Talk:Stephen E. Ambrose/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Birthplace

From the article:

Ambrose was born in Decatur, Illinois

According to http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/amb0bio-1, Ambrose was born in Lovington, Illinois. If this is the case, the information in the biography section is inaccurate. (Apologies if I am am adding this comment in a way that is inappropriate; if so, by all means rectify this text...) --Jdk

Source

user:H.J. wrote:

Stephen Ambrose is known as the "Eisenhower Apologist".

I would like to see a source for this. If Ambrose has a reputation as an apologist, then several people (other than you and me) should be calling him that. Please don't misunderstand. I am just as much against military crime as you are. I studied such incidents as the My Lai massacre, carried out by American soldiers in Vietnam and personally interviewed a US marine sniper who (sorry, I can't go on, I'm liable to drip tears on the keyboard or throw it across the room!)... Ed Poor

Maveric took it out, but then I overwrote him after edit conflict with much more complete detail on Ambrose. As close as I've come to violating wiki etiquette. Ortolan88 12:45 Jul 30, 2002 (PDT)

Er? Edit conflicts happen -- in this case all I did is delete the same sentence you replaced with a few nice paragraphs. Good job BTW. --mav

---

Ed, I heard the mention of Eisenhower apologist on an interview, probably PBS, because I listened/listen to Mc Neill (Lehrer) quite a bit. I cannot recall details right now. If I do, I will put it back in. user:H.J.

---

user:H.J. -- do you know what the word apologist means? It does not mean, as you seem to think, someone who excuses another -- classically (and in this sense) an apology is simply a reasoned explanation and clarification of an issue. Please try to consider your sources before polluting the site. Do you EVER try to read reviews and ask yourself about motives, etc., of the author? I've recommended this article on reading sources to you several times. It really would greatly help your ever-dwindling credibility if you started to follow some of its precepts, which most of us take for granted. JHK

No like Ike

From the article:

"Ambrose was chosen by Eisenhower as his biographer because Ike..."

Who is Ike? Please don't use terms or names which are not understood outside the US (unless you give a link). -- Tarquin 21:57 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

Ike is Eisenhower's nickname. -- Zoe

Thanks. I've removed "ike" from the article -- Tarquin

Anyone interested in Anglo-American Second World War military history should be familiar with the use of Ike for Eisenhower. It would be better for the article to have had some such mention.

POV?

I have eliminated some of the POV in this article, after being disturbed to see so much "opinion" supported by so few references. I also do not thing this bio is the place to insert personal book reviews -- that can be done at the book level, if necessary. --AllanJ 08:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect "Eisenhower Center"

Stephen Ambrose was the founder of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies at the University of New Orleans, not the Eisenhower Library in Kansas, to which the page is linked. The Eisenhower Center doesn't have a web page, as it no longer exists. After Ambrose, the historian Douglas Brinkley took over as director of the Eisenhower Center, but when he left to join the faculty of Tulane, the center, which held the archives of oral histories of veterans of D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge that Ambrose drew on for his books, was eventually folded into the National D-Day Museum.

UPDATE 2008

The Eisenhower Center for American Studies is still very much alive and well at the University of New Orleans. The director is the distinguished military historian Dr. Allan R. Millett, Ambrose Professor of History at UNO and the Gen. Raymond E. Mason Professor Emeritus of Military History at The Ohio State University. The oral history archive is in the curatorial care of the National World War II Museum in New Orleans. Neither Brinkley's departure (he left Tulane for Rice shortly after Katrina) nor Katrina have closed the Center. http://www.ikecenter.uno.edu/ Ikecenter (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Pegasus Bridge

The link to Pegasus Bridge in the book list is linked to the article on the actual bridge, and not to article on the book, I don't think one exists. -- 18:00, Wednesday November 8, 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. I'd advocate even a dead link to the non existent page, unless someone wants to write an article about the book.. Hmm, I'll think about it! Sle 22:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

This section needs to be rewritten. The book "Pegasus bridge", focuses entirely on the British contribution to D-day (And ultimately the winning of the war), to the point of clearly recognising in the book that without the contribution they made there that morning, the invasion would have been unsuccessful. I'm English and am irritated to by the tendency of some Americans to bias things their way, but Mr Ambrose is NOT guilty of this. I suggest the author expand their reading beyond Band of Brothers. Sle 22:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree so I at least took out the "However, his WWII books focused almost exclusively on the contributions of the US military, leaving him open to criticism that his work lacks balance. " Since he obviously did write a non US book. Also without sound to personal opinion. Since when is it a criticism for a American Historian to write about Americans? I doubt we could go to another nationalities Historian authors page and write criticism that they didn't include other nationalities.--63.163.213.245 02:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism Incident

Is the source for this section correct? As it is the day after his death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.104.128.197 (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

A George Mason University source for the plagiarism has been added.--Buckboard 07:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

American Bias

This does come over strongly in The Victors. We have two quotes of British coxswains needing US officers to brandish revolvers at them to get them to take the landing craft close enough to shore. But the discussion of the 'floatable' tanks being swamped with water didn't feel it was appropriate to mention that this was because their American coxswains also refused to get close enough to shore before expecting the tanks to leave the boats.

