Band of Brothers
Ratings86
Average rating4.2
Stephen Ambrose (or whoever wrote the material he used) relates the history of Easy Company 506 PIR from Camp Toccoa where they were trained to Berchtesgaden at the war's end and how they remained close after the war despite the geographical separation.
Though no great stylist, Ambrose (or whoever) moves the story along easily and clearly. That's the good news.
The bad news is that, 1) He plays fast and loose with the facts. For example he says that Fritz Niland was not immediately pulled off the line when it was thought that his three brothers were killed within three weeks of each other. One of his brothers ultimately survived the war. And his mother did not receive three telegrams the same day. This apparently served, however as the seed for the grossly overrated Saving Private Ryan. Facts maybe stupid things, as Ronald Reagan once said, but that doesn't work for Oprah (see James Frey). 2) He annoyingly sprinkles insider jargon throughout the book as if he was one of the boys. It made me cringe when my father said groovy in an effort to fit in and it made me cringe in this book. 3) He perpetuates the hagiography of WWII as the good war, the victors as the greatest generation, and of America as inherently morally superior. At one point he refers to Easy company's successes as a triumph of democracy over all others. At the same time he contradicts himself throughout the book by emphasizing the fact that Captain Sobel, the hated martinet who was anything but fair and democratic was the key factor in what made Easy, Easy.
None of this is meant to denigrate or diminish the achievements, courage and integrity of the men of Easy Company. They would, however, be better served if those accomplishments were set in more historically accurate and truthful context. How do their reasons for fighting differ from the more complex geopolitical reasons of the military and political leaders? We'll get no answers here.
A tough one to judge. Band is Brothers is a terrific tale of extraordinary soldiers, a study in leadership, and a survey of military operations in the European theater of WWll. Band of Brothers is also a case study in deep lapses in authorial objectivity.
Though I found the stories of the 101st, 506, and E Company engrossing and exceptional, Band of Brothers consistently drifts into flag-waving and hero-worship territory. This is an author's prerogative, of course, but when the author proclaims himself an historian, such clear biases are off-putting.
The book is written along a linear timeline, which is sensible, but it presented Ambrose the significant challenge of maintaining narrative tension – a challenge he unfortunately failed to fully overcome. While there are plenty of interesting anecdotes in the final 25% of the book, there's really no compelling drama or narrative tension to move things along.
I did particularly found Winters and Webster to be fascinating characters. In an example of life imitating art, these two soldiers represented total opposite approaches to compulsory service in the war.
As a matter of general, national, or personal interest, this is a worthwhile book. It is simply unfortunate that Ambrose descends to the level of fandom in his narrative.
Recently, I watched the series “Band of Brothers” and was surprised by its quality. The often-used introductory statements of the former members of the 101st were very impressive and lent the series a lot of credibility.After having watched the final episode, I decided I wanted to read Ambrose's book that served as the source material. Little did I know what awaited me...While the series provided me with a consistent, logical stream of events, the book simply adds anecdote after anecdote. There's hardly any reflection on those anecdotes either and if Ambrose tries to add his analysis, it's sadly lacking, simple-minded and features lots of “Hooray patriotism” that's part of what actually caused the war he narrates about.At times, Ambrose tries to actually support his point of view by citing other works - unfortunately, they're mostly of similarly questionable quality as his own book. In other cases, Ambrose references books that were written in the immediate aftermath of the war and, thus, still strongly subjectively influenced.I for one, though, prefer a proper history book on World War II and not a collection of anecdotes. Especially the strong hero worship Ambrose resorts to all too often...“The coordination with British artillery was outstanding. So was Winters.”... truly annoys me: From what I've read about Richard Winters beyond the praise Ambrose never ceases to sing, Winters must have been a great man and soldier. So let his deeds speak for himself, i. e. Wikipedia calmly tells us that “Winters agreed for the statue to bear his resemblance on the condition that the monument would be dedicated to all junior officers who served and died during the Normandy landings.” when they erected a statue at Utah Beach.The series itself actually shows the war as it must have been - grim, bloody, horrible. Whenever the former soldiers get to talk about their experiences, they often get teary-eyed whereas Ambrose belittles what they got through by making it look easier than it could have been. And, in fact, Ambrose stoops so low that he compares the weapon fire to Fourth of July fireworks:“War provides more meat to satisfy that lust than any other human activity. The fireworks displays are far longer lasting, and far more sensational, than the most elaborate Fourth of July display.”Wow, just wow. Please excuse me for a moment while I vomit.Sometimes, Ambrose tries to get in some German quotes into his narrative. Unfortunately, these parts obviously got very little attention by him or his editors:“Hinkle, Hinkle, ist das du“To me, a German, this reads like a verbatim translation of “is that you?” whereas proper German would be “bist Du das?”