Recommend me some literature!

[altipueri]

Those Devils in Baggy Pants

by Ross Carter.

[Los]

In the hopes we'll ever see the desert again....

"Take these Men" by CYril Joly

Tank platoon leader, Western Desert. Outstanding.

http://www.amazon.com/Take-These-Men-Echoes-War/dp/0907675409

[Pak40]

Forgotten Soldier is fiction and bad fiction at that, despite the recommendations.

I haven't read the book yet although it's on my shelf. However, after reading your comment I kind of recalled the same implications about another German soldier's autobiography called "The Black March"(I forget the author). Anyway, after reading the Wiki entry on Guy Sajer, which goes at length to discuss the questions on the author's credibility, I believe this is a true account from soldier who is a non-historian. In other words, this is an autobiography written from memory of a very chaotic time; it is by a man who is not a historian who isn't going through the lengths of fact checking etc.. So he got a few details such as names or dates wrong - hell, I can't even remember **** that happened to me a few years ago with clear detail. I certainly get dates and chronology mixed up.

[Seedorf81]

Cornelius Ryan - The longest day (D-Day),

- A bridge too far (Market Garden),

- The last battle (Battle for Berlin).

Very well written. Easy and understandable to read (even for people who are totally new to ww2).

John Toland - "Battle; The story of the Bulge".

[Ultradave]

Finally a plug for Cornelius Ryan's books. With MG just released, a read of A Bridge Too Far is well worth the time. Well written and it's an edge of your seat read as it skips from group to group - can't put it down because you have to see what is going to happen next with the next chapter.

Citizen Soldier by Stephen Ambrose is also good and covers the breakout from the Normandy beachhead to the German border.

[Michael Emrys]

Citizen Soldier by Stephen Ambrose is also good and covers the breakout from the Normandy beachhead to the German border.

Oowwwwww! Chocked full of misinformation and hero worship of the American GI that gets downright syrupy at times. If this is your cup of tea, you're welcome to it, but be very, very careful about thinking it is anything like an authentic depiction of the events.

Michael

[Los]

Forgotten Soldier is an excellent read, you wont be disappointed...

[Ultradave]

Oowwwwww! Chocked full of misinformation and hero worship of the American GI that gets downright syrupy at times. If this is your cup of tea, you're welcome to it, but be very, very careful about thinking it is anything like an authentic depiction of the events.

Michael

I thought it was good for the first person accounts. Flavor.

[Ultradave]

Another good one I thought of - a little on the dry side but good is All American, All the Way - Phil Nordyke.

subtitle is a combat history of the 82d airborne. i've found descriptions of a few of the scenarios in FI, MG in this.

[Pak40]

Oowwwwww! Chocked full of misinformation and hero worship of the American GI that gets downright syrupy at times. If this is your cup of tea, you're welcome to it, but be very, very careful about thinking it is anything like an authentic depiction of the events.

Michael

I'm not sticking up for the mistakes that Ambrose made but Citizen Soldiers is outstanding book. My grandfather is a prominent historian who knew Ambrose and never said anything negative about him. He is quoted in Citizen Soldiers and accurately, I might add. And as Ultradave said, Citizen Soldiers is outstanding because of the collection of 1st person narratives that really give us more of a sense of what it was really like - not just the historian's perspective.

People love to bash Ambrose for his love of writing about the American soldier in WWII. He was an American History professor - of course he's going to write about Americans. Why on earth would his focus be on other countries' soldiers and battles??? (yes I know he wrote Pegasus Bridge). His books are a homage to the American WWII vet because quite frankly, there were only a few writers out there before him that gave them credit that was due, and most of those writers were veterans themselves.

Also, he deserves huge credit for the massive collections of 1st person narratives: writings, audio, video of WWII vets before they've died. Without all of this material and his own published books you wouldn't have had the resurgence of WWII movies starting in the late 90s and the National WWII Museum. Also, many authors since then have used his massive archives as sources for many excellent books(check the bibliography). Because of all this WWII resurgence since Saving Private Ryan was made, vets by the hundreds, probably thousands, have come forth to talk and write about their experiences. Have you noticed the massive amounts of autobiographies since 1997 - certainly spurred by Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers. Without Ambrose's D-Day, SPR never would have been made.

So yes, he misquoted some vets and possibly plagiarized a paragraph or two. Certainly mistakes that shouldn't have been made, but the vast amount of what he's written is accurate and a tribute to the American vets.

[JonS]

People love to bash Ambrose for his love of writing about the American soldier in WWII.

