Dick Winters Memorial Dedication

The problems with the book were.........well epic.

I will mention only 2 areas, both of which seem to cause a lot of debate and a willingness of folks to get ****ed at the one who mentions the facts:

1) The shooting of prisoners in Normandy by men in that company. While much of the actual details were scrubbed out of the book, there is a brief mention of one Frenchmen who was shot in the back of the head by the paratroopers and lived to tell about it (they thought he was a German). There was more.

The book "Currahee" goes into the details as well of to some of the prisoner shooting by the 506 PIR in Normandy. Those who want to read about it can.

Know folks don't like to hear that but the my source was Jack Agnew, he used to run the Langhorne DCM club in the late 1980s. It was listening to him discuss the early days in Normandy, prisoners and the attitudes that existed in the first tense day with a Czech (Toni Neamic) who was in the 10th Fallschirmjager regiment, 4th Fallschirmjager division. Listening to those two was an education for a young man, opposite sides of the war, both very good friends. Toni was not so clean himself, he had done anti-partisan work in Belorussia in the spring of 1944, he never discussed what occurred there in specific detail, but was wanted by the Czech government post war.

link to source:

Jack Agnew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2) The entire story of the 506 capturing Berteschgarten was pure bunk, the 506 was the third unit to get to the site, a US infantry unit, and a French unit and then the 506th PIR. I point that out to show that Ambrose was by the time he wrote that book no longer a serious historian but one who popularized history and was not above omitting or embellishing a narrative to make a good story. Mr. Ambrose did a lot to popularize history, but at the same time his books must be taken with a grain of salt, much like Cornelius Ryan's books.

Both of those Paratroopers were quite impressive and I am sure all of the vets in the 101 were. But fame in the hands of a storyteller tends to get stretched and "tales told with advantages". No disrespect meant or implied to the men of that unit or any of the vets of that era.

Ambrose didn't embellish anything about Berteschgarten. He wrote the book based on the testimony of the 506th soldiers he interviewed and it was their belief that they were the first there. The 7th infantry did indeed take it and a French unit also arrived earlier but these were ordered out of the area before the 506th arrived and left almost no evidence they had ever been there. Col Sink, the commander knew but the average soldier did not. It was also the 101st that Eisenhower wanted to have the honor of taking the town so that's pretty much how it played out. The 7th advanced against orders.

So the book and the HBO series are inaccurate perhaps but not from the perspective of the 506th.

If you want to be a historian you write the truth in so far as you can determine it. If you want to be a popular author you write tales that read well and inspire. If he had wanted to put down a narrative of how the soldiers saw it and then place that in the larger historical picture he could have. He chose not to, so I see him as more of a storyteller than a historian.

This is not the first book where he did this. His book on the transcontinental railroad is a very good read, but has a lot of mistakes and distortions of history. In particular he repeated a lot of the larger than life tales from that saga, but never went back and corrected the record as to what the objective truth behind these tales was. I really like the book, but am aware my understanding of that entire period of history is flawed because that is the only book I read on that subject.

Note I can see it both ways. Those entertaining history books will bring a lot of folks into reading about the period who might not otherwise. No one is going to read the dry unit histories of both sides to start. If you read past these narrative account the subtle defects of such books will become apparent. They serve a purpose. But there is a down side to that sort of "history", and that is the very real distortion of historical fact that occurs when you decide to write to sell entertaining books rather than seek the truth. Most folks do not go beyond one popular book on the topic and so the vast number of folks are sold a tale.

If you look at the full compendium of Ambrose books you will see a pattern. He finds a veteran who wrote down his experiences but never published it. He then uses that manuscript as a basis for his own book and seeks out folks to flush out the tale and provide depth. He writes it in a manner to make the tale entertaining, poignant and at some level emotionally compelling/inspirational. If facts get in the way of that narrative those facts are omitted. Such books sell well and made Stephen Ambrose a well known author.

Cornelius Ryan was the same, his three big books, The Longest Day (1959), A Bridge Too Far(1974)and The Last Battle (1966) are all very entertaining reads, but ultimately are lacking in a lot of ways when it comes to being objective history, most especially the 1959 and 1974 books. Because those books were so popular in their day there are still a lot of general misconceptions about those battles.

Back to the actual men of the 506 PIR. No disrespect offered, intended or any other aspersion of those men. There is not doubt that the US airborne divisions and the men in them had remarkable combat records. But the actual details of the 506s fight in Normandy while epic in many ways, also involved a lot of harsh aspects that no one really want to acknowledge or discuss.

I still can't see fault with Ambrose's telling of the story. He wasn't writing a history of WWII. He was telling the story of the 506th in their words based on their experiences. In the grand scheme of things, they obviously aren't going to know everything, nor should they.

Dick Winters was a man of the highest honor in my opinion. I've never met him but I have met several of his soldiers and fellow officers and I've talked with the author of "The Biggest Brother" Larry Alexander many times. They have nothing but good things to say about him. One common thread with those I have talked with is they don't believe they did anything special that sets them above countless other units in WWII. They were fortunate perhaps in being singled out for the telling of their story in a manner in which the audience is drawn to them.