. It's a small issue but it's just as annoying as the military abbreviations Ambrose liberally uses. Yes, after a few uses I can imagine “CP” stands for Command Post”, “OP” for “Outpost” or “ETO” for “European Theatre of Operations” but till I figured it out, it was confusing for no good reason.And while Ambrose obviously is a fan of “Ike” Eisenhower, he's not good enough to avoid belittling other famous commanders like Montgomery:“Ike needed the 101st and 82d in the line. It was a question of timing. Eisenhower wanted to attack even before New Year's Eve, but Monty, commanding the forces (all American) on the northern shoulder of the Bulge, stalled and shivered and made excuses, so it did not happen.”A little xenophobia bordering on racism (another cause for the war) isn't something Ambrose is much concerned with either:“Had Reese been a Soviet, German, or Japanese soldier, this little nonincident probably would have turned out differently.”(The “non-incident” he's talking about is severe, continued sexual harassment of civilians, by the way.)War crimes are talked about but there's no criticism at all:““You shoot him,” Moone replied. “The war is over.” Skinny Sisk stepped forward, leveled his M-1 at the fleeing man, and shot him dead.”Pretty much the only decent thoughts expressed in “Band of Brothers” are, interestingly, those of Richard Winters again who remembers reaching a concentration camp:“The memory of starved, dazed men,” Winters wrote, “who dropped their eyes and heads when we looked at them through the chain-link fence, in the same manner that a beaten, mistreated dog would cringe, leaves feelings that cannot be described and will never be forgotten. The impact of seeing those people behind that fence left me saying, only to myself, ‘Now I know why I am here!' ”I will definitely avoid Ambrose as an author from now on and stick to my history books. Blog Facebook Twitter Instagram
FINAL REVIEW.
I was a little forgiving early but it got too much. I have just had to write about a few of the many absurdities of this book.
130 pages in and will finish this but if it does not improve it will be lucky to get a 2 star rating. This author called the German soldiers Jerry, babbled about the British army taking tea and attempted to put on a affected accent.
On page 172 it reads “The Germans managed to achieve surprise on a scale comparable with Barbarossa in June 1941 or Pearl Harbour” Or? and not put a date to Pearl Harbour? Or even why put a date to Barbarossa? Not trust your readers to know what Barbarossa was?
Easy Company is forgiven with a boys will be boys attitude when they have their leave pass's revoked for appalling behaviour, on the other hand others? No such leeway.
Page 172 and 173. Apparently “The surprise was achieved, like most surprises in war, because the offensive made no sense. For Hitler to use up his armour in an offensive that had no strategic aim, and one he could not sustain unless his tankers were lucky enough to capture major American fuel dumps, was foolish.
The surprise was achieved, like most surprise in war, because the defenders were guilty of gross over confident”
Later
“....(the American generals in the Allied camp had no experience of defending against a German offensive)” It gets worse. Consider the above comments on the Battle of the Bulge and then later on page 191, after the Siege of Bastogne is broken we get lots of further Pop History for Patriots with some nonsense about the US army lacking man power because they did not raise enough Infantry Divisions to fight seemingly “lavish deferments” ( I kid you not) by the Germans pre-war in the areas of Industry and Farm Labour, and Fathers!!!
But previously he had praised Eisenhower (who is nearly always referred to as Ike, nearly but not always) who “.......blasted Hitler's assumptions by bringing into play his secret weapon.” Trucks and trailers over the still majority horse drawn German Army. “Ike ordered them to drop whatever they were doing and start hauling his reinforcements to the Ardennes” We are reliably informed that the “response was incredible” It was “mobility with a vengeance”. It actually reads as if he had ordered the trucks and trailers themselves the writing is that poor.
Back to the Pop history for Patriots on page 191 we then get that “it was all a question of timing” because “.....Monty, commanding the forces (all American) on the Northern shoulder of the bulge, stalled and shivered and made excuses, so it did not happen” Contradictory statements and a poor delivery are making this one of the worst books I have ever read. Did this really get such a high 4.1 rating here on Goodreads? Is this how forgiving we are of so called popular history?
Page 181. “The men looked like George Washington's army at Valley Forge, except that they were getting fired upon, had no huts, and warming fires were out of the question”
Page 182. “The bullet his Gordon in the left shoulder....” Many of these errors. Though instead of thought. My copy of this absurd book is 9 years after release and all of these errors should have been corrected. Did they not employ an editor?
Sergeant Christianson is called Christianson throughout except for a sentence on page 185 when twice he just becomes plain old Chris.
Page 205. Ambrose writes that “The Germans sent over some mail” This “mail” is in fact a “shell” and it is a “dud”. Apparently “Lipton just looked at it” and Mann lit a cigarette.
