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

[Barkhorn1x]

I'm sorry Pak40 but Ambrose' obsessive focus on the "small picture" and his lack of footnotes or even endnotes disqualify him from, IMO, being considered as a serious historian, no matter his credentials.

His plagerism was probably due to (ironically) his popularity and the pressure to publish more product. He is fast becoming the Stephen King of WWII literature.

Keegan is running a close second here I believe. I did enjoy his "Six Armies in Normandy" as a bit of light reading - his presentation was interesting - but it is not comparable to say, Carlo De'Este's "Decision in Normandy" as a detailed or scholarly work.

The book "Closing w/ the Enemy..." is excellent as is "Eisenhower's Leutenants(sp?)" - you can read my review of the latter book on Amazon.com - it's the second one under the name A Reader from FL (I don't know where my name got to - I am registered ).

PS; Ignore the 3rd review - the guys a hack.

Regards,

Barkhorn.

[ March 07, 2002, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Barkhorn1x ]

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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.

What an strange statement. Are you suggesting that for some reason a comparison with a serious "British" historian would yield the most obvious differences? Or are you suggesting that there is a lack of scholarly American WWII historians?

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x:

...

His plagerism was probably due to (ironically) his popularity and the pressure to publish more product... Regards,

Barkhorn.

IMHO, there are only so many ways to describe a gunners turret. I believe that was the passage that caused the problem was'nt it? He reused the phrase from an earlier book to describe the ball turret?

[wbs]

From Mr. Johnson:

Why else does Ambrose explain the first war America lost, Korea?

I would have to disagree with that statement, Mr. Johnson, from both a military and a political standpoint.

From a military standpoint:

When the fighting reached the point where the armies arrived at the positions that they still more-or-less hold, the UN forces were on the offensive. The war had seesawed back and forth, but at the moment when Truman issued his 'halt' order the UN forces were in the process of winning on the battlefield.

Now, it is possible that the momentum would have swung back to the NK/Chinese side, but that is a hypothetical series of events that cannot be proven or disproven. All we can say for sure is that we were in the process of winning (i.e. on the strategic offensive) when the army was halted for political reasons. That certainly cannot be interpreted as a military loss--at worst it's a tie.

Many times real-world results are measured against public expectations and the success or failure of a particular endeavor is determined by how those two standards compare to each other.

It is likely that the US public, in general, was expecting to see another 'unconditional victory' since we'd unconditionally beaten the Axis powers just 5 years before. You MAY say:, "since we didn't win an unconditional victory therefore we failed", but you may also say "since the North Koreans were tossed out of South Korea therefore we succeeded".

From a Political Standpoint:

The intent of the communist forces was to forcibly unify Korea under one (communist) rule.

In this effort they clearly failed. Not only did they fail in their intitial, wartime effort, but they have lost the postwar peace as well. Since 1953 South Korea has become much more prosperous, and North Korea less prosperous, respective to each other, than they were in the 1st half of 1950.

As in the discussion of the military situation above, sometimes success or failure is measured against expectations rather than actual results.

It could be argued that the Korean War was a political failure since we let ourselves get talked into the status quo ante after THEY started it--it seemed that they were not being punished for their aggression.

If you balance this interpretation against the other one three paragraphs above, I think that at worst you may call it a tie, but certainly not a loss.

Now, some of y'all will disagree with this, but I think that MacArthur was a hero (and right) while Truman was a foolish moron (and WRONG!) about how the war should have been prosecuted. Truman practically committed a traitorous act when he fired MacArthur.

{wbs thinks to himself: "There, THAT statement should be good for a few hundred posts!" }

As a truth-in-whatever disclaimer, my grandfather was MacArthur's Asst. Chief-of-Staff and later acting Chief-of Staff during the occupation of Tokyo and the first part of the Korean War. I had the privilege of having dinner with Gen. MacArthur one night before he died. As a result, My opinion on this issue WILL NOT change, but it will be fun to see what y'all have to say about it.....

[ March 07, 2002, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: wbs ]

[Barkhorn1x]

Dirt;

1. Word for word in quotes w/ a cite = solid historical reserch

2. Word for word W/O quotes and NO cite = plagerism which can be interpreted as sloppiness at best or out and out stealing at worst.

Regards,

Barkhorn.

[Dirtweasle]

Bark - I've not purchased the book in question, and can't recall the details. I agree with you in general, though I think the particular passage about the ball turret is not a good expample. Becuse if something is round or small, or whatever other obvious characteristics there might be described, how else could you describe it?

I can certainly understand if you are lifting some research, or a unique turn of phrase perhaps. So, if I understand the passage in question correctly the whole "plagerism" charge is more axe grinding, or a game of Gotcha! then anything else.

[wbs]

From Dirtweasel:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bark - I've not purchased the book in question, and can't recall the details. I agree with you in general, though I think the particular passage about the ball turret is not a good expample. Becuse if something is round or small, or whatever other obvious characteristics there might be described, how else could you describe it?

If I recall correctly, Mr. Ambrose admitted to borrowing the 'ball turret' passage from another author without properly attributing it in his book.

[Croda]

Originally posted by wbs:

From Dirtweasel:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bark - I've not purchased the book in question, and can't recall the details. I agree with you in general, though I think the particular passage about the ball turret is not a good expample. Becuse if something is round or small, or whatever other obvious characteristics there might be described, how else could you describe it?

