|
Author
|
Topic: Stephen Ambrose Opinions
|
3dp
Pilot
|
posted 09-10- 09:43 AM
   
The other post here about one's favorite WW2 books prompted me to ask this question:Is the author Stephen Ambrose as biased in his writings as he seems to be in his interviews? In recent years, he has become one of the authors popping up in dozens of WW2 documentaries, and he has always rubbed me the wrong way. He has just always seemed very jingoistic and a little too "hip hip hooray for the USA" to me (I am an American by the way). Fair enough, some folks just don't take to others. Maybe he wouldn't like me! However, in one documentary recently, he actually greatly offended me (and presumably any Britons watching) by saying, about Patton I believe, "The one thing Ike understood that he didn't, was that the US had to cooperate with Monty (Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery) because he was the only hero the British had in the war" or words very close to that. My jaw dropped. I could not believe that a respected historian of his apparent stature would say such an assinine thing. Without going through a litany of British heroes like BoB ace Douglas Bader and Commodore Harwood of the River Plate, all well known to the British public at the time, let it suffice to say that such a statement insults a whole nation which held out alone against the Nazis for over a year, when many believed it would have been in their own best interest to sue for peace. Does he write this way too? ------------------
Be seeing you,
3dp
Visit RAF Harkness! IP: Logged |
Burkey
Pilot
|
posted 09-10- 09:51 AM
I think Ambrose is guilty of this, but he still is a very good US perspective historian, I enjoy his books...IP: Logged |
Sunray
Pilot
|
posted 09-10- 11:30 AM
ALL authors are biased. Read some of the books about Montgomery. Some are blatant hero worship while others are just as blatantly the other way.
Then read some of the American authored books that give the impression they won the war alone. They give passing mention to the Brits, no mention of Canada or any of the other Allied countries at all.
This is why you have to read more than one book of a particular subject.IP: Logged |
Jerry
Pilot
|
posted 09-10- 11:30 AM
Ambrose has spent so much time interviewing WWII vets that he stands in awe of them, and it shows. I have also spent a lot of time with them as a member of the 8th Air Force Historical Society. It's almost impossible not to become biased.Regarding his comments about Monty, my guess is that this was not only Ambrose's opinion but was based on his research of other's opinions. He did write the definitive biography on Eisenhower and may have gotten it from Ike himself. To my knowledge his was the only biography that Eisenhower actually cooperated with. If either one did say the "only" British hero I'm sure they meant the one with the most visability and fame. It's a well known fact that American military leaders weren't overly empressed with Monty's military prowess (Dieppe, Market Garden, British efforts immediately after D-Day, etc). I guess that's what happens when you put a poof in charge.  IP: Logged |
3dp
Pilot
|
posted 09-10- 04:33 PM
I agree that he does seem a little to close to his subject, and certainly gives the impression that the US won the war alone, at least when speaking. My hope was that his writing was less so. While all people (not just authors) are biased, I have seen and read many books by many authors and most of them, like the good journalists many are, keep things fairly objective when writing historical non-fiction.I'm biased. My main area of interest is British arms since 1939. However, despite spending my time reading about, watching documentaries about, and playing sims which recall the exploits of the British Army, Royal Navy, and the RAF, particularly during WW2, and the fact that I'm American, I do not hesitate to give the greatest credit by far to the Soviet Union for the ultimate defeat of Nazi Germany, even though the Eastern Front ranks way down on my personal interest list. Other nations all played their part and I in no way mean to diminish anyone's contribution, but the Russians paid a far greater price in casualties, both military and civilian, than the Western Allies combined (several times over if I recall correctly). I don't mean to start a debate here, I just cite the above as an example of how even a lowly amateur historian like myself can try to be objective. Mr Ambrose's overstatements just make me sad since those who know no better are hearing him too. P.S. I'm not going to start a Patton/Monty debate here, but I don't think it becomes any of us to off-handedly refer to a historical figure, highly regarded by many, as a 'poof'. ------------------
Be seeing you,
3dp
Visit RAF Harkness! [This message has been edited by 3dp (edited 09-10-2001).] IP: Logged |
Jerry
Pilot
|
posted 09-10- 05:32 PM
The remark was not off-handed. It is a fact that Monty was Gay, hence the "poof" reference. Sorry if it's not PC.  IP: Logged | |
FSIC Messageboard
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
