Fav Historian?

[Mostonian]

I like the books of Basil Liddell Hart, Cornelius Ryan, Richard Holmes, Stephen E. Ambrose and Max Hastings. Horribly populist I know, but too much academia stalls my reading speed.

As for Irvine, I've never read his books and am afraid to say I won't. Not a good position to argue from I admit, but I'm not bothered about his skills as an historian, rather his views on the wider world. It's not only Jews he has a problem with. Have a look for his comments regarding Trevor MacDonald (the first black newsreader in the UK for non-Brits). Jaw dropping.

Also what kind of person writes this 'ditty' for their children:
Entitled "when halfbreed children are wheeled past"
I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.

The man is where he deserves to be, and I hope he's re-arrested upon his return to Britain.
Sorry for bringing politics into it, and it's not a criticism of his academic work or Morse's choice. As I say, I can't comment on it.

[mahross]

Cheers for all the answer guys. You will hopefully see what the purpose of it was soon.

Ross

[Kiwiwriter]

In no particular order:

The late Robin Neillands
Mark Zuehlke
Sir Martin Gilbert
Stephen Ambrose
Denis and Shelagh Whitaker
Samuel Eliot Morison
Charles MacDonald
Sir Winston Churchill
Joe Balkoski
Geoffrey Perret (with caveats)
Eric Hammel
Edwin Hoyt
Richard Franks
William Manchester
Walter Lord
Martin Middlebrook
Lyn MacDonald
Barrie Pitt
Gitta Sereny
Richard Rhodes
Richard Overy
Richard Collier
Christopher Hibbert
Richard J. Evans
Alistair Horne
Constantine Fitzgibbon
Patrick Delaforce
Cornelius Ryan
Gordon W. Prange
Ian Kershaw
Len Deighton

I have to give a thumbs-down to Irving. I have read his biography of Rommel. Something about it bothered me. Then I realized it was how how criminalized the behavior and motivations of the 1944 anti-Hitler plotters. He seemed determined to limn them as traitors. After reading about the libel trial and how he hosed up his accounts of the 1923 Munich Putsch, Kristallnacht, and Dresden, I have to cross him off my list. His biography of Churchill is apparently a "bucketful of slime," according to Sir Martin Gilbert...who should know Churchill the best.

Irving's book on Churchill paints Winston as an obsee, perpetually drunken sot, a pawn of Jewish interests, and accepts any rumor about him as fact.

I have to leave Irving out of the loop, no matter how hard he interview Hitler's secretaries and butlers...he got co-opted by his subjects, and his subjects had an employer to defend.

[lancesergeant]

How does Stephen Ambrose rate in people's estimations. I have heard in the past that they are good for introducing one to American ww2 history but that some of his information is off track. But that they are a good introduction to the events of the second war for a budding buff/ historian.

If this is the case do members of the forum think that historians while writing about an event add their own opinions or their beliefs about what took place not necessary backed up by evidence. There can only be so many representations about what took place, obviously allowing for the size of the incident/ war/ battle etc, before rehashing takes place and poetic licence or unconfirmed material starts to creep in ..

Do you believe they write or report it as it was or their personal view or spin on events. Do those who you believe go off track are doing a disservice to those who fought and confuse the issue for those who compare material with other material and come up with conflicting facts.

I personally like Stephen Ambrose's writing, but find it a bit irritating to find that some occurances didn't take place or are in dispute. I know that some events can't be put down unequivocally down on paper as fact, but when I read a book I am either reading fact or I am reading fiction even if it is only in or for a small part of the book. At the end of the day some of it could be put down to a person's interpretation of events and everyone sees things different or in their own way.

Then again if it was all fact a book might be accused of just going over the same old ground in a different way. Your thoughts on this.

[Hagen]

Originally Posted by lancesergeant

How does Stephen Ambrose rate in people's estimations. I have heard in the past that they are good for introducing one to American ww2 history but that some of his information is off track. But that they are a good introduction to the events of the second war for a budding buff/ historian.

If this is the case do members of the forum think that historians while writing about an event add their own opinions or their beliefs about what took place not necessary backed up by evidence. There can only be so many representations about what took place, obviously allowing for the size of the incident/ war/ battle etc, before rehashing takes place and poetic licence or unconfirmed material starts to creep in ..

Do you believe they write or report it as it was or their personal view or spin on events. Do those who you believe go off track are doing a disservice to those who fought and confuse the issue for those who compare material with other material and come up with conflicting facts.

I personally like Stephen Ambrose's writing, but find it a bit irritating to find that some occurances didn't take place or are in dispute. I know that some events can't be put down unequivocally down on paper as fact, but when I read a book I am either reading fact or I am reading fiction even if it is only in or for a small part of the book. At the end of the day some of it could be put down to a person's interpretation of events and everyone sees things different or in their own way.

Then again if it was all fact a book might be accused of just going over the same old ground in a different way. Your thoughts on this.

I read an article on the inaccuracy of Stephen Ambrose's works at one time and this person chalked it up to the fact that Ambrose didn't do all the research on his own, (he had other people doing some of the leg work). And that they got it wrong, (whoever "they" is) and that Ambrose took this research at face value and didn't check out the facts. Don't know whether it's true or not, but thats what I read.

[adamcotton]

I would have to include some of the "newer" historians, such as James Bradley (Flyboys & flags of Our Fathers) and Paul Fussell (The Boys' Crusade). The former two books, in particular, are extremely well written and absorbing.

Of the "older" breed, I would rate Alfred Price very highly for his aeronautical books, and for readability - if not absolute veracity - Stephen Ambrose.

[Union464]

My favorite historians are Max Hastings, John Keegan, and Correlli Barnett, whose sometimes controversial conclusions about war and peace are often consistent with my own.