What's wrong with S. Ambrose's books?

[HVAP]

I have read only one book of his Citizen Soldiers, it seemed informative but a very light read and pretty non technical. I have heard he has been accused of plagerism and such I was jsut wondering what makes people dislike him. Also can anyone give me some good books on WWII CBI I read Slim's Defeat into Victory and the Flying Tigers but little else on that theatre. Thanks in advance folks!

[Michael Dorosh]

Before this gets moved to the General Forum, my thoughts are these:

Ambrose writes for a mass, non-academic audience. Pick up a serious history by a British author and you will see the difference in the writing style; Ambrose uses emotional language, does not use extensive footnotes, and keeps the writing level simple.

As a serious researcher, he makes his share of errors, and the recent plagiarism scandals have been minor tempests in a teapot. He was caught red-handed, however, I doubt he sincerely intended harm or to steal, rather, he hastily used a reference to back up some points, and quoted them word for word without giving credit. A good historian would have reworded the material, and cited the source. This is laziness more than it is theft; all historians use the works of others.

One might criticize him instead for not doing primary research instead of cribbing from other secondary works, but this is arguable.

I do agree that Ambrose makes some unsupportable claims regarding American victory in WW II being the result of moral superiority and the democratic way of life. It is permissible to make such a claim, but one has to try and prove them - Ambrose does not do this, nor do I feel he would be on firm ground intellectually if he made the attempt.

Ambrose is "history lite", which is ok - he is generating a real interest in WW II, and the generation that defeated Nazism and ended the holocaust (don't forget he wrote extensively on British paratroopers, not just American ones).

Ambrose started as a biographer of Eisenhower, and his interest in WW II has extended to the front line GI, of which he has written extensively. His errors of fact in some of his books may be explained away, but are indicative of his lack of military service.

Bear in mind, however, that some of the best military historians throughout history were not soldiers themselves. It is generally considered a pre-requisite to writing good history - certainly of understanding the social dynamics of the military - but there are examples of truly great military historians who have never served in war, or even in the military.

On the whole, Ambrose is a "pop" historian and not a serious researcher, his reportage of the "little picture" in WW II is accurate in many respects, but his insistence that moral superiority and the innate "goodness" of the American soldier (which he has never proven) is what made him a better fighter than the German, take him out of the league of serious historical researchers.

[Barkhorn1x]

Err Mr. Dorosh;

While I agree w/ your assessment of Ambrose I had to laugh about your "serious British author" statement. Far too many English military "historians" fall into the "pop" camp and their extreme Anglocentrism does nothing to help the situation either.

Regards,

Barkhorn.

[lassner.1]

Mr Dorosh,

I have to agree with the above post: your statement that one should "[p]ick up a serious history by a British author" seems an ill-advised statement. There are numerous American, German, French, and Austrian (military) historians who write in English, and who hold themselves to the highest levels of scholarly integrity and research. I should add that Ambrose's plagerism is inexcusable even in a pop-history context.

[Stacheldraht]

To Ambrose's credit, he did help found the D-Day Museum, whatever his merits or lack of them as a scholar might be.

***

I've seen a number of statements attributed to him that seem to imply it was primarily the Western Allies who won the war in Europe. (His jingoism seems to be one of his least-liked traits.) The Soviets of course played an enormous and often unappreciated role in defeating the Germans. Then again, Ambrose was a "talking head" in a recent History Channel miniseries about the fall of the Third Reich, in which he gave the Soviets their due, if only in brief.

[Le Tondu]

Maybe that's the problem. We are all looking at him as though he is a heavy duty "scholar" when he isn't. Maybe we should just think of him as a plain ole "writer" without all the fluff. In that light, his work can then again be enjoyed. Maybe he never intended to be thought of as a "scholar" when he first started.

All too often perfectly nice people attribute qualities to other people that they won't live up to for one reason or another. IMO, it may seem great to "ride the wave" of fame, but that wave can end leaving you over the rocks or the beach instead of in calm water -if one isn't careful.

Forgiveness is appropriate here, IMO.

