An autobiography can tell you more about WW2 than a narrative history

Ok, the title was supposed to be 'An autobiography can give a better insight into the time a person lived in than a narrative history' but it wouldent fit. So what do you guys think?

 

It depends on what you're looking for. If you were looking at how the times affected the people, than I think that an Autobiography would be a good idea to take a look at. But if you're just looking for the facts, narrative history is the way to go. Autobiographies are biased (understandable) to the person and their beliefs, so you wouldn't get the entire picture.

Just my opinion.

DUCE

 

No easy answer to this one - books vary so much and I don't think you can generalise.

Autobiographies can be great reading ( but sometimes of doubtful accuracy ) if written close to the time of the events ( eg Clostermann's 'The Big Show' , Johnson's 'Wing Leader' ) whereas biographies written with the 'objectivity of age' can be dull reading indeed.

 

almost a waste of time.........as I have read at leat a dozen Luftwaffe bios and really did not give a true perspective of the war as it really happened. Sad but much has been fictionalized

 

Slightly O/T, Erich but going along with your last posting, what's your opinion of Steinhoff's 'The Straits Of Messina' ?

I found it interesting, if rather 'downbeat', and certainly different reading from other personal accounts.

 

In "local" battles like the Crime 1943 and Kourland 1944-45 autobiography has helped me more than the usual history books, but all in all I think wanting to learn about history you have to read both. This may sound dull but I think every book has at least one special moment to it and may be worth buying and reading if you want to specialize into that sector.For instance on Kursk I have read some 5-6 books and I still don´t seem to know enough...

 

I agree with DUCE on this one, it depends on what you're lookin for. If I'm in the mood for history presented through the eyes of a soldier or someone who was there, I'll read a bio; but if I'm looking to learn and get into the details of a battle or person, etc. I'll definetly pick up a narrative history book.

 

Yeah, I guess what I was what people prefer, the bias and possible fiction of an autobio or a rather dry dates and figures book. I would go for the bio for readings sake. I mean I would much prefer to read an autobiography than some of the more dry works.

Ok, this is getting confusing...

 

Yes and to add to that; you do have Historical narratives that are also a great read...And bio's that are dull...

I have always enjoyed the combination of both the most; the Ryan books, for example.

From an early age I have always been primarily interested in how the men fighting it, experienced the war, how it affected them. Guess what I read. But you miss the greater picture, how that story fits in the greater scope of things; in come the studies and commentaries.

Obviously I read both and the lack of accuracy in bio's is compensated by a sense of 'what it was like' that usually lacks in historical narratives.

It is, indeed, what you are looking for; the 'dry' facts on how a battle was fought, won or lost, or what the social, psychological, emotional etc. impact of that battle was.

 

Bang on about Ryan, I love the way his books are full of small, personal details and accounts which allow you to get a great view of the bigger picture. I finished 'The Last Battle' earlier this year (I read 'The Longest Day' and 'A Bridge Too Far' a few years ago, probably should read them again) and loved it, it really did explain a lot about the political intreagues surrounding the charges for Berlin without winding up being as dry as some of the text books we get for history at school (to be honest I feel really sorry for some of the authors, I mean you try to make the 1832 reform act sound even remotly exciting)

 

What's Ryan's first name, just so I know so when I get the books I can be sure.

 

Cornelius.

 

Martin, I have had nothing but problems with some of the bios in the German. I do not even agree with all the staements made by Addi Galland in the first and the last which many feel is one hot book.....

sorry.......

~E

 

Well, I am of the opinion that autobiographies and memoirs are the best source for a writer and researcher like myself, who tends to re-create History and maybe mix it a bit with fiction. Then you don't need a book which tells how it actually was, but how people lived it.

I deeply recommend "War Diaries" by field marshal Fedor von Bock and "It doesn't take a hero" by general H. Norman Schwarzkopf.

 

I guess my preference for autobiographies may be related to my hobbies, they are fairly useful for re-enactors etc. I find that small details, things like captured footwear, uniform details, what people did on leave, it all really helps to build up an 'impression' for re-enactment. IT gives a character depth.

 

Just shot to mind; What struck me with many autobio's as opposed to the narrative history books, is how time played a (different) factor; In the autobio's I am far more aware of the "Hurry Up and Wait" process for the ordinary soldier. And the lack of knowledge about what is going on outside the immedeate unit.

In most if all histories, combat and war is one solid mass of movement, mavouvreing, setlling down in a town, preparing for attack, attacking, withdrawing, conquering, etc.

In most autobio's, especially ground war, you get a sense about the often dreadfull waits between combat, sometimes for weeks when nothing happens.

I remember a 100th Inf. Div. memoir in with the Pvt. writes a lot about the moving about in trucks, the endless marching, lying up in a town, preparing for attack, attack being cancelled and getting ready to move to the next town. He was in the war from late '44 till the end. All in all this guy shot his machinegun thrice in anger!

A 82nd Airborne soldier who was with the division from North Africa to Berlin sent me a tape with his experiences. Most of it was about his contacts with civilians, the things that happened around the combat, really his expressions of europe. Of course also graphic descriptions about what it is like to lie under mortar fire, but also quite a few minutes about 'fratinasation' with the local population and how that changed from country to country.

Also wrote with an officer from the 2nd armoured Div. who was responsible for the R&R whereever the div. went. Very interesting to write how he went about opening (officers and enlisted men) bar's, the troubles he faced, etc. An behind the lines story of a fighting unit. I had never read anything about that, but this man, though generally not under enemy fire, had quite a task getting R&R to the troops the moment they came off the line.

Does make you think and see the war from a different perspective.

In short; it wasn't all combat....

 

That's a very good point, Stevin. Ask most people who were 'there' and they'll say that war was mostly unrelieved boredom and drudgery punctuated by brief periods of sheer terror and confusion !

But I guess writers such as Stephen Ambrose or Antony Beevor wouldn't sell too many books if they spent whole chapters writing about peeling potatoes or standing guard duty...

 

That's right. Most (wo)men who read those books get enough of that already at home... Yet, it is one of the reasons why I collect these self published veteran memoires. Although many weren't able to find a publisher, they do contain a lot of info that probably wouldn't have made it through the editor's office...

I think these forums are fortunate to have had the company of Sapper Brian in the past with his story and nowadays with Art Morneweck, who shows us about live in those days. And of course the other veterans who drop by once in a while.