Stephen Ambrose, Objective analysis and what makes good history.

Hi all

I'm sorry the original thread was closed and I hope this thread will allow me to expand on the points I hoped to make yesterday afternoon which now seems a lifetime ago!

I have read Band of Brothers, ploughed through Pegasus Bridge and endured about fifty pages of D-Day. I found them all to be dismal. Pegasus Bridge reads more like a film treatment than providing a thoughtful, objective analysis of the events surrounding the capture and subsequent defence of the bridge.

Each book seems to me to reflect the author's close relationship to some of those involved. This must preclude him from being able to give a rational view of the events. That in itself is not a slur on Ambrose's character more of a reflection of the very human trait in forming an emotional attachment to the very subjects he wrote about.

As Max Hastings wrote in the introduction to Armaggedon (pages xii and xiii)

...."An American military historian of my acquaintance observed justly, and without envy, that a best-selling colleague had 'taken to raising monuments rather than writing history', by producing a series of volumes which pay homage to the American fighting man.
A US veteran of the north-west Europe campaign praises the works of Stephen Ambrose, saying: 'They make me and my kind feel really good about ourselves' There is absolutely nothing wrong with the creation of romantic records of military experience, which bring a glow to the hearts of many readers, as long as their limitations as history are understood".....

The very best histories are those written as a critical, objective analysis of the events, using as many sources as are available all of which have been or are still available for further research. This type of history usually creates diverse, interesting and sometimes heated debate which is seldom dull. They usually sell well too.

I invite contributions to a list of such works so that readers may share a title that may have gone unknown to others, be a recommended read or just to share the love of a title, a Desert Island read, for further discussion.

Regards

Jonathan

 

Points well made about Stephen Ambrose. I did enjoy "Citizen Soldiers" but his works are not something I would readily put on a list about decent history books. I found Carlo D'Este's "decision in Normandy" to be a reasonable treatment of the Normandy Campaign. So I would put that forward (I'm someone can punch a hole in my recommendation!!)

 

Decision in Normandy is an excellent choice. Funnily enough, I finally got hold of a copy of Carlo D'Este's Fatal Decision about an hour ago and I expect more of the authors usual excellence.

 

Keegan's Six Armies In Normandy is worth a read.

Ambrose writes for the big screen, and panders to the men he writes about, though I did enjoy Citizen Soldiers. For histories of the 101st, anything by Mark Bando is far superior.

 

I thought " Bcause we are Canadians...a Battlefield Memoir " by Charles D. Kipp to be an excellent read. In typical Canadian style, Sgt. Kipp tells of his experiences during the Normandy Campaign and on to Holland and finally Germany.
It left me with a question....How did these men from the ultimate generation keep moving forward.

Excellent thread JB39. The olive branch is extended.

 

The problem that I, and I suppose many others have with the books of Stephen Ambrose is the shocking lack of attention to detail. For someone who is supposed to have been a pre-eminent historian, he was found wanting in this department. Using Band of Brothers as an example, there are so many glaring mistakes made. For example, Joseph Liebgott was not a jew, but roman catholic, as verified by one of his sons.
Dick Winters did not have the flashbacks of killing a smiling German trooper, and freely admits that he wasn't keen on this inclusion in the series, but that it made good TV!
The trooper killed in the attack on Brécourt Manoir wasn't John Hall, but John D. Halls, a member of 2/506 mortar platoon, and not John Hall of A company, as described in the HBO series.
Perhaps the single most unforgivable error on Ambrose's part is the story of Albert Blithe. Blithe did not die of his wounds sometime shortly after the war. He died quite a few years later, in 1967 whilst on active duty in Korea. Easy Co. veterans believed that Blithe had been injured in the neck and had died of his wounds in Philadelphia in 1948, despite the fact that Blithe had attended the first reuinion of the 101st Airborne Division in 1945. Blithe's 'death' was even mentioned on the 'Carentan' episode as an epilogue. What makes this even worse is that Ambrose didn't bother to verify what some veterans had told him, preferring instead to simply believe what they'd told him, and that even after he knew the full facts, refused to act in retrospect in honour to the dead trooper and his family.
One good thing in Ambrose's stead is his persistence in pressing for the publication of David Kenyon Webster's memoirs, a work he himself borrowed heavily from in creating Band of Brothers.

I've read Citizen Soldiers too, and found that one to be good from the 'human side' of the war, and those who fought it. D-Day, is just a bit daft and doesn't add anything at all to Cornelius Ryan's seminal work on the subject.