[Croda]

Ambrose is not a historian, he is a story teller. He falls somewhere between a strict historian and Michael Shaara. He's not writing historical fiction, but he doesn't concern himself with the strict rules of research either.

Ambrose's main primary sources are oral stories from vets. As such, he tells compelling small unit stories which are more from the perspective of individual grunts than an overall campaign.

We all know that Joe Doughboy on the front line has slightly skewed perspective of the war. Amborse tells stories from this perspective and makes assumptions based upon these stories. For example his claim that the fact that U.S. junior officers played a huge part in winning the war because they were trained to think and act for themselves and not be slaves to orders from on high as the Germans were. That statement is not really proveable either way and is typical of an Ambrosian assumption.

What it comes down to is that Ambrose tells great stories based in World War II. There is no reason to doubt the stories, but people should refrain from making serious socio-political and military conclusions from the stories as that is not their point.

As for the plagiarism, it was an oversight. They should give the guy a break.

[Stacheldraht]

For example his claim that the fact that U.S. junior officers played a huge part in winning the war because they were trained to think and act for themselves and not be slaves to orders from on high as the Germans were. That statement is not really proveable either way and is typical of an Ambrosian assumption.

I've often read rather the opposite regarding the Germans: that their junior officers were expected to understand overall doctrine and make flexible, relatively independent decisions based on that. I don't know if that's a correct assessment, but if it is, that would certainly hurt Ambrose's argument.

Perhaps apropos this topic, you may want to read Michael D. Doubler's Closing with the Enemy: How GIs Fought the War in Europe, 1944-1945 (University Press of Kansas, 1994). It's a scholarly work based largely on primary sources.

[ March 07, 2002, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Munter]

If you want to know how individual soldiers experienced their battles, read books that are written shortly after the war. As authors grow older they tend to show a more mature picture of themselves and have already "forgotten" a lot of the minor sq***-ups made during that time.

If you are looking for facts about actual events and the backrounds thereof, proper history books are to be found first after 15-20 years, or even later after the war when scholars finally get their hands on classified material.

War is about people, about fighting, living and surviving with them in a group. Those you kill are not people, but enemies which makes the decision to pull the trigger much easier. Better them than you or your buddies. That's the message you get from the books written within few years after the battles.

If books based on personal memories are written after 10 years or more, most of the bitter emotions are already gone and the authors try to figure out why they were over there in the first place, wasting away their youth and wittnessing the deaths of their comerades. They have started to think like their parents who had to send their beloved little children to a war without knowing if they're ever coming back.

A good book worth reading (and also written in the late 40's) is "Battlecry" by Leon Uris. It's partly fiction, but well written fiction about Marines in the Pacific. (Sven Hassel is just unrealistic and biased grog-porn in comparison.) Another good one is the "08/15"-trilogy by Kirst describing the life of German artillerists before, during and at the end of the war. And, of course there is also "Unknown Soldier" by Linna describing a Finnish machinegun platoon in the war. They all concentrate on people and their reactions to the drastic events surrounding them.

[Croda]

Not to refute you and not to get off topic, but I've got a primary source which quotes a German POW.

The 10th Armored Division escaped from being surrounded at Crailsheim, Germany. The author of the source claimed that they could actually see the Germans watching them as they pulled out, but they took no fire. A day or two before, the 10ths Arty pummeled a house being used as a German CP. The POW later stated that when the CP was lost with all of the higher officers, the grunts had no idea what to do without orders so they did nothing.

Now what does that prove? Absolutely nothing.

Ambrose may draw a conclusion from it, especially if he had more sources stating the same. I'm sure there are examples of the exact opposite as well as examples of American junior officers failing to make decisions. At the level from which Ambrose tells his stories, the actions are actions of men and not armies. Thus the only conclusions that can be made are based upon the character (and I suppose the training) of the men.

[Jeff Duquette]

I agree with just about everything in Croda's post as well as Barkhorn1x and lassner's posting. Just to add my own two cents.

