Customer Reviews

AK-47: The Weapon that Changed the Face of War

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(23)

 

 

As a firearms enthusiast and fan of the AK-47 and its variants, I checked this out from my local library without reading any reviews beforehand. I finished it in a matter of hours during two legs of a flight and now truly regret not using that time to read thru the SKYMALL magazine.

AK-47 fails on every level. It fails as biography of Mikhail Kalashnikov, the gun's inventor. It fails as technical history of a rifle. And it fails miserably at what the bulk of the book is directed toward: political history. While any of these approaches (or all three) could easily, and more successfully, be distilled into a decent magazine article (and have been), none are even remotely achieved by Larry Kahaner.

What begins as the story of Kalashnikov deteriorates into half-baked rehashes of global conflicts with a "the rag-tag rebels succeeded because of the affordability of the AK" thrown in each time. And while every author is indeed entitled to their own opinion with regard to firearms, Kahaner's disgust for the AK-47 (and all firearms and the 2nd Amendment and so on) is apparent - and the reader quickly feels duped into picking up what appears to be an historical overview. Kahaner even goes so far as to blame the AK for the use of child soldiers in some conflicts due to its simplicity of use.

AK-47 finishes up lambasting Kalashnikov for marketing his name and spends way too many pages describing failed vodka ventures - none of which relates in any way to the subject matter at hand (or readers who care about the firearm).

For shooting enthusiasts and/or history buffs, this could have been an intelligent read if approached by the right author. I am not so narrow-minded that I would not admit that the affordable, reliable AK-47 has made a difference in global conflicts - I just want to read about how it has from a reliable, objective source.

Simply put, the worst piece of nonfiction regarding any subject I have read in a long, long time.

The AK-47 (the weapon, not the book) turned out to be a reliable rifle that got the job done. This book turns out to be not all that reliable, and it didn't get the job done. I expected a lot more technical detail on the weapon, how it operates, and so on. It's clear that the author is not a gun guy and had no interest in becoming an expert on the subject simply because he was writing a book about a gun.

The book's focus on the effect that the AK-47 has had on the world was interesting, and not something that I had spent much time thinking about before. To that extent, the book was valuable. The chapter on the UN's abortive effort to control trafficking in weapons like the AK-47, however, reflects an astonishing naivete on the author's part. Although the author tries to be balanced in his reporting on the impact of the AK-47, he suffers from a bias that affects what he mentions and what he doesn't. As many of the other reviewers complain, the author seems to think that the problem with the AK-47 is with the object and with not the people who use it.

The author's subtext for the book is "If only the AK-47 had never been invented..." Well, if it hadn't been, people would still be killing each other for the usual reasons, and the author doesn't adequately support his hypothesis that the carnage would be less.

I am strongly ambivalent about AK47. On the one hand it's easy to read and it covers an interesting subject that is relevant today - that easy access to the AK series of weapons in the third world today has helped fuel violence in the last 20 years and is likely to do so for another generation. On the other hand, the book is really a poor political analysis; a book that would not have even been published except for its tie to the AK.

I began the book with high hopes but as I was reading the first few chapters I became increasingly uncomfortable. Finally I realized what I was reading was more of a political commentary interspersed with discussions of the AK.

First, despite his argument that the AK "fuels" conflicts around the world you have to keep in mind that the AK is only one variable in a complex equation of why violence exists. His implication that the AK somehow causes the violence is simplistic and he never really analyzes other causal factors. Having said that, in a strategic sense, the AK does provide the "means" in the strategic equation of a given group trying to achieve a particular goal.

Kahaner also tries to answer the question as to "why" the AK has become so prevalent in today's conflicts. He does this by addressing three factors; political context, arms trading, and the AK's low cost. This leads to the books second weakness: Kahaner spends most of his time with light-weight political analysis. He seems to rely more on "popular" interpretations of past and current wars vice any serious analysis of a given situation. He does this even to the point of throwing in several conspiracy theories without question, and he sometimes engages in outright speculation without supporting his claims by identifying sources. At the same time his narratives on the arms trade shed no new light on the subject, and are not documented despite some rather interesting claims.