Lt Speer is also held in high regard. Whether the rumors of him shooting prisoners is true or not, no one has confirmed it as far as I know and I've read about 4 different biographies of men in the unit. They all discuss it as a rumor that no one ever could confirm. Speer certainly never admitted to it. Could it have happened, sure. Does it matter? To me it doesn't, war is hell and in the heat of the moment plenty of things could happen. Having been an officer myself, this series gave me the opportunity to ask myself many what if's. To examine my value as a leader and what I might do in the same type situation. Fortunately I was never placed in that situation. I also had the "distinct honor" of being the NBC officer. I hated that job. The worst possible thing I would have been required to do is select one individual, of course the most expendable, and order them to take off their mask, watch them breath and see if they die or not. It isn't always fun and games. So I was a bit anxious flying into a combat zone with full MOPP gear against a nation known to have used chemical weapons.

So I don't necessarily point fingers and say "that was wrong" when discussing some hard decisions that may have been made. The Geneva Convention is all well and good and we are instructed on combat requirements very heavily and we as a nation do everything possible to adhere to it but **** happens sometimes. If it was deliberate and needless, the guilty party needs prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But when the enemy acts like animals and neither adheres to or even understands the concept or existence of the Convention, what can you do. These guys watched their best friend get their heads blown off and you just can't come down off that emotional roller coaster with ease.

Nothing I wrote was against Capt. Winter or any of the members of the 506 PIR. All the men of that generation I have a deep and abiding respect. My comments were reserved for the author of the book and his methods.

Now the Lt. you mention and the allegations against him that are not in the book but the HBO series. it was in the movie because the story seems to have had legs according to the Vets HBO contacted. As you say that story is doubtful as shown. The shooting of German prisoners by the 506 PIR in the first days at Normandy is not. In the book there is a brief reference to a Frenchmen shot in the back of the head (who survived) when surrendering to the paratroopers, the fate of the Germans who surrendered with him are left unknown. If Ambrose read the book "Currahee!" which has been around since at least the 1970s when I read it, he would have realized the shooting of German prisoners in Normandy was one of the aspects of the 506 PIR that was very much an undisputed fact (at least in company A). The discussions I hear as a young man between the Pathfinder American and the German Paratrooper were very enlightening (1988 to 1991). The very brutal training and desperate times the soldiers found themselves in that lead to those attitudes is not in dispute. Yet he glozed over it, a calculated act of omission, which I would alleged was to make a better story for the mid 1990s audience. That is my entire objection to his methods and he is by no means alone in that methodology of generating book sales.

If the book and the movie are simply the narrative of the unit, recollections of soldiers in their autumn years then I guess all is fine. But it is not objective history, and if there was an aspect to that narrative that perhaps exaggerated some things, left significant facts out, then the end result may be why the good Major thought about the monument the way he did. Good men who do valiant deeds may have second thoughts about the actions of their youth in old age when they have children that might have to go through similar times. Many of these vets do not want to glorify war or what they went through in any way.

I knew a US Army vet of the end of WWII, left the service as a staff sergeant in 1949, successful business man in my home town. Very ethical and honorable man. Spent most of his time with Army Air Corp units, never fired a shot in anger, no books will ever be written about him. As he related it, he hated all officers and the Army in general as a young soldier, he had reasons for it which I heard directly as a young man when considering entering the military. Other stuff he never related to me. On one occasion at the airfield he was at B29s were coming in and for some reason blowing up as they landed. He and the enlisted near him were cheering, as every time a plane blew up that meant 3 more dead officers. He and his fellow soldiers stopped when one of the tailgunners, minus one arm and burnt, staggered up. Then, because enlisted men were being killed they stopped cheering. In later years he felt really bad about that and was adamant that none of his kids would serve in the army if they could avoid it. At his funeral there were no military honors, though he qualified. His widow was the one who related the story as I offered that an honor guard could be arranged. He did not want it, even though he was a member of some veterans organization.

In my mind those men were heroes and I would have jumped at the chance to talk to any one that I could, it would be a distinct honor. But as I have aged, learned something of life and gotten to know some of the more distasteful aspects of having to go through that sort of thing, the kind of narrative Ambrose wrote just does not sit well with me. I enjoy reading such, I found a lot of it inspirational at times in my past but it is not honest history, such tales leave too much out. The price paid by men in war in not adequately covered. Ambrose was not an honest author, in my humble opinion.

One final time, no disrespect felt, implied or should be inferred towards any veteran of that period.

Hi Folks ... :)

Can we get back on track and post about the original topic of Dick Winters Memorial Dedication... ;)

Thanks.. :cheers:

Regards,
Doug

I for one find the discussion interesting as I think the historical aspects of milsurps is why most of us are here. Ambrose did in my opinion shift from a pure historian to a to a relater of stories. I have read many of his books and enjoied every one ,but am aware of the discrepencies. I do not think he intentionally misrepresented anything perhaps just got caught up a bit in his newly found celbrity. He sort of died under a cloud of accusations of plagiarism which I find a bit sad as he did quite a bit to encourage attention to history including his contributions to the establishment of the WWII Museum in New Orleans LA The National WWII Museum | New Orleans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HOOKED ON HISTORY

I for one find the discussion interesting as I think the historical aspects of milsurps is why most of us are here.

---

I agree, which is why we provided a Book and Video Review Corner to discuss content such as this, which is way off topic to the original poster's topical matter of Dick Winters Memorial Dedication.

Thread closed.... :surrender:

Regards,
Doug