Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rice!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu
From: sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ken  Sheppardson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: annotated Pentagon report book reference wanted....
Summary: Gervasi's intent
Message-ID: <3358@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 23 Jan 89 02:29:54 GMT
References: <3330@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: U of M Engineering, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Lines: 49
Approved: military@att.att.com


Bill Thacker writes:
> 
> >When I was in St. Paul for AAAI last summer, I saw a book in one of the
> >chain bookstores (B. Dalton, Doublday, Walden, something like that) that
> >was an annotated version of the Pentagon's report on the military 
> >armarment and capabilities of the US and the USSR...
> 
> It sounds like _Soviet Military Power*_  (*-The Pentagon's Propaganda
> Document, Annotated and Corrected) by Tom Gervasi (Author of _The
> Arsenal of Democracy_. (c)1987 by Tom Gervasi and Bob Adelman; Random
> House, NY, publisher. [ISBN 0-394-75715-7]
> 
> [...]
>
> The books is completely biased, no question; barely a paragraph slips
> by without a rebuttal by Gervasi.  However, I find merit in a few of his
> comments (though they're difficult to find, and far between).
> 

  We used this book as a text in a Sociology course which examined how the
  arms race "got out of hand".  
 
  I believe Gervasi intended the book as a source of counter-propoganda.
 
  Apparently Gervasi, along with many others, believes the original
  document was intentionally extremely biased.  It gives the impression
  the US is about to be buried by the Soviet Union, and that we MUST
  build everything we possibly can to defend ourselves.  Since it
  was being presented to and used by some as the final word on the
  US/Soviet military situation, Gervasi decided to present the other
  side of the argument.  
  
  Of course it's extremely biased, and I think Gervasi himself would admit that.

  The point is it provides the other side of the argument, and I think
  it does that quite effectively.
 

                                                   Ken Sheppardson
                                                   U of Michigan College of Engin
                                                   Aerospace Engin Dept
          


[mod. note: I was unaware that counterpropoganda was the intent of this
book.  Certainly, I agree that the original Pentagon document was also
quite biased; as an example.  I agree that it is written quite
effectively... had *me* fooled 8-) - Bill ]