If I recall correctly, Mr. Ambrose admitted to borrowing the 'ball turret' passage from another author without properly attributing it in his book.</font>

[scoop88]

When reading Ambrose, one has to take what is valuable and disregard the rest. To me, Ambrose (and the guy who wrote "Flags of Our Fathers") deserve credit for making us aware once again of the tremendous sacrifices the World War II generation made to end Nazi tyranny and Japanese inhumanity. Think back to when you were 18 or 19 or 20 years old, and imagine yourself in a landing craft as the front gate dropped down and machine gun bullets started ripping everyone to shreds, or being ordered to run across a wide open, flat piece of Iwo Jima when Japanese you couldn't even see had that terrain zeroed in with mortars and machine guns. Or better yet, a 20-year-old second lieutenant responsible for the lives of 25 or so infantrymen.

I would venture to say that the most crucial event facing us when we were 18 or 19 or 20 were semester finals. Thanks to the World War II generation, that's all we had to worry about ... not about being persecuted for our race or religion in a concentration or slave labor camp.

Many people may not regard Ambrose as a serious historian, but Ambrose made me thankful for what the World Wat II generation did for all the people who have followed.

[wbs]

From scoop88:

Many people may not regard Ambrose as a serious historian, but Ambrose made me thankful for what the World Wat II generation did for all the people who have followed.

Amen to that!!

[Stacheldraht]

Amen, Scoop 88!

I appreciate rigorous scholarship at least as much as the next guy, but I know some of the strongest and most important impressions of WWII that have been made on me have come from the World at War series, PBS or History Channel documentaries, and that classic Time-Life book series on the war. Some recent war movies, too, taken with more than a few grains of salt.

WWII, after all, wasn't just about the movement of divisions across a map. Scholarship can too easily neglect the human element, precisely because it's not quantifiable. And for the last couple centuries or so in the West, history, like its siblings in the liberal arts, has struggled mightily to be "scientific" like its more reputable peers (math, physics, astronomy).

Also, scholarship in the academic context so often boils down to inane linguistic masturbation. Just try to slog through an academic liberal arts journal. Talk about publish or perish

[ March 07, 2002, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Croda]

Originally posted by scoop88:

When reading Ambrose, one has to take what is valuable and disregard the rest. To me, Ambrose (and the guy who wrote "Flags of Our Fathers") deserve credit for making us aware once again of the tremendous sacrifices the World War II generation made to end Nazi tyranny and Japanese inhumanity. Think back to when you were 18 or 19 or 20 years old, and imagine yourself in a landing craft as the front gate dropped down and machine gun bullets started ripping everyone to shreds, or being ordered to run across a wide open, flat piece of Iwo Jima when Japanese you couldn't even see had that terrain zeroed in with mortars and machine guns. Or better yet, a 20-year-old second lieutenant responsible for the lives of 25 or so infantrymen.

I would venture to say that the most crucial event facing us when we were 18 or 19 or 20 were semester finals. Thanks to the World War II generation, that's all we had to worry about ... not about being persecuted for our race or religion in a concentration or slave labor camp.

Many people may not regard Ambrose as a serious historian, but Ambrose made me thankful for what the World Wat II generation did for all the people who have followed.

scoop88,

I couldn't agree more. I don't mean to imply that Ambrose's works are worthless or don't have a place. They do a fantastic job of showcasing the fighting spirit and sense of duty the Western Allies possessed (whether he mentions tham all or not).

[Stacheldraht]

Well, you do have to hand it to Ambrose and writers/popularizers like him: they don't feel the need to kowtow to the PC police and afford courtesy to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. They just come out and call a spade a spade, as it were, and sound rightly proud that the Allies put an end to those abominations. A lot of younger people sit around admiring cool Tiger tanks in their computer games or whatever yet never had their village razed or never watched their relative dangling from a gallows in the breeze.

It's perhaps a bit too easy to sit back and be objective about it all now, but to the millions who endured the war, it was real and important--not just something to read about for amusement in your leisure hours.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by 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.

I had to laugh at your response. I said "some" British authors - try reading Keegan and tell me he is a "pop" author and not scholarly. Michael Reynolds probably falls into that pop category - but I would suggest you read something by a true British scholar like Michael Howard. I was not trying to paint all Brit historians with the same brush - just trying to compare and contrast. I never meant to imply that all British historians are serious, good, or unbiased.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by lassner:

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.

Not if you know what it means.

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.

Never said there wasn't.

I should add that Ambrose's plagerism is inexcusable even in a pop-history context.

I agree - but is it forgiveable is the question I was raising.

Have you ever written a research paper yourself? Or engaged in multiple, complex projects? If not, perhaps you aren't in a position to judge.

[murpes]

Originally posted by Munter:

themselves and have already "forgotten" a lot of the minor sq***-ups made during that time.

I have alot of pride in my abilities to curse with the best of them, but for the life of me I can't figure out what a sq***-up is.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x:

I'm sorry Pak40 but Ambrose' obsessive focus on the "small picture" and his lack of footnotes or even endnotes disqualify him from, IMO, being considered as a serious historian, no matter his credentials.

Personally, I think there is a niche for this type of History (although plagerism cannot be excused).

It's nice not only to know what happened at the Grand Tactical/Operation/Strategic level of warfare, but also to know the thoughts and emotions of those actually involved at the dirty end - the tactical level.

That's why I tend to balance my reading with selections from both styles of history.

Mace

[Madmatt]

Wrong forum, moving to General Forum.