I consider myself a relatively serious "armchair" student of military history. I enjoy Ambrose's books, and find that they can be informative. Ambrose is a bit of a flag waiver\patriot at times. But I see nothing inherently wrong with that, nor is it a trait peculiar to Ambrose, or American Military Historians. I see the same level of pride exhibited in many German Unit Histories from WWII (see Rudolf Lehmann's "The Leibstandarte"). This same prideful approach is exhibited by British Historians as well. Read "Charlie Company" by Peter Cochrane.

[Dirtweasle]

Was'nt Ambrose a History Prof. at Tulane, or Louisiana earlier in his career?

[Enoch]

I've read a few of Ambrose's books before I really started studying up on WWII. There are lost of good stories in his books. I found his books to be most to be most useful as bibliographic resourses and they led me to quite a few good books on WWII.

[Commissar]

Originally posted by Croda:

. For example his claim that the fact that U.S. junior officers played a huge part in winning the war because they were trained to think and act for themselves and not be slaves to orders from on high as the Germans were. That statement is not really proveable either way and is typical of an Ambrosian assumption.

.

I find that statement hard to believe, to put it nicely. Long before Nazi Germany was a crap stain in Hitler's underroos, the military traditions of the German Army were being laid down by Prussia and the General Staff system that they created (an institution that every army in the world has copied from including the US). Far from German/Prussian officers being mere cogs, officers on the field certainly had the flexibilty to move their forces as they choose when appropriate. Yes, discipline and following orders were expected to be strictly obeyed (what army doesn't?), however it was recognized by Prussian/German high command that the commander on the ground was the best judge of the situation and how to proceed. If a commander went contrary to orders, that would generally be ok and tolerated AS LONG AS it worked. Success was the best justifier. If it didn't, well that's another story. One author dubbed the practice as "controlled insubordination". This practice continued right up to the Wehrmacht. About the only time this "slaver from on high" assertion could even hold a kernel of truth was towards the end of the war when the Germans were clearly doomed to failure, the Russians were knocking down the front door to Germany, and Hitler's paranoia finally overtook him. Being paraded in a cage like a naked monkey in Red Square must not have been appealing either.

Anyway, I've never read a single book by Ambrose since he writes on topics I really have no interest in, namely the American army. My interests are more towards the German and Soviet/Russian military. However, if the criticisms of people on this board hold even a kernel of truth, it would seem that Ambrose is more of a good political speech writer than historian--He knows who his audience is, what they want to hear, and he gives it to them.

BTW if the US "won" over Germany because of some sort of moral or political superiority, does that mean we lost in Vietnam because of a lack of moral superiority? If you are going to send out the morality claim, then you better be prepared when it boomerangs back to you.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Dorsh said,

I do agree that Ambrose makes some unsupportable claims regarding American victory in WW II being the result of moral superiority and the democratic way of life. It is permissible to make such a claim, but one has to try and prove them - Ambrose does not do this, nor do I feel he would be on firm ground intellectually if he made the attempt.

While I havn't read Ambrose because of his "God and country" agenda. These types of comments by Ambrose really piss me off. No doubt, did Truman change the morals of Americans? Why else does Ambrose explain the first war America lost, Korea?

Why not just come out and say it, "Americans are the greatest warriors the world have every seen" but they just have idiots electing politicians that make stupid decisions that lead to stratgic losses, Vietnam, Koread.

[Micheal Wittman]

Enjoyed Richard Overy's "Why The Allies Won", he's

the Chair I believe at King Colledge in England.

Our historian friend Mr.Thorton, excuse spelling, seems to appreciate his approached to presenting facts. Ah facts, just the facts Mam

is that not what we really want, then we can make

our own decisions based on whatever our mood is that day : ) I really dislike some one trying to

sell me their brand of laundry detergent, when they're considered to be in a position of historian. But good topic.

CheerZ!

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Mr. Johnson--:

Dorsh said,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I do agree that Ambrose makes some unsupportable claims regarding American victory in WW II being the result of moral superiority and the democratic way of life. It is permissible to make such a claim, but one has to try and prove them - Ambrose does not do this, nor do I feel he would be on firm ground intellectually if he made the attempt.