I dislike his writing because it is vacuous, and chockablock with factual errors, includes wonky interpretations and deductions, and is riddled with errors of omission.

He was an American History professor - of course he's going to write about Americans. Why on earth would his focus be on other countries' soldiers and battles?

Because he claimed to be an historian?

His books are a homage to the American WWII vet because quite frankly, there were only a few writers out there before him that gave them credit that was due, and most of those writers were veterans themselves.

This a fairly tenuous justification. And also demonstrably wrong. There was plenty of writing about US soldiers pre-Ambrose.

Also, he deserves huge credit for the massive collections of 1st person narratives: writings, audio, video of WWII vets before they've died.

True enough. I'm not a huge fan of C. Ryan (the writing is ok, but his books haven't aged well, IMO), but he did collect a massive first-person archive, and made it available to other authors.

So yes, he misquoted some vets and possibly plagiarized a paragraph or two. Certainly mistakes that shouldn't have been made, but the vast amount of what he's written is accurate and a tribute to the American vets.

It's a bit more than "just" some misquoting and plagiarism. He flat out made stuff up, like his supposed interviews with Eisenhower. How do you know what he's written is accurate and a tribute given that background?

[Ultradave]

A little off topic but a funny story about the movie "A Bridge too Far". I had read the book long before the movie came out, however, in 1977, I had just graduated from Airborne School at Fort Benning Georgia and was then sent to Fort Riley Kansas for a short time before going to the 82d. While at Fort Riley, a bunch of us went to see the movie when it premiered. Of course, being newly minted paratroopers and familiar with the story (most of us anyway) we loved it.

Leaving the theater there was a chorus of people talking about how they didn't like the movie. I overheard one tell another, "Because we got the ^&$#^& kicked out of us." Yeah, well, guess what pal.

I've always thought the movie was great. I'm amazed that even with the huge all star cast, many of the big name actors bore a striking resemblance to the real people they portrayed. And the movie pretty much followed the course of the book as it moved from place to place.

[Los]

While slamming Ambrose for his for factual errors is legitimate, complaining that he only writes about Americans is downright petty. Authors choose their subjects and write about them. If his writing inspired many thousands of people to seek a greater interest in history (let alone the Band of Brothers series!) and perhaps some of them pursued their interest farther, well that's a good thing. In that case, he's done more to further the recent interest of WW2 history than most other academics...

Plus it provides a nice opportunity for all the armchair historians around here to sit on their petards and expose their own historical expertise!

Los

[JonS]

complaining that he only writes about Americans is downright petty.

I'm not entirely sure about that. I agree that any author can choose whatever they like to write about, and specialisation is necessary because even a historical subject as 'narrow' as WWII is so overwhelmingly vast that no single author could comprehend all of it, let alone write a book about it all. Tooze, for example, doesn't get any flak for minor errors when discussing tactical level engagements because that's well outside his area, and he writes phenomenally well about the topics that he does cover.

But authors who focus exclusively on 'their' topic commit gross errors of omission. Balkoski, for example, has chosen 29th Inf Div as 'his' topic, and has written a series of books about that Division. The first one, Beyond the Beachhead, was very good. But in my opinion Beachhead to Brittany was flawed because of his too narrow focus on that one division. At the battle for Brest there were at least two other US divisions involved, yet from reading Balkoski's book you wouldn't know that. I think that's a significant omission, and I don't think critiquing the book because he only wrote about the one division is 'downright petty.'

The same thing applies to Ambrose - and Atkinson, although not to the same extent. Even if there were no strictly factual errors Ambrose's books would still be flawed because he generally told only half the story. In Atkinson's case it sometimes seems that other nationalities only make an appearance as someone to blame when things didn't go well for the US Army.

[Los]

Yeah and I'm really annoyed at Jason D. Mark because in every book about Stalingrad that he writes, he never covers the fighting in Tunisia. Now that's a poor author...

[Pak40]

Ambrose's books would still be flawed because he generally told only half the story.

I could say the same about many other authors but this depends entirely on the subject of the book. If an author writes a book on the 'Battle of X', then I would expect the author to try to fully represent both sides to the best of his ability and resources. However, if the subject of the book is the 'American side in the battle of X' then that's a different story.

In Atkinson's case it sometimes seems that other nationalities only make an appearance as someone to blame when things didn't go well for the US Army.

I've only read An Army at Dawn but it was pretty much pictured as the Brits bailing out the U.S. Army in Tunisia.