At the end of the day the author has no apparent expertise in the areas of international relations or military affairs, which probably explains his weak efforts at putting the AK in political context and showing "why" the weapon has become so common. I have to admit that when I read the author's bio and his list of publications I had reservations; with one exception his area of expertise is the business world. The brief exception mentioned in the bio was a comment that he, "covered the infantry training center at Fort Benning for Knight-Ridder newspapers." But even here his credibility is in question because at one point during the book he writes about a Peruvian general attending the Army's School of the Americas, now the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, at Fort Benning. Unfortunately, at the time the general attended, the school was located in Panama; a small factor but someone familiar with Fort Benning and the school would have known it had been in Panama at the time.

I do agree the AK has affected cultural patterns in some areas of the world; Kahaner points out the AK has not only become an element of barter - a replacement for currency - but that it has also given some traditional tribal groups more power over their rivals, and that the AK has replaced traditional methods of "warfare" in those areas. Also he notes that the AK has become either a status symbol in some groups and a perceived day-to-day necessity in others. And it certainly has become a bit of a cultural icon. But none of this is new.

About all that can be said of the book is that it presents nothing new, but it does put what is known about the AK's impact on society in one place for the lay reader. If your're looking for an easy read with a quick overview of the AK's impact on the world's conflicts today, and as long as you can ignore the political analyis, this is the book for you.

I was disappointed. This book was initially well-written but rapidly devolved into the world of make-believe. Technically, some of the observations the author made were accurate and even relevent but towards the end it descended into some bizarre bashing of U.S. policy regarding gun control... the United Nations could have stepped in and provided controls over the distribution of AK-47s around the world if only the Bush adminsitration had been on board. This alone is an absurd statement. If someone can tell me of a successful UN initiative over the last 50 years I would be glad to listen to it. In the meantime, the UN's role in the sex trade in Africa and its abysmal record in limiting nuclear proliferation makes it a poor model for fixing the problems of the world.

The book is remarkably under-illustrated, even in regards to some graphics and photos which would be easy to acquire. Oh, and the part added to the book about how the Coalition is getting its butt kicked in Iraq thanks to the AK-47 just seems to be a last-minute attempt to cash in on "hate America."

There are better books.

AK-47 gives a firearm way too much credit for transforming how war is fought. If the author's main premise of his book was correct, the Soviets, who were armed with AK-47s, should not have lost in Afghanistan. The author points to other recent wars or conflicts to support his premise, but in every case he comes to the wrong conclusion because his basic thesis is completely flawed.

What has changed is that war in recent history is no longer waged between massive armies of warring nations. Nor is the goal of war the occupation of territory as it had been in previous wars like World War II and World War I. The strategy employed in recent conflicts is the war of attrition perpetrated by forces, though much weaker in firepower, have the advantage of not being in uniform and difficult to identify as the enemy. It's not AK-47s that have bogged the US down in Iraq and it was not AK-47s that drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Nor is the strategy of war of attrition new. George Washington used this strategy in waging the American Revolution. Washington knew that he could not hold territory against the much larger and better-armed British armies and instead adopted a strategy of engagement and retreat. It ultimately became too costly for Britain to continue the fight.

I do agree that the proliferation of firearms around the world by the Soviets and China have contributed significantly to the instability of third world nations. This was indeed a deliberate strategy of the Communist nations to destabilize Western nations. But it is the fact that there were large industrial nations willing to supply insurgents with vast amounts of cheap firearms that's important. It was not because the weapon was the AK-47. Sure the durability and ease of use of the AK-47 was helpful, but it was the fact the AK-47 shoots bullets like any other gun that really matters.

I was intrigued by the bold title and hoped it would give me some new info or a new version of the story, or perhaps some cool technical info... I found quickly that it was written by someone who knows VERY little about guns, and who uses the book as a bully pulpit to spout his political views, and spends the entire book giving a mechanical thing (the AK) a supernatural power to create and WIN wars. The authors lightweight analysis of complex political situations are basically superficial at best, spouting the typical liberal view "guns are bad in the hands of civiians" route where ever possible. Most importantly, his lack of technical gun knowledge is laughable, with constant technical errors all over the book. "Bill Ruger's first invention was a 22 Long Rifle" --- anyone want to tell the author that 22LR is a CALIBER? Or tell him that Bill Ruger's first successful gun was a pistol? KNowing your subject BEFORE you write a book would be advisable, I would guess. I sure am sorry I bought this one, for sure. Oh well, please don't bother to buy this, you can have mine!

