I finally picked up a copy of one of one of Charles B McDonald's books, The Mighty Endeavor. He's an author I've been meaning to read for some time. I just finished reading his chapter on the campaign in Tunisia, especially the Battle of Kasserine pass. It was very interesting comparing his rendition to that of Rick Atkinson's in An Army at Dawn. I swear it was as if they were describing too different battles. I would describe McDonald as being Firm but Fair, while Atkinson had his own spin to put on it. McDonald's take was that the Allies certainly made mistakes, and were nowhere near perfect, but the Axis had their own issues as well. Atkinson goes out of his way to point out every Allied, especially American, mistake, while not giving nearly as much time to any Axis errors. It proves something I've long preached, that you have to read historical accounts with a grain of salt, trying to figure out where the author is trying to push you.

I agree, Roger, the older I get the more grains of salt I have to digest, especially as "History has it new rewriters of history to the way they want it projected".

I've read two of MacDonald's books, his personal account "Company Commander", and "A Time For Trumpets", about the Battle of the Bulge.

I liked Company Commander, but I remember the other as being a little more dull. Also, it had errors in it, such as the use of Ferdinands by the Germans outside Bastogne. This was mentioned repeatedly.

I did not read the book you read, though I did read Atkinson's book. I found Atkinson's book incredibly well-written, ranking up there with books by Keegan. He has a real feel for language and I just loved reading An Army At Dawn, and am looking forward to his two folow-up books on WW2. I didn't find the book nearly so biased, but that's just me. Judging by other errors in "A Time For Trumpets", perhaps Atkinson just did a better job of research, and that's why it appears different?

Rob

Author misled by his sources? Mentions of Ferdinands turn up in books, in places where they certainly weren't deployed in reality. This is frequently due to mis-identification in the original sources, who had other concerns than correct identification of enemy tanks. Of course the sources should be cross-checked where possible.

I was one of the failures on the Army at Dawn group read because I didn't really get on with the book. Didn't seem as well-written as Crusade.

David

Different strokes for different folks?

I regard Keegan as my favorite military writer/historian, as his use of language is just awesome. I've found a flaw or two, research-wise, in his works. But I love to read them just the same.

I guess it all boils down to taste. I liked Atkinson's style in An Army at Dawn, but that's just me. I think that we, today, look back on the campaign in N. Africa as a bunch of missed opportunities, so perhaps that's why Atkinson's writing seemed biased? Who knows? Interesting discussion, though.

Rob

As a writer I'd say Atkinson was very good. I really do think though that he had a "spin" to put on things and he went a bit overboard in pursuing that spin. I "hosted" the reading group that David mentioned. A number of people commented on the perceived bias we'd see in Atkinson's writing. Many respected historians, and the other kind, have their own spin, but some are more heavy handed than others about it. I'll give two examples of books by authors I feel are every bit as readable as Atkinson, but without as much of a bias, at least that I could see.

One is Thomas J Cutler, author of The Battle of Leyte Gulf. I find the book very well researched, and extremely interesting to read. I didn't find any bias at all in it.

The other is James D Hornfischer, author of Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors. This is another very well written book, that I believe was free of slant.

As you say though "different strokes."

Let me start out by saying that I am not familiar with either book, and with my post no flaming is intended.

I have a few remarks though that can play a role in the amount of "perceived" bias in a book.

1. What is the background of the author. Is he an insider of the field (ie a historian specializing in the area) or is he an outsider.

2. At what point in the debate a book was introduced. If the book is intended to go hard against current (at the time of publication) common opinion the argument tends to go overboard. After a few harsh back-and-forth's the debate tends to settle somewhere in between (unless there is (near) conclusive evidence either way).

3. What was the intended aim of the author in itself. Because it could well be to point out the many short-comings of the American forces in WW II (or even today) to the not-so-well informed masses. Which makes for odd reading for those who are better informed. To give you an example of the not so informed masses, whenever there is a debate involving military history, or even problems facing the US military today abroad (Iraq/Afghanistan) on another message board (non history related) you almost always see the same division appearing:

One side: Mostly Americans, of from all over the spectrum.