I found his Pegasus Bridge book an insult to the bravery of the men who took part in this action. He himself, in his preface to Band of Brothers suggests that he should have listened to the veterans and he could have produced a far better, more accurate book. So, even when following his own advice, it makes it all the more unforgivable that he made so many mistakes with BoB.

 

The very best histories are those written as a critical, objective analysis of the events, using as many sources as are available all of which have been or are still available for further research. ....


In this category I'd nominate Harold R Winton's 'Corps Commanders Of The Bulge' ( University of Kansas Press ,2007 ). Not only does it study six US generals, but it also provides a decent overview of the Ardennes Offensive using much of the most recent research in the field, with many pages of notes and a useful critique of the histiography of the battle.

For an 'academic' book it is surprisingly readable, and I've deliberately picked a book which demonstrates that not all American authors subscribe to 'greatest generation' rhetoric.

 

In this category I'd nominate Harold R Winton's 'Corps Commanders Of The Bulge' ( University of Kansas Press ,2007 ). Not only does it study six US generals, but it also provides a decent overview of the Ardennes Offensive using much of the most recent research in the field, with many pages of notes and a useful critique of the histiography of the battle.

For an 'academic' book it is surprisingly readable, and I've deliberately picked a book which demonstrates that not all American authors subscribe to 'greatest generation' rhetoric.

And I've just been asked by my lovely wife what books I would like for Christmas. This has just gone right to the top of the list. Thanks Martin.

 

I do hope you enjoy it. I'm something of a Bulge 'nut' and have read many books on the subject, but this one, for me, has a fresh slant and many interesting thoughts and insights.....

 

Good to see you posting here again, Martin.

 

Thanks, Paul - I hop over now and again, and try to limit it to when I've actually got something sensible to say.....

 

Thanks, Paul - I hop over now and again, and try to limit it to when I've actually got something sensible to say.....

Which is pretty much all the time.

 

maybe some people might consider him in the same vein as ambrose, but I very much enjoy Paul Brickhills books, dambusters and the one about bader particularly. They are close to the subject, quite insightful and only appear slightly biased at times. re stephen ambrose, I agree with the original poster.

Cornelius Ryan for me is the daddy when it comes to D-day and the arnhem campaign.

 

I must agree with all the comments about Ambrose, I put him in the same league as the Commando comics I used to read, in that they alerted me to the fact things happened and inspired me to read more. At first as a reader I noted everything as truth, but then after reading more learnt it was not all true.

I think everyone should read more than one book on a subject - AND NOONE should really believe anything in a TV series or film which is 'based on fact', especially when the fact could just be that there was an Easy Company with 'x' veterans that fought in the Second World War.

 

...

 

I've just read something in the chapter notes in 'Fire Mission!' by Robert Weiss that shows Ambrose in a bad light & thought I ought to share here.

Quoted from the notes for Chapter 18 'Last Chance' when describing the firing of E/120 Infantry's last 60mm mortar round when they were surrounded on Hill 314.
I've just read my version of the book and indeed the reference that was complained about was removed. It does state that Lt. Kerley "Was exhausted. But he kept at his work". But nothing about being on "the edge of breaking". I obviously have a later edition of the work.

 

I read The Wild Blue about 6 months ago and was disappointed. At one point, when the author mentioned that a large number of POWs had escaped from a German camp, were recaptured and ALL murdered, I thought, "Is he referring to The Great Escape?"

He neglected to mention that this incident was indeed The Great Escape, and that only 50 of the 73 who were recaptured were murdered (3 of the original 76 escapees made it home). I wondered why he wouldn't even refer to it as The Great Escape, which is so well known in our culture.

Further investigation showed that Ambrose didn't even write most of the book, although it is his name (and his name only) on the cover. Apparently someone else started the book, George McGovern's people weren't happy with it, and they asked Ambrose to finish it.

Sorry, but if this is typical of the calibre of his work, I'm not impressed.

Marc

 

Just to add, frankly Ambrose work is pure drivel.

Uncovering Stephen Ambrose’s fake Eisenhower interviews : The New Yorker

I mean that this is not wider knowledge still surprises me, the man was (arguably) a fantastist and a liar. Recently I dissected some of his work and found that his greatest rhetoric and arguments were totally uncited and unfounded (like many, many other historians.)

But the Eisenhower interview controversy, combined with Wild Blue, well... says it all really.

 

Just to add, frankly Ambrose work is pure drivel.


Wel said