Recommended read: The Wild Blue, S. E. Ambrose

[Doc Ephraim]

Just finished it. Mainly the story of George McGovern's days as a B-24 pilot in the 15th Air Force of WWII. You can pick it up on ebay for very little $.

I love Ambrose. The controversy of his final days is petty and distracting from an otherwise great writer.

Your thoughts?

[PADDY]

This is a classic story now of a B-17 pilot (Bert Stiles) during the war. He got through all his missions and then transferred to fighters and was killed. Very sad. But a great insight into day-2-day living.

[the_librarian]

Ambrose was a great writer! His other book, The victors : Eisenhower and his boys : the men of World War II was great also.

[jake431]

I also read the Wild Blue and enjoyed it; less so after I learned (and subsequently agreed) he had cribbed passages from another book. But it was a good book. If I were going to recommend one book about B-24 crews, I would recommend Bomber Pilot, by Phillip Audrey. Simply fantastic and he flew on the low-level ploesti mission as a squadron commander; his perspective was unbelievable.

-Jake

[Vladimir Berkov]

I tried reading it and couldn't get through it. Ambrose is just too American-centric to take seriously. His D-Day book had the same problem but even more so. He would have made a great propaganda writer during WW2, but as a serious historian he is pretty flawed, especially with the honesty/plagiarism concerns.

I would say his books can make good entertainment if you don't mind the jingoism, but don't take any of his historical information at face value.

[the_librarian]

Here's a Times link for the backstory on Ambrose and plagarism, just in case you were interested:

I couldn't get the permalink to work, but here is the query.

[Spitfire]

Originally Posted by Vladimir Berkov

I tried reading it and couldn't get through it. Ambrose is just too American-centric to take seriously. His D-Day book had the same problem but even more so. He would have made a great propaganda writer during WW2, but as a serious historian he is pretty flawed, especially with the honesty/plagiarism concerns.

I would say his books can make good entertainment if you don't mind the jingoism, but don't take any of his historical information at face value.

I had exactly the same experience with this book.
Just dropped it after 25 pages.

[Martinis at 8]

Originally Posted by Vladimir Berkov

I tried reading it and couldn't get through it. Ambrose is just too American-centric to take seriously. His D-Day book had the same problem but even more so. He would have made a great propaganda writer during WW2, but as a serious historian he is pretty flawed, especially with the honesty/plagiarism concerns.

I would say his books can make good entertainment if you don't mind the jingoism, but don't take any of his historical information at face value.

Lol! Look you can't really blame Ambrose for the "American-centric" aspect of his books. He writes for Americans, and most Americans are not dedicated to learning about Soviet history, nor do they understand what went on in the eastern theaters. Unfortunately something called the "Cold War" got in the way of telling that history. But you would be pleased to know that some universities, including West Point, do teach about the relative contributions of each of the Allied nations participating in WW2, like the 22 million dead Soviets with over half of them being civilians of WW2. Quite shocking when compared to other allied casualty figures.

Actually Ambrose's books are quite good as historical information when referencing the American theaters. Both D-Day and Citizen Soldier I found to be quite factual. I also think he did a splendid job with the D-Day museum in New Orleans. I found no "jingoism" in his writings. Nowhere does he state, "Amerika uber alles". I also enjoyed his non-military writings like Undaunted Courage and Nothing Like it in the World.

NLIITW, was particularly good, but with a handle like Vladimir Berkov, I suppose you would have rather enjoyed Whistler's Father. As railroad stories go, that's one that should also be told, Moscow to St. Petersburg.

M8

[Vladimir Berkov]

Originally Posted by Martinis at 8

Actually Ambrose's books are quite good as historical information when referencing the American theaters. Both D-Day and Citizen Soldier I found to be quite factual. I also think he did a splendid job with the D-Day museum in New Orleans. I found no "jingoism" in his writings. Nowhere does he state, "Amerika uber alles". I also enjoyed his non-military writings like Undaunted Courage and Nothing Like it in the World.

I don't fault Ambrose for not crediting the Eastern theatre in a book written specifically about a Western theatre battle. My problem is that Ambrose's basis theme and premise underlying his books is wrong. Ambrose sets out to show how the American soldiers and the Western democracies triumphed over the bumbling authoritarianism of Nazi Germany. The problem is that Ambrose has only a passing knowledge of WW2 Germany. Pretty much all of his books are based on interviews with WW2 American veterans, not only a poor historical source so many decades after the war, but also a biased and myopic one.

This is why I find D-Day so laughable in its mischaracterization of Germany. Not only does Ambrose give no credit to the quality of the German (and other European) soldiers who served in the Wehrmacht and SS, but he has no understanding of the subtlety of the German military strategic situation. You can see it clearly in the introduction, where he faults Germany for not producing enough capital naval ships and ME262 jets to properly guard the French coast, or for not producing an atomic bomb early in the war.

I don't have a copy of my own, unfortunately so I can't really pick out specific phrases at the moment which I remember reading other than those available on Amazon.com's preview.

[Martinis at 8]

D-Day nor Citizen Soldier nor Band of Brothers analyze WW2 Germany or even attempt to analyze WW2 Germany. The books are more about the American military, preparation, planning and execution of the war and the battles. As far as the testimonials of the veterans, there is probably no better source than those who were actually there.

In fact I think Ambrose should be given credit for starting the trend in recording oral histories of the veterans to fill holes in the historical records, at least before the last of them dies out.

M8

[Vladimir Berkov]

As I said, to the extent Ambrose discusses WW2 Germany, he is unreliable and often wrong. This is a problem because he is writing about battles in which Germany is the enemy and he often compares the American forces/soldiers with the Germans.

I don't have a problem with oral histories, but as you said, they are useful in filling out the historical record where there are no other sources or where the factual accuracy can be corroberated. Taken alone, they are very unreliable. Ambrose's fault is that he not only relies almost exclusively on oral histories, but he relies almost exclusively on American veteran's oral histories.

There is nothing wrong with this from the standpoint of a "let's cheer on the GIs" feel-good history of the American experience. But the problem is that Ambrose held out his books as scholarly, factual accounts of military events, planning, strategy, etc.

[Alan Eardley]

I think the problem with most (all?) of the works on 'D-Day and beyond' is that they fail to capture the sheer diversity and complexity of the invasion, bridgehead and break-out into occupied Europe. This was probably the largest combined operation ever. For instance, one of the most critical (and successful) single engagements of the battle for the 'Falaise gap' was by a Polish armoured brigade. I suspect that this has been included in historical works in Polish, but it is not reported well in most English texts.

Alan

[Martinis at 8]

Originally Posted by Alan Eardley

I think the problem with most (all?) of the works on 'D-Day and beyond' is that they fail to capture the sheer diversity and complexity of the invasion, bridgehead and break-out into occupied Europe. This was probably the largest combined operation ever. For instance, one of the most critical (and successful) single engagements of the battle for the 'Falaise gap' was by a Polish armoured brigade. I suspect that this has been included in historical works in Polish, but it is not reported well in most English texts.

Alan

I don't think there is one comprehensive work that can cover it all. Indeed an in depth look at the war would require years of study, as the learned here will certainly attest to. Ambrose's books, however, are a good start into the study of such.

More complicated than WW2, I opine is the study of WW1. I think the political dynamics of WW1 were much more complicated, and the lunacy of the war even more so.

[Alan Eardley]

Here is a reasonable (if somewhat emotive) account of the Polish action to take and defend Hill 262.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/s...a2450846.shtml

Note that it is translated from the French!

Alan

[Estevan]

Read it, as well as everything Ambrose ever wrote. Great stuff.