Can a whole book be fallacious?

Completely by accident, whilst doing a bit of research for this new blog, I noticed an ad for this book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1859843557/202-1025247-7403845?v=glance&n=266239

"The No-Nonsense Guide to World History", by Chris Brazier. It clocks in at 144 pages. There are three different things about this which immediately set my BS antennae buzzing. Firstly, anything that claims to be No-Nonsense implies that much of the rest of what your have read is nonsense. Secondly, a book that purports to survey all of world history in 144 pages is automatically suspect, were it written by the most pre-eminent of practising historians. And thirdly, the rest of the No-Nonsense titles are:

"The No-Nonsense Guide to Globalisation"
"The No-Nonsense Guide to the Arms Trade"
"The No-Nonsense Guide to Fair Trade"
"The No-Nonsense Guide to International Development"

I suggest that this is a series of political tracts, written from a socialist perspective. Is the No-Nonsense guide to World History one too? Please comment on this post if you know! I couldn't bring myself to buy it.

Welcome to the Protectors of Historical Truth

Hello everybody,

Welcome to the bastion of Historical truth. I hope thats how it will work out anyway. Not only will this blog contain posts that combat particular historical fallacies, it will also scrutinise common fallacies of argumentation used in both legitimate historical works, and newspapers, magazine, the web and all the other places people write about History.

Most readers and writers of History will have come across historical fallacies as they trawl the great sea of literature. Sometimes it will actually annoy them enough to try to overturn that fallacy in the public mind by writing a riposte. I hope that those people will use this blog to further the cause of Historical accuracy in its eternal struggle against myth, carelessness, special pleading, wayward argumentation and plain lying.

Tally ho!