In the middle: Former US Marine, involved in Vietnam and later trainer, now Border Patrol, some US veterans (or current serving soldiers, nearly all of them infantry.

Other side side: A few British, a Canadian (former airborne, veteran of Somalia), one American in US military intelligence (involved in the capture of Saddam), and me on the other side, pointing out problems, nine out of ten times in reaction to statements made by the other group that sometimes are complete fallacies.


And Halfyank,

indeed, as you said, it always pays of to read with a critical mind (though that is easy to forget when the author's point is close to your own preconceived ideas), which is a hard thing to do. It is also a thing that is too easily forgotten.


And just wondering, what is your opinion on Ambrose's D-Day?

Dutchbird,

I liked Ambrose's D-day for the stories, etc. But, wow, I swear that half the chapters are about Omaha beach! He seems to have an incredibly pro-American bias. Also, in interviews on the History Channel, etc., and I believe also in that book, he constantly talks about how, if D-Day failed, we'd have dropped the A bomb on Germany and the war would have ended, and I do not believe the USA would've done that unless it believed Germany was close to having their own A bomb completed. He also never gives the Russians their due for causing the most casualties on the Germans and for absorbing the most.

Basically, I'm glad he wrote books like Citizen Soldiers, Band of Brothers, etc., and that he started the D-day museum. But his writing is primitive by comparison to others like Keegan or Atkinson, and his opinions are only thinly veiled and, in my opinion, often silly.

Rob

Getting away from WW2 one of my favorites is 'Chancellorsville' by Stephen W Sears. To mind Sears has done an excellent job of describing the background, lead up to the battle and the battle itself superbly. He's also gone to great lengths to blow many of the lingering myths which have since been written as fact in many accounts of this Civil War battle.
For example General Joe Hooker never once said "...I lost confidence in Hooker." As Sears explains this was a myth bought about by the faulty reminiscences, 40 years after the battle, by an ex-staff officer. As an historical account I find the book unbiased and balanced.

Greetings all;

I have run into the same issues with WWI aviation research. I have access to a rather large archive at the Lafayette Foundation as its overseer. We have documents from litterally 1st generation witnesses all the way to modern day writers. Giving two topics for comparison

1. Manfred von Richthofen, JG 1 Kommandeur.

2.Frank Luke, 2nd Lt. 27 Aero Sqdn.

The two names of men whos exploits have been well documented. Still today with the first there are two camps of thought about how he died. There have been more books written about him than about Abraham Lincoln. Yet the facts are subject to interpretation.

With the second, we are only now coming to the full story about his life and death.

Eyewitnesses abound in each topic, yet the facts are interpreted very differently with each writer. Some books are simply a rehash of others. It depends on the writer and what their goal is in writing the book.

I think Ambrose serves a purpose, but mainly he was a writer who really knew his "audience. " I once had a chance to see Ambrose read excerpts from The Wild Blue to a group of about 1000 people. From that experience I found that Ambrose really had a great respect, and love, of American World War II vets. I think this clouded his thinking to wards men from other nations. He seemed to make the Germans more than human, so the Americans could be even more heroic, and at the same time make the British/Commonwealth less than perfect to show how the Americans rose above their allies incompetence. The one thing where I am thankful that Ambrose existed is how he was able to get vets talking about the war and so we have oral histories we may never have had. Ambrose also was great to get people who normally wouldn't be interested in history to actually read a book on the subject.

By the way I should mention that I am looking forward to Atkinson coming out with the next installment of his trilogy. I am very curious to see what his thesis will be and how he presents it.

Thanks for the replies Rob and Halfyank...

you basically phrased my sentiments as well. I started reading it while on the train from San Fransisco to Chicago, but after the first 300 pages I just could not stomach it anymore to be frank (and there have been very few books that had that problem). But I am glad that I am not the only one who got that perception.

