"Ambrose: D-Day" Topic

Just read this superb account of D-Day. My review here:

link

As ever, comments here – or better still on my blog – much appreciated.

The best part about this book is that my dad is in it.

I bought it was quite good – but it should be titled "Omaha"

After reading "Band of Brothers" I decided I would never read another Ambrose book again. As much fiction as fact.

I understand that his reputation was trashed a few years back. Having read the criticism of him I decided not to buy or read anything he wrote.

I guess he was a good historian once. Some of his earlier works are very good. But then he got famous and started cutting corners on research to get more books in print and that led to an inevitable decline in quality.

I think this whole issue about Ambrose's reputation and quality as a historian is being totally overblown. It's like 'throwing the baby out with the bath water' as we say here in the UK.

As far as I know Forbes Magazine writer Mark Lewis has (or had) it in for Stephen Ambrose. Quite why, I don't know. If you want to understand this all better, (including forensic examination of numerous of the charges laid at Ambrose's door) then read this:

link

Do I give more credit to Mark Lewis' attacks on Ambrose, subsequently picked up and parroted elsewhere (that's true plagiarism without attribution in an attempt to mislead), or do I take Richard Jensen's more scholarly and reasoned line? Personally I take the latter.

Also, why decide to not read or trust an author (even if on such flimsy allegations as Forbes make) altogether? British historian Orlando Figes was (in)famously caught posting anonymous reviews trashing his peers' work and praising his own on Amazon's websites. Whilst he eventually admitted full culpability, even paying damages to two of the authors he maligned, yet he still holds his post at Birkbeck University, and hasn't been made a pariah.

Personally I think Figes' behaviour far more reprehensible than Ambrose's, and yet, nevertheless, despite thinking less of him as a human being, and being more wary of the validity of his work or opinions, I will still read his historical works.

I found this message thread fascinating. I followed all the links and that led on to the Capa lost images story and Prof Jensen's expert analysis as an academic historian. I have lost one hour of my life, which I can never get back, since opening this. But, do you know what, well worth it.

Ambrose's D day was solely about that Longest Day itself and we might forgive him if Omaha dominates. It was rather unpleasant along its whole length, whilst Canadian, British and Utah beaches could vary from hellfire to an almost unopposed landing (well the first few minutes ashore anyway)

The subtitle? Well I might argue Battle of Britain 40, Moscow 41, Stalingrad 42, Midway 42 better choices

It's not only Forbes. The historian Robert Forczyk has a pretty dim view of his work here;

link

I'm not interested in any of Mr Figes' writings, so, for me, the comparison is irrelevant. I am interested in WWII, and if a fellow author of works on that period criticises Ambrose then I take note.

Pretty compelling evidence he greatly exaggerated his contacts with Eisenhower. Kind of makes other claims suspect.

For me it's his tendency to include major factual errors that a fact-checker should have caught. No, the T-34 was not designed by an American (Citizen Soldiers). No, R. E. Lee was not able to read Mclellan's Special order #191 because it wasn't in code (Nothing Like it in the World). It's especially annoying because these "facts" aren't really relevant to the point he's discussing, they seem to be there for "color."

I try not to read Ambrose. What little I have read doesn't pass even superficial fact checking and is greatly given over to hyperbole and exaggeration. Sad. Lee

I've always felt Ambrose starts out with a position and then amasses the evidence to substantiate it, rather than examine all the evidence and then draw conclusions. He strikes me as a myth maker rather than an objective historian.

Good observation, Tactical, but then again that is an Apologetic's viewpoint too ;) but you made a good point. Historians should just do the research, write up what they find and let the chips fall where they may.

My understanding was that Ambrose had no credibility as an historian. His contribution if any is in making certain aspects accessible to the public by personalizing the events. Once his readers have become interested, they may go on to a deeper study. Of course most do not.

That said, I never read any of his work and my exposure is limited to the Band of Brothers TV show – which had both good and bad points.

My opinion of Ambrose's work and the wave of popular WW2 history that came out in the 80-90s and later is the it all had the agenda to lionise the role of the US and the US servicemen [and perhaps women] in WW2 and not to be objective.

The record of both the US and it's troops is mostly very creditable but by exaggerating everything it twists reality and does a disservice to all.

In particular, by over-egging the service of the WW2 veterans it inevitably leaves post WW2 servicemen in the shade. Their wars were still bloody, miserable, terrifying and the sacrifice of those involved was just as real.

I hope I am not misunderstood. Anybody who serves their country in wartime deserves respect and gratitude, even if they are on the wrong side or lost/failed.

I am not that bothered about the incorrect references to Tiger tanks. Band of Brothers and D-day are based on eye witness accounts and as we know every tank was a Tiger and every gun an 88 to the allied soldiers. As for Winters opinion of his fellow commanders that is hardly Ambrose fault. To insert corrections for all the minor inaccuracies and provide a balanced coverage of all the personal opinions of those providing what amounts to a memoir would make the books very long. So I am prepared to take the books for what they are and if I need to know what Panzers were in what units and facing what allied troops I will look it up somewhere else.

absolutely a not read. there are so many better books and authors. there is no reason to read any of his books.