While I havn't read Ambrose because of his "God and country" agenda. These types of comments by Ambrose really piss me off. No doubt, did Truman change the morals of Americans? Why else does Ambrose explain the first war America lost, Korea?

Why not just come out and say it, "Americans are the greatest warriors the world have every seen" but they just have idiots electing politicians that make stupid decisions that lead to stratgic losses, Vietnam, Koread.</font>

[Stacheldraht]

One thing to bear in mind about history writing: it's hardly the case that it has always been conceived of as an objective and scientific (and perhaps dry) recitation or analysis of the "facts." (As if that concept weren't problematic in its own right.) In many places and times, the ideals of history writing/telling have been rather different, being geared more towards didactic, moral, and/or propagandistic ends.

***

Fwiw, Ambrose's Pegasus Bridge is rather enjoyable and interesting. Since it focuses on one small but famous and dramatic operation, it seems to suit his writing style and aims well.

Btw, if you want a good example of eminently readable and seemingly well-researched history writing, check out Cornelius Ryan's The Longest Day. A true classic that will grip you like the best of novels.

[ March 07, 2002, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Stacheldraht:

Btw, if you want a good example of eminently readable and seemingly well-researched history writing, check out Cornelius Ryan's The Longest Day. A true classic that will grip you like the best of novels.

I liked A Bridge Too Far better

Also, does having the name Cornelius preclude a man to leading scholarly life? Sort of like being named Jeeves...

[ March 07, 2002, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Captain Wacky ]

[Mr. Johnson--]

Well of course. Historians have to stop at some point, they have so many facts to chose from. Every historians has to pick and choose which facts to include and which to exclude. What a historian does not include is a good indication of their bias.

Maybe your right Captain Wacky, but I think of Keegan as a historian. If someone wants to call Ambrose a historian, then they are in competition and I need to decide which one I would rather read. I'll take Keegan.

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Croda:

Ambrose is not a historian, he is a story teller. He falls somewhere between a strict historian and Michael Shaara. He's not writing historical fiction, but he doesn't concern himself with the strict rules of research either.

Not a historian? Obviously you don't know much about the man. I think the title of Emeritus Professor of History at the University of New Orleans qualifies him as a historian.

I'm not sure what you mean by "strict rules of research", but Ambrose litterally collected thousands of 1st person accounts and conducted countless interviews with eye-wittnesses for his D-Day book. In fact, he has the LARGEST collection of D-Day 1st person accounts in the world. Why else do you think he createded the D-Day Musuem, a true testament to his exhausting research?

[arax3]

HVAP: I suggest your reading: "Eisenhower's Lieutenants" by Russell F. Weigly. Prof. W shows just how close the war in NW Europe was to being a failure. He is very much a scholar. Arax3

[Croda]

Obviously not citing sources and drawing broad, general, and unsubstantiable conclusions preclude the typical characteristics of a historian.

I've read and throughly enjoyed the D-Day book. I've watched Amborse invterviews time and time again and I find him a fantastic storyteller. I don't discount his facts, just the conclusions he draws from them.

You can't use the exploits of Company E of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment to draw conclusions about Operation Overlord, Operation Neptune, the Normandy campaign, the 101st Airborne Division, or even the 506th Parachute Infantry.

In my opinion Ambrose uses the experiences of front line troops (whose stories are fantastic) to tell the story of the war. The sweeping movements of vast armies, while made up of individuals, cannot be retold simply through the stories of those individuals, and I feel that this is what Ambrose tries to do. In that sense, what he writes is similar to Brokaw's The Greatest Generation. It is full of amazing stories which elucidate the whole of the conflict, but by themselves cannot tell the full story.

What he is missing is the objectivity of the other side of the coin.

MHO

[Enoch]

Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

Cornelius Ryan...Dr. Cornelius from Planet of the Apes. You might be onto something here Wacky.

[Stacheldraht]

And don't forget Ian Holm as priest Vito Cornelius in The Fifth Element.