« The disappearance of the old cosmopolitan mosaic | Main | Bandit's Roost »

June 24, 2014



Clearly "a fascination with armed conflict" is a very bad thing. All those historians who write books about the Second World War - Anthony Beevor, Max Hastings, Ian Kershaw, etc., etc. - should stop it immediately.


"Combat is routinely described in the media as though it were a form of sport: combatants are "silent hunters" or "duellists"; they "score a try".

Is she making that up? American newspapers never use words like that. "Duelists?"

Mick H

Yes, some commenters picked up on that. It's nonsense.

sackcloth and ashes

'Last year, when the British army introduced a new combat sidearm, the Glock 17, which replaced the long-standing Browning Hi-Power pistol, the weapon was described without any sense of irony, as a "lifesaver"'.

It is a 'life-saver' if you're in close combat, someone is trying to kill you, and you've got one to hand with a round up the spout, Joanna.

Some comments are so stupid that only an academic can make them.

Recruiting Animal

Her argument against glamourizing ultra-violence is not absurd. Nor is her claim that young men feel a need to prove themselves or that most people ignore their own history of violence.

And she does acknowledge the role of their religious creed. Her error seems, to me, that she doesn't acknowledge it enough.

The comments to this entry are closed.