Even worse was his mention of the T-34 tank, where he states that it was probably the best tank of the war, and then adds that it was American designed. I guess a bit like the P-51 was British designed? Or Sikorsky helicopters are Russian-designed?

The blurb on the book describes it as the story of the Allies between D-Day and VE-day. 'Allies', in this context, means a description of the British & Canadians mainly to play down their abilities & efforts, and a near-complete omission of the Russians.

(The quote on the T-34 was in a section describing the technical weakness of the Sherman tank against the Panther & Tiger, but then adding that the majority of the German tanks were Mk IVs, and that the Sherman was a better tank than the Panther/Tiger/Mk IV in open country.)

On the plus side, having read Pegasus Bridge before The Victors I could skip large chunks of the early part of the book, since it was word-for-word from Pegasus Bridge. Pegasus Bridge does offset his American bias, but that may have been because this was an aspect of history that could not have been rewritten to claim that the Americans were responsible for that victory. However, it also came across that he did seem genuinely respectful of, even fond of, the characters, German, French & British, that he had interviewed for the book.Bendel boy 13:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

World at War - shows he is was a rounded historian thirty-five years ago. 86.149.209.189 23:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of another author writing about historical matters that changes their viewpoint from one book to another to the extent Ambrose does. I've seen as much bias change in papers written by historians but never in books. The principle reason for this may be very simple. He is telling his audience what he thinks they want to hear. Since his books are bought overwhelmingly by Americans, Ambrose adopts a very pro American tone to them, and since The World at War is a BBC production initially shown to UK audiences, he is sympathetic to the British and anti-American in his commentary on that series. I would argue that if the Nixon volumes had been written in the mid to late '70's,when Nixon was extremely unpopular, they would have been nothing but a hatchet job. There is a salesman quality involved with Ambrose's work that doesn't befit a historian. Adding sensationalistic, mostly incorrect things like the T-34 tank being designed by Americans is a consistent feature of Ambrose's books but it is a marketing ploy worthy of a made-for-TV movie screenwriter(Think "Hitler: The Rise of Evil.") not a historian.

I would disagree that his appearance on The World at War indicated a "rounded" historian. In the least, his commentary on episode 25, "Reckoning," outraged many Americans and Poles. For example, Ambrose states, "Poland has to fall in the orbit of one or the other [Hitler or Stalin] ... and they were "better off under Stalin's heel." (Thus, Ambrose rationalized the abandonment of Poland to Soviet domination after WWII even though its independence was the reason for the outbreak of the war.) He also spoke glowingly of Stalin's great gift of not continuing to occupy Austria. Ambrose is sympathetic to the British effort in the war and their post-war difficulties but shows obvious contempt towards Americans and speaks at times in mocking tones about how Americans had the wrong attitude and were ignorant about WWII's aftermath. As best I can recall from reading a newspaper interview made shortly after The World at War's U.S. broadcast, Ambrose attempted to shift some of the blame for his "unAmerican" comments on the BBC editing his comments. (I regret no longer have the '70's newspaper that reprinted the interview. I believe the original interview had been done by the Times-Picayune.)--TL36 (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Ummm...the P-51 *was* American-designed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51_Mustang). Sikorsky helicopters *are* American-designed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_Helicopter). I guess Steven Ambrose's work doesn't have enough "Anti-American Bias" for your taste. --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.91.121 (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I see. So you agree that the T-34 *was* American-designed? In which case you may want to read up a little on history - try starting with T-34. You might also want to look up sarcasm and irony.

By the way - Sikorsky *was* Russian. The P-51 *was* built only because of the British - although full credit goes to North American for persuading the British to drop the low-risk option of having NA build P-40s, and instead buying an unproven, non-existent, design. The T-34 can claim descendant from the American Christie tanks; but the by time it was the T-34 it was "American designed" in the same way the P-51 was "British" - only by gross abuse of the facts.