In some places it seemed like he literally copied lines he used earlier. And I got the feeling that criticizing the American troops in his book (or complimenting other allies or the Germans (other then when serving to make American troops look good)) would automatically meant disrespecting American veterans.

What stressed it even more was the fact that I had read a study about the German troops in Normandy by Zetterling, which made Ambrose at times look way over the top. In his book, Zetterling basically lists German units involved in the Normandy Campaign, lists their readiness, composition, when elements were dispatched to the front and where applicable a short history of combat.

An interesting book I read (though unfortunately in Dutch translation) was by Matthew Paker, Monte Cassino (various subtitles). It was a bit oin the same style as Ambrose's (using a lot of anecdotes).
I am not knowledgeable enough to really judge it, but the account did seem fairly balanced. American troops (to a lesser degree) and Allied supreme command (especially Mark Clark) get criticized heavily though.
But where the common soldiers and the lower ranks (especially the Americans) are portrayed as (fairly) ineffective mostly due to lack of experience and training, the commanding officers and Clark are charged with, frankly, incompetence.

Zetterling's books:

N. Zetterling; Normady 1944, German military organization....

Cheers,

Harm

I read Parker's book on Monte Cassino as well and found it pretty good.

I agree with everyone though that, although Ambrose may not be the world's greatest writer, his legacy is the wealth of oral histories he and his people collected from aging WW2 vets. That is priceless.

Oh, and it's true...entire paragraphs are copied one book to another. This is especially true between Citizen Soldiers and Band of Brothers. I found that irritating.

Rob

Back to Ambrose for a moment. I haven't read it yet but I wonder how he handles the British in Pegasus Bridge? I've heard he wrote that one almost as an apology to the British for the treatment he gave them in other books.

Oh, and as far as borrowing from other books, and not to bad mouth a dead guy, but Ambrose was accused of "borrowing" sections from other authors, without acknowledgment.

Ok,

I did not know he was accused of borrowing without credit. What I meant was that he copy-pasted whole sections of lines previously used in this same book, just a few pages before.

I think the "borrowing" from other authors mainly came about from his book "The Wild Blue". I believe those accusations were still pending when he died a few years ago.

He did cut and paste from some of his own books, as I mentioned above.

Pegasus Bridge was, in my opinion, his best book. It was a quick and easy read, very descriptive, and didn't seem to have all of his usual biases.

Rob

Has anyone else read John Keegan's "The Face of Battle"? I found it in my school's library and found it very interesting. John Keegan's writing is extremely rivetting, and I found it hard to put the book down.

Also, has anyone read Laurence Stalling's "The Doughboys"? I'm reading it now, and would like to know if it is any good historically. I do know that he is a very good writer, and I especially loved the segments detailing the feeling when wearing the M1912 uniform, which is VERY uncomfortable.(Being a reenactor of the WWI American soldier, I know exactly what he's talking about)

Here is a passage,

"The 'Regulars' stood at attention in campaign hats, neck choking collars that permitted no rolls of fat, breeches tailored for a gymnast's knees, leggings pipe-clayed and fitted to the calf, blouses with patch pockets that would hardly accomodate a pack of ciggarettes. (Whatever talents the West Pointers who desigend this smart uniform may have had, consideration of comfort or serviceability was not one of them.)"(Pg.13)

Keegan is the best! See my earlier posts. He is a fantastic writer and seems to use the most interesting anecdotes in his storytelling. He also presents a very European outlook on things, which is nice, as an American. I've read most of his books. First World War, Second World War, Intelligence in War, The Face of Battle, The Mask of Command, The Price of Admiralty, Fields of Battle (interesting take on American battlefields....it was his writing of this book that made him eligible to speak at the Fortenbaugh Lecture at Gettysburg College back in 1996 or 1997, the greatest lecture I've ever been to ANYWHERE, although this one happened to be at my alma mater). I love his use of the language, and I always check to see how early in his books he uses the word "paucity".

Rob