Page 210 Ambrose writes “Back in ‘42 the question was, Can a citizen army be prepared well enough to fight Germans in a protracted campaign in Northwest Europe? Hitler was not the only one who answered no.”
Also on Page 210 Ambrose writes “At this moment Speirs arrived, breathless. He managed to blurt out to Dike ‘I'm taking over'. Sergeant Lipton and others filled him in. He barked out orders, 2d platoon this way, 3d platoon that way, get those mortars humping, all-out with those machine guns, lets go. And he took off, not looking back, depending on the men to follow. They did” I actually snorted out loud at this. My snort then become uproarious laughter after “No one could locate one guy especially, who had stopped movement at a corner with two hits. Then Shifty Power, the man who spent so much of his youth spotting for squirrels in the upper tree trunks in the Virginia mountains, called out ‘I see ‘em' and fired” I suppose spotting for squirrels in the upper tree trunks in the Virginia mountains in your youth was bound to be useful for something one day and as Popeye Wynn made comment “You know, it just doesn't pay to be shootin' at Shifty when he's got a rifle”
Page 213 and Monty had apparently done a bit of “shilly-shallying” but Eisenhower ordering Taylor to attack and then Taylor ordering the rather tired Easy Company to attack because of Eisenhower's order but because of the lack of troops due to there being no reserves because of “limited mobilisation” that caused there not being enough troops to go round Easy Company are paying the price. Well something like that anyway.
Page 219 Ambrose writes of the victory of US forces over the Germans and at the end a long rambling rhetorical paragraph we learn that this victory was all a “superb feat of arms”.
The next line then states “The Americans established a moral superiority over the Germans” I would suggest that moral superiority over Nazism is a given prior to the war anyway. To actually imply that this was only “established” after a victory late in the war is nonsensical. This is one of the most idiotic points of view I have ever read in any book I have read about WW2. He has followed this up with “moral superiority” also being based on better methods in training, selection for command and democracy producing better soldiers than Nazi Germany. Considering the authors willingness to make excuses for previous setbacks this is just hypocritical. Also recall that at this point in time Nazi Germany was also fighting on the eastern front as well as in Italy. In fact it was being beaten by a Stalinist regime on the eastern front that Ambrose could hardly consider “Moral” or “Democratic”. But if the truth be told the less than moral and hardly democratic Stalinist regime made a larger contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany than any other Allied nation.
Lets just say that what Ambrose has written is possibly debatable. He actually kills off any point in his absurd “Moral superiority” nonsense in the next paragraph alone by forgetting what he had previously written. He supports this “Moral superiority” by quoting Sergeant Rader who says “I almost killed a Kraut prisoner for laughing at me after I got to the town, only to have someone grab my M-1 and shout ‘Sarge, he has no lips or eyelids!' He lost them on the Russian front, frozen off” This is an absurd analogy. Sergeant Rader admits that he would have killed the prisoner if not for the missing lips and eyelids. In fact it took a comrade to take the M-1 off him to stop the possible killing of the prisoner. Add to this that Ambrose had previously discussed the killing of German POW's AND one member of the company, Liebgott if I recall, was kept away from prisoners because he could not contain himself.
I would like to make it clear that I make no judgement as to the rights or wrongs of Easy Company, “Ike” “Monty”, General Taylor or military tactics etc. I do make a judgement on Stephen E. Ambrose ability as a historian. This is an appalling book. Easily one of the worst history books I have ever read. In fact forget history alone as a subject, this is one of the worst books I have read period. I am genuinely staggered as to how this book is popular. Maybe the TV series? Many relate to the characters portrayed, visualise them? Is that it?
Interestingly I have wondered if it was just me that found this all too much. That I was missing something and that it was really a good book and I was just being too picky. I decided to research this book a bit further and there are accusations of plagiarism. Some have done deeper research into the specifics of Easy Company at war and there are seemingly many mistakes made by Ambrose to be pointed out. It seems that at a more academic level, shall we say, there are some who are very uncomfortable with what is presented in this book. I for one am not surprised. I am no historian, a lay reader only with a general love of history. With that in mind if someone as far down the food chain such as myself can spot an utter lack of objectivity, to say the very least, those with far more ability than me will be able to tear this book to shreds and tear it to shreds some have done. Rightfully so I say.
I have about 100 pages to go and will finish it. I suppose having not seen the TV series except for the first two episodes I want to know what happens. I also have Ambrose's D-day book and am considering reading it (as a form of personal mental torture) side by side with another D-Day book, maybe Beevor's, just to compare. I am not going to write anymore about the content of this book. All I can do is warn reader beware. The word appalling hardly does justice to this abysmal piece of work. I am giving this a begrudging 1 star, if I could give it less I would.
