reliable Historians

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Lads

I'm reading "decision in Normandy" byCarlo D'Este at the moment and I was wondering which historians are generally considered to be good sources? I know the Controversies surrounding Ambrose and Irving but was thinking who's work is considered above reproach???

Any opinions?

[von Poop]

Is there anyone really?
Subjectivity, errors, gaps in the knowledge etc. are always going to be lurking about for any Historian, no matter how thorough or well-intentioned. It seems to be even harder for those covering modern periods as there's often so much material to go on. I like D'estes, he's very thorough, readable and does his best to be balanced, even then he's still mildly irritating at times to the British reader.

Hmm, who do I consider closest to beyond reproach... CV Wedgewood, and that's a subjective view too as I know some people who don't like her work, they're called 'wrong people' though , which is all part of the fun.
David Fletcher's pretty damned reliable too. Entertaining, interesting, and usually right.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

What about Max Hastings? or Anthony Beevor?? I know Russians who cant stand Beevor but his writings seem to give a good account of the various battles.

[sapper]

If I may..As a veteran that served in those times. We (the Vets) are quite staggered at what can only be described as "fairy tales" that is offered as "History".

Sometimes so inaccurate, and so garbled, that it is almost beyond belief, We have histories where the wrong nation landed on beaches. that they never got near, and believe it or not..... whole units that in their opinion, never existed at all even though they led the initial assault.

So you can see why we get very irritated at times, reading what is presented to the public as HISTORY! As time goes by, the record gets more and more into the realms of fantasy.

The best record of battle for me was "Assault Division" (Scarfe) And Max Hastings who took the trouble to research what he wrote about.

What is even more odd, is that the written word, copied from other publications is believed, where the word of those present is not....It has to be believed because it is the book.
Sapper

[von Poop]

Beevor has a good reputation but absolutely bores me to tears, I'd never object to the quality of his research but I don't understand how anyone managed to make Stalingrad so dull. His style lets things down for me, though many would obviously disagree.

I love Max Hastings and regard him as one of the best general introductions to a given subject, largely because of his immensely readable style, but he's hardly beyond reproach in terms of bias (though he does seem to have recovered somewhat from the occasionally rather Germano-centric approach) and seems again to stir up controversy when slightly skimming over certain facets. I enjoyed 'Armageddon' immensely for instance, packed with interesting stuff, but am still slightly puzzled at it's overall direction.

Swings and roundabouts isn't it? You pay your money, take your choice, and make some effort to look into who the author is so you can take their overall position into account while reading.

As Sapper says, one of the worst historical traits is when one error in one book becomes repeated ad nauseum in later ones, the really good Historians are often the ones that question these 'accepted truths'. For example I've got enough armour books now that you can sometimes pin down the initial error and watch it grow over the years until someone like Jentz or Fletcher comes along and corrects things.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Ok, what do people think about David Glantz for example?

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Originally Posted by sapper

If I may..As a veteran that served in those times. We (the Vets) are quite staggered at what can only be described as "fairy tales" that is offered as "History".

Sometimes so inaccurate, and so garbled, that it is almost beyond belief, We have histories where the wrong nation landed on beaches. that they never got near, and believe it or not..... whole units that in their opinion, never existed at all even though they led the initial assault.

So you can see why we get very irritated at times, reading what is presented to the public as HISTORY! As time goes by, the record gets more and more into the realms of fantasy.

The best record of battle for me was "Assault Division" (Scarfe) And Max Hastings who took the trouble to research what he wrote about.

What is even more odd, is that the written word, copied from other publications is believed, where the word of those present is not....It has to be believed because it is the book.
Sapper

Good recommendations Sapper but I'm intrigued as to the works you are giving out about - can you be more specific???

[sapper]

Having been there, and done that, anything that relates to the days when I was a young man is of great interest. Consequently, I have read dozens of books on the subject of the war in North West Europe of 1944.

I had my photo taken while in action but have never seen it..... Now I have read books where the Canadians landed on Sword Beach, and we never existed! Even though we led the invasion and the Canadians came in later on Juno.
Don't ask me to recall the names of books.. If they are not FACTUAL? they get slung straight in the bin. And I can never recall half the names of those I read anyway.

What I do remember, with clarity! was what this country was like in those dire times and it was not funny.
There is one very good book that for me is fascinating is the one that I am reading now. The Finest Hour. It is similar to the book that I wrote..."Cameos of War" In that it is made up of little stories. Excellent and TRUTHFULL...That alone these days is a nice.
Sapper

[Cpl Rootes]

Two of my favourites are Richard van Emden (more WW1 than WW2) and Richard Holmes.

I've got to agree with Adam about Beevor, I managed to get through most of 'Stalingrad' before giving up. It was very detailed and accurate but he managed to make one of the most interesting battles in history into a really rather boring account.

[4th wilts]

i once read a book called ,the recolections of rifleman bowbley,all about his times in italy.wonderful stuff yours lee.