• • I don't know anything about the T-34, but I do know that Sikorsky was American. He fled Russia after the communists took over. I am pretty sure that he didn't design any working helicopters prior to coming to the USA. By your logic the atomic bomb was jointly designed by Hungary and Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.83.184 (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Also - I didn't want "Anti-American Bias." I wanted a book that claimed to be the story of the Allies to actually be the story of the Allies. I wanted "even-handed", "fair", "honest", "accurate" - all expressions that you lump into "Anti-American."

Perhaps reading up some history might be in order to appreciate what countries constituted the Allies in Europe between D-Day and VE-Day. Perhaps Allies of World War II might be a good starting point. Bendel boy (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Ah, maybe you should look up "pretentious" or "condesending". It might help you out with future edit posts. I never claimed that T-34's were American designed. I merely corrected the assertations that the P-51 was British designed and that the Sikorsky was Russian designed. The P-51 aircraft was designed by the North America Aviation. Yes, it took England's Merlin engine innovation to make it one of the top fighters of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that, fundamentally, the aircraft was an American effort. As for Sikorsky, he emigrated to the United States in 1928. The world's first production helecopter (a Sikorsky) flew in 1940. Do the math. It's pretty clear that it wasn't a "Russian design".

76.113.112.59 (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Now, go back & read what I wrote about the T-34. That describing the T-34 as American designed was like calling the P-51 British designed. You then replied that this was an incorrect allusion, because the P-51 was American designed and so complaining that Ambrose described the T-34 as American designed indicated an anti-American bias. Bendel boy (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

In the first paragraph of biographical information, someone had put this:

He got an avalanche from Alex Taylor

As near as I can figure, in this context an avalanche is a sexual act, Alex Taylor is a porn star, who wasn't even born around the time Stephen Ambrose graduated from High School. Can anyone think of any other (legitimate) meaning these words might have?

Mr.aluminumsiding 01:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What is with him in World at War

Does he have an actual speech impediment or is he being pretentious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.86.153 (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Educational Biography

If someone who has the information on where Ambrose went to school and, generally, his academic development as a young historian, the article would be greatly enhanced.

Timothy McCallister 02:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Massive criticism and plagiarism sections

I was surprised to find that approximately half of this article contains of accusations against Ambrose of plagiarism and criticism of him. This is far, far out of proportion to such a lengthy and distinguished career. I think this needs to be cut down. JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Eisenhower biography origins

It doesn't looked like he was actually asked to write them. Are they prominent enough to still include reference in the body text?

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2010/04/26/100426ta_talk_rayner

170.20.11.116 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The biographies are still prominent, but the body text definitely needs to mention both that Ambrose's claim that Eisenhower asked him to write the biographies may not be true and that the bulk of the interviews Ambrose cited as sources may not (probably not) have actually happened. IMO, that means editing both the comment about being asked to write them and adding a new section under the Criticism heading.

TASch21 (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Scatter shot tags on "Inaccuracies"

On April 26 anonymous IP editor User:75.2.209.226 added an umbrella of six scatter shot tags to the "Inaccuracies" section of this article disputing both its "neutrality" and the motives of other editors, and claiming it has "excessive detail", constitutes "debate", that the references cited are "not reliable sources", and that the section "requires authentication or verification by an expert", although he/she then failed to post anything here ("Talk") to support any of these contentions.

Although he/she does not explicitly say so, I presume from earlier edits that the portion that the anonymous editor is disputing is the addition of the reference to the December, 2000, fact checking review of the Ambrose book Nothing Like It in the World entitled The Sins of Stephen E. Ambrose that documented dozens of factual errors, misstatements, and unsourced quotations in the original hardback edition of the book published in August, 2000. The fact, however, that the publisher subsequently incorporated all of the documented and sourced corrections specified in that review in the later paperback edition of the book published in 2001 confirms their veracity and acceptance by the book's editors as accurate.

Unless and until the anonymous IP editor who added these tags specifies exactly what his/her specific issues are with this section (other then a claim that it constitutes "sour grapes POV"), there doesn't seem to be really anything further to discuss here. In the absence thereof, these tags should therefore be promptly removed as being basically gratuitous and unsupported by the anonymous claimant editor who placed them there even though he/she had never previously edited the article prior to April 25. Centpacrr (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• The six scatter shot "in dispute" tags have been removed as apparently gratuitous placements which remain unsupported by the anonymous IP editor who added them who has neither offered any explanation whatsoever as to why he/she did so, nor provided any justification or specifics as to what is allegedly in "dispute". In addition, no other editors have posted any comments in response to them. Centpacrr (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3