Stephen Ambrose

Uh oh.
'Band of Brothers' author Stephen Ambrose accused of faking Eisenhower interviews - Yahoo! News

 

Does not surprise me. Ambrose does come across as narcissistic. My stance when reading historic material is to trust but verify. Someone said that I believe.

 

This doesn't surprise me in the slightest. He tends to write what he wants, regardless of historical accuracy. Populariser sounds pretty good. His blanket dismissal of the pilots who dropped the airborne troops as cowards in Band of Brothers is a good example.

 

Modern history has been influenced by certain historians, who have to portray themselves as knowledgable story tellers, who can make reasoned statements, presumably, we hope, founded on the evidence, rather than on the opinions of the historian. This we call impartialism, and reputations speak a lot for whether your assumptions are accepted at face value, or dismissed as speculation.

I thought Ambrose's work was entertaining. But I also believe that his number one objective is to make a living from these books, rather than concerning himself with other, more work heavy aspects of writing history, (like doing your own research). A shame, though. If nothing else, history needs his brand of enthusiasm, even if it doesn't need Stephen Ambrose.

 

I never could wrap my head around his supposed "hundreds and hundreds" of hours of interview time with Eisenhower.

 

he was in a civil lawsuit for liabel before his passing, really think this took it out of him. I find his work(s) trash actually.

 

I completely disagree with saying his works are trash. I've always questioned his reliance is "personal interviews" but have read all of his books, and enjoyed them all. Open up the flood gates for everything now...because if an author did it once, they probably did it every time.

 

both Jeff. Luke yes there were some distortion of texts from German as well as US vets on the Normandie campaign that was getting him in to troubled sorts.

heck much is my personal opinion I read an account or two from him and was unimpressed, but again understand this is my take. look at the tastes of the forum board in the threads posted: many and varied as it should be.......

was looking through his 15th AF heavy bombers book a few years back some of which I could not find factual backup to his statements

 

I'm not defending Amborse but he is probably no worse than S.L.A. Marshall when it comes to shaping history to their own vision.
My biggest compliant w/ Ambrose is his dismissal of American involvement in the ETO prior to 6/6/44. While North Africa, Sicily, Italy & southern France may not have been definative campaigns of the ETO they certainly shapped to US Army into the force that landed in Normandy & the men who fought in those campaigns shouldn't have been ignored as much as they were.

 

What did he say? Been a while since I've read the book or seen the series.

 

Or David Irving

 

Ambrose had a major segment on the BBC production The World at War. He had about a half hour in which he summarised the outcome. I thought it was rather good.

The BBC must have thought enough of his credentials to ask him to contribute.

I am aware of some of the controversy surrounding his apparent plagiarism (sp?). But it has been correctly pointed out that he is a 'popularizer'. He is easy to read and brings some interesting perspectives to the 'big picture' of the war.

Ready for my spanking now!

 

To be honest, Atkinson is far superior as a populaizer. The first two of his trilogy are brilliant.

Ambrose gets a meh. He'll always be known as the guy who wrote BoB, but truthfully what makes BoB special has little to do with him. Spielberg, his production company, and especially the actors, made that series.