Holy smokes.
Ok, I read this. I own an AK-47. Its my favourite rifle, so I wanted to see what he had to say. I almost wish I owned a copy rather than got it a the library, so I could note the errors, but that strikes me as taking too much time. I have no idea if Kahaner is pro- or anti-gun, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. Whats worth noting is how bad his information is, and the assumptions he makes. I don't care which he is, what I care about is accuracy.
He is very American in his outlook that firearms cause wars (like they cause crime, like pencils cause mistakes). He blames the AK for contributing to global conflict, news flash, take away the firearms and give warring people sticks, and they'll use them. Violence occurs regardless of technology.
He continuously refers to the AK as "cheap", quoting prices of $400 to $1400. That isn't cheap, that's more than my AR-15 (The most expensive rifle I own) cost!
He claims that the possession of an AK turns anyone armed with one into the equivalent of a highly trained, well equipped, physically fit, modern soldier. The first thing I thought when I read this was "Cool, I own an AK, so according to Kahaner, now I'm SAS!" This is of course, absurd. The only thing possession of a weapon makes one is armed.
His technical errors abound, often confusing weapons, calibers and other features.
He employs rhetoric (speech designed to evoke an emotional response, rather than convey information). "How are our soldiers/policemen expected to be able to stand up to the overwhelming firepower of the bad guys?" Shooting back is an excellent start-thank you LAPD and the West Hollywood bank robbery.
He claims that the AK changed how wars are fought, that with the introduction of the AK, wars now became unlimited in scope. Pre-47 wars were fought between professional soldiers, post-47 they are fought between paramilitants and civilians. All wars are ultimately fought against civilians.
He blames the AK for the ethnic cleansing in Africa: Rwanda, Zaire, South Africa, Kenya, Somalia, Liberia. It isn't the weapon that changed the scope of these wars, its those who choose to pursue civilians as legitimate targets.
These are all wonderful reasons for me to dislike this book, but what it all boils down to is Kahaner's belief in avoiding personal responsibility for one's actions. That some other device can always be blamed for unacceptable behaviour.

I am really glad I got it from the library, so I didn't have to pay for it.

This was a truly sad piece of 'journalism'. The author can't even be bothered to get the technical details of the weapon correct, much less the biographical aspects of the inventor's life or the political ramifications of the weapon system and it's effect on modern warfare. As a firearms and history enthusiast, I was appalled that such drivel managed to get published. If you want to read a good book about AKs, check out Ezell or Poyer.

I bought a copy in an airport Borders, thinking it would make a good present for an AK-loving friend, but after reading it on the plane it now resides in my condo, shimming a loose shelf support. If I didn't have an almost religious aversion to destroying books, it would have been tinder on a camping trip instead.

This book fails at all levels - as a political history, a technical exploration, and as a biography. The author's dearth of technical knowledge is only matched by his disdain for firearms in general. There were too many inaccuracies of the technical type to list. All in all, not worth reading at all. I am glad that I only checked it out from the library and did not spend money on it.

This is a bad book on several levels. First, it is riddled with technical errors, errors that anyone who knows the basics of firearms would not make. Example: The author refers to the WW II Enfield as a "single-shot" rifle, apparently believing that the British went to war in 1939 equipped as they were in the 1870's. Example: He refers to Ruger's first product as the ".22 caliber Long Rifle..." . He seems not to know that ".22 long rifle" is a caliber and that Ruger's first product was a pistol. He states that .45 ACP is more effective at penetrating ballistic vests than 9mm ammunition, which is simply untrue. Other mistakes abound. One might dismiss this as technical nitpicking, but if he's wrong about these simple facts in a book that presents technical details as if the author were a small-arms expert, WHAT ELSE does he get wrong?
Second, it's poorly written, often going off into flights of arm-waving and hand-wringing prose about such things as third-world flags while discussing something completely different.
Third, his reasoning is completely specious. He blames a machine for damage done by humans, speaking as if this rifle were some sort of evil robot species out of a Michael Crichton novel. He utterly neglects facts of history that do not fit his thesis, a characteristic of the worst sort of propagandist. His argument is the equivalent of holding the Wright Brothers responsible for Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima, Alexander Graham Bell for telemarketing, or Henry Ford for drunken driving.
Because of this combination of incompetence and bias, the book is bad in a fourth way:morally. It misleads the public on an issue of profound social urgency, one that involves the fundamental human right to self-defense.
This book, and this author, should not be taken seriously by anyone with two brain cells to rub together.