[Pak40]

I dislike his writing because it is vacuous,

To each his own. I find his writing eloquent and thoughtfully put together. Other times his writing is justifiably frank and vivid, e.g. his Omaha Beach landing descriptions certainly inspired Spielberg to finally film a worthy and realistic D-Day scene.

and chockablock with factual errors, includes wonky interpretations and deductions, and is riddled with errors of omission.

Examples please. Ambrose, Ryan, and many other historians certainly do have some errors and certainly omissions of their choosing - Ryan's A Bridge Too Far has so many omissions it makes me scream sometimes - but you act as if it was common practice for Ambrose to do this.

Because he claimed to be an historian?

So just being a historian requires you to write about all sides of history? Should a historian that focuses on Wester Civ be shamed for not giving Eastern Civilization is fair share of research?

This a fairly tenuous justification. And also demonstrably wrong. There was plenty of writing about US soldiers pre-Ambrose.

Honestly, there were a handful compared to what has come out since SPR. Some can be directly the result of Band of Brothers popularity.

It's a bit more than "just" some misquoting and plagiarism. He flat out made stuff up, like his supposed interviews with Eisenhower. How do you know what he's written is accurate and a tribute given that background?

So, the Eisenhower thing is a gray area. Nobody really knows for sure what actually happened. I suggest you read both the accusation and the reply by Ambrose's son. It's obvious that the Ambrose/Eisenhower relationship was deeper than the accuser has led us to believe, especially since he never actually acknowledges the fact that interviews can be written as well as oral.

After reading both I find it very odd that the accuser did not bother contacting anyone in the Ambrose family to get their side. I kind of thought that was a critical error in any piece of investigative journalism. Almost seems guilty of the thing he's accusing.

[JonS]

Yeah and I'm really annoyed at Jason D. Mark because in every book about Stalingrad that he writes, he never covers the fighting in Tunisia. Now that's a poor author...

you know, Los, strawmen aren't usually your style.

[JonS]

I could say the same about many other authors but this depends entirely on the subject of the book.

Of course. Context matters.

If an author writes a book on the 'Battle of X', then I would expect the author to try to fully represent both sides to the best of his ability and resources. However, if the subject of the book is the 'American side in the battle of X' then that's a different story.

True, but only to a degree. For my money, the "our heroes triumphing over the faceless hordes" genre got old with von Mellinthin. No battle is fought in a vacuum, and descrbing the opposition and wider context of a battle - to an appropriate level of detail - adds immensely to understanding.

[JasonC]

Pak40 "it is by a man who is not a historian" Would that was his problem. He wasn't even a soldier, he was pro German and a fantasist, that is all. It is dreck by a wanna be Ernst Junger; those who later apologized for his fraud are purely interested in the propaganda value they imagine the work has. Sergeant Rock comics have about as much relation to historical reality, and were also widely admired by adolescent types for their entirely imaginary grit and color.

[Michael Emrys]

People love to bash Ambrose for his love of writing about the American soldier in WWII. He was an American History professor - of course he's going to write about Americans. Why on earth would his focus be on other countries' soldiers and battles???

You miss the point. The problem is not that he focusses on the US Army—Atkinson, just to name one of hundreds of historians, does that as well—it is that he commits egregious errors of fact that no respectable historian would have allowed to creep into print, and he distorts the image of the American fighting man almost to the level of comic book writing. There is nothing wrong in my view with honest admiration of the GI, but it doesn't help the memory of him to gild the lily so many times over.

Michael

[Quintus Sertorius]

If you're looking for something more general, I liked The Second World War by John Keegan. For a large volume it's very easy to read.

[Michael Emrys]

If you're looking for something more general, I liked The Second World War by John Keegan. For a large volume it's very easy to read.

Or you could read A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II by Gerhard L. Weinberg. It's interesting the way he can sometimes tie what was happening in the Pacific to what occurred in the European war. Recommended.

Michael

[JasonC]

Ambrose is indeed a tool. JonS would know, being a tool himself. He likes the fact that Ambrose is a tool because it gives him a chance to indulge his reflexive anti Americanism and to feel all justified inside being a tool about it. But still, Ambrose remains a tool, regardless of the toolhood of JonS himself and others who enjoy the fact.

[Broadsword56]

Surprised nobody has mentioned Sydney Jary's 18 Platoon - regarded as a classic and is on the Sandhurst reading list.

In the U.S., at least, it's probably because copies start at USD $97.89...

http://www.amazon.com/18-Platoon-Sydney-Jary/dp/1901655016