than 20 years it was the only magazine I subscribed to. During that time I enjoyed it immensely.
The magazine had six regular sections, a non political editorial, Weaponry, Personality, Espionage, Travel and Books, as well as four scholarly in-depth stories, one of which was usually an interview of a military veteran.
My favorite articles were about obscure conflicts and lesser known wars. I could always look forward to my issue of Military History to teach me something new that was not something about military history that was generally known.
The first time I was disappointed with the magazine was with the September 2006 issue, which contained a truly ludicrous "Perspectives" article by James Levy which claimed that Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler "bought enough peace for Britain to prepare for Adolf Hitler's next act of aggression."
As an amateur historian, I have read Churchill's History of the Second World War from cover to cover, and none made an impression on me more than "The Gathering Storm." Among other things, Churchill examined the preparedness of the Czech army and their border fortifications in the Sudetenland. When the German officers toured these fortifications after the Munich agreement, even they agreed they would not have succeeded in taking them easily. Czechoslovakia possessed a large strong army in 1938, and could have held off the German army until France and Britain mobilized. Levy fails to mention anything about Czechoslovakia in his idiotic article. In retrospect it is clear that this whole article was not a defense of Neville Chamberlain, but an attack on America's current policy of "aggressive, preemptive war."
The November 2006 article featured another idiotic article by Levy which had no place in a magazine devoted to Military History. "War has a poor record of achieving its goals," Levy claims. I wonder if black people in America feel that way about the Civil War?
The downward spiral continued with the December 2006 issue, featuring an "essay" by the leftist anti-military Philip Beidler rehashing the My Lai incident. My take on it is that if Calley was released, there was a damn good reason to release him, and if Beidler wasn't on the jury, or in the field with Calley, he shouldn't be passing judgment on him now.
The Jan/Feb issue featured the character assassination piece against S.L.A. Marshall. Enough other reader's have commented on this article, there is no need for me to address it, except to highlight it as yet another piece of evidence that this formerly impartial magazine now has an agenda.
Then, of course, came the April 2007 issue, and the magazine dropped all pretense of being a scholarly periodical on military history, and showed itself to be nothing more than a propaganda tabloid for Al-Qaeda. The "Interview," which in the real Military History magazine was a fascinating interview with an actual veteran of WWI, II or some other war, was nothing more than a political piece where pro-Terrorist politician Charles B. Rangel continued undermining our war against terror in Iraq. Immediately following this was a "Voice" article that could have been penned by Osama Bin Laden himself, claiming that the American military had stretched itself too thin, that there was no "moral legitimacy" to the war (tell that to all the Kurds that were gassed) and that the United States is dominant in world affairs only because Japan, Russia and China allow us to be. Let me take this opportunity to state that just because someone wears a West Point or Annapolis ring doesn't mean he can't be a traitor. Jimmy Carter graduated from Annapolis, yet he was the worst president in this century and his abandonment of the Shah and appeasement of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini are responsible for the mess we are in today vis a vis Iran, and the very real possibility that one of our cities will suffer a nuclear terrorist attack from a weapon developed by Iran. I don't know why Andrew J Bacevich is stabbing his country and military in the back, but I do know his opinions have no place in Military History magazine.
Add to that the juvenile new format and dumbed down articles, and you can see that Eric Wierder's Military History is only a pathetic parody of what was a great magazine until he bought it. My advise to you is to steer well clear of it. If you want to read a really good magazine about military history, check for back issues of the real Military History magazine prior to September 2006. On my part, I will be checking out the Military Heritage magazine you mentioned.
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful.
By The Tuna
Military History magazine is the cream of this type of magazine. The magazine is nicely laid out, easy to read, well-written and it covers a wide variety of subjects. There is no particular slant... other than articles written to keep the reader turning the pages.
Over the roughly dozen issues I have seen, there were articles on battles ranging from the American Civil War, both World Wars, Vietnam, various Middle East conflicts, sea/submarine stories, British battles... a great variety. All are thoroughly researched and ring true to my fairly good knowledge of history.
Recommended for at least high school age and from there any history buff would find this magazine interesting.
2 of 4 people found the following review helpful.
By Elizabeth Browning
I know this is a great magazine but I would not have ordered it from Amazon if I had known it would take over 3 months to receive the first issue. I gave it as a gift and the receiver was disappointed to know it would take so long to start receiving it. I don't understand the long delay.
No comments:
Post a Comment