Who was the best WWII author?

[Seigfried]

I tried to tread Burleigh but failed after a few dozen pages as his utterly politically biased style became unbearable. The same about Kershaw, though to a bit lesser degree.

I find it most interesting that genuine soldiers like Sir Basil Liddell Hart and J. F. C. Fuller have written general WW2 histories far above the later attempts of people like Max Hastings, Andrew Roberts etc. As one Finnish military historian has noted, the historiography of WW2 has been perversed by political agendas as usually the more time passes of an event, the more objective and neutral the accounting gets. In case of WW2, normalization of its historiography proceeded well until the late 1970s/early 1980s, but beginning from the early 1990s has become more and more politicised and double standardized.

In what way are they biased, left or right?

Also in one breath you say "the more time passes of an event, the more objective and neutral the accounting gets" and then also say "from the early 1990s has become more and more politicised and double standardized". Which is it, objective or biased/perversed.

I don't necessarily disagree, but which is it?

Another thing - the fact that Ambrose is the second most popular author speaks volumes (no pun intended) about the objectivity and naivety of his audience.

[pasoleati]

Seigfried, they are biased to left, no doubt about it. A sort of breakwater was the so-called Historikerstreit in 1986 or so in Germany.

And what I (and the quoted historian) is that while normally historiography has become more neutral and objective the more time has passed from that event, in the case of WW2 it has been almost the opposite. I.e. today's general historiography on WW2 if far less objective and neutral than during e.g. the 1960s. Just compare the general histories of WW2 by Basil Liddell Hart to Andrew Roberts's one, and see a huge difference.

[Seigfried]

Thanks, I understand what you mean now. It may well be that the post-war authors were brought up in left leaning governments, British education is notoriously left wing so that is not really a surprise that it spawns left wing authors, although I cannot say that I noticed it with Burleigh/Kershaw particularly. It must have been too subtle for me!

On the plus side recent authors have had an avalanche of new material as the wartime generation die and leave memoirs, not to mention the opening up of the Eastern Block (as was).

[pasoleati]

The way I see it is that most current authors have not fought in any major war, thus they don't have the frontline experience many older generation historians did plus many in the western world don't have even any military service background either. And that IMHO affects how they write.

This left vs. right issue is also a bit vague as a person may view e.g. economics in "rightist" terms while viewing foreign politics (including the military) in "leftist" terms. Many traditional conservative parties in the past were in favour of strong party-independent and thus parliament-independent executive branch of governing system while today they have become party-politics favouring apparatchiks. This also affects historians as they have been "educated" to hail parliamentary driven system as the supreme in human history.

Leftist views are especially evident in how Italy, Germany and the Soviet Union are treated by historians. Books in which Fascist Italy is condemned while the Soviet Union is not are not difficult to find. Yet, for any objective observer it must be evident that Italy under Mussolini was far more open and less oppressive system than the USSR ever was.

Another significant issue is aerial bombing. Authors like J. F. C Fuller, Basil Liddell Hart and Frederick Veale considered the intentional aerial bombing of civilian targets as barbarous. Herbert Hoover wrote that the dropping of atomic bombs was an act of barbarism that will haunt Americans conscience for ages. Lord Hankey stated that had an Axis combatant used such weapons, the gallows would have seen lot of use.

Basil Liddell Hart wrote that the bombings of Rotterdam and Warsaw fitted the realm of traditional siege warfare, and as such were legitimate. Today it would take lots of courage for a historian to state that.

Yet, today authors like Max Hastings and Michael Burleigh have no problems of intentional targeting of Axis civilians. Which, I feel, proves that in fact the so-called "militarist"* historians are far less fanatic than civilians.

*Fuller believed that war is a built-in aspect of human culture. And one of the best current authors, Martin van Creveld agrees.

[Mark C. Yerger]

There should be a parallel thread for who is (actively writing/researching) rather than who was. A single book author whose tome was done decades ago and has been done in a superior way since, or those who only ever did 1 book, aren't terribly relevant in the overall. Likewise categories; weapons, battles/campaigns, politics, branch/unit history, biographies, militaria, etc should be listed by each contributor.

[LarryHW.]

What difference do the war aims of a combatant nation make in evaluating its actions?

Another significant issue is aerial bombing. Authors like J. F. C Fuller, Basil Liddell Hart and Frederick Veale considered the intentional aerial bombing of civilian targets as barbarous. Herbert Hoover wrote that the dropping of atomic bombs was an act of barbarism that will haunt Americans conscience for ages. Lord Hankey stated that had an Axis combatant used such weapons, the gallows would have seen lot of use.

Basil Liddell Hart wrote that the bombings of Rotterdam and Warsaw fitted the realm of traditional siege warfare, and as such were legitimate. Today it would take lots of courage for a historian to state that.

Yet, today authors like Max Hastings and Michael Burleigh have no problems of intentional targeting of Axis civilians. Which, I feel, proves that in fact the so-called "militarist"* historians are far less fanatic than civilians.

*Fuller believed that war is a built-in aspect of human culture. And one of the best current authors, Martin van Creveld agrees.

[LarryHW.]

Last I heard he got a jail sentence for something he wrote

Hard to view him as a serious author anymore. I assume any further books from him are attempts to pay his legal expenses.

[PANZER332]

Hard to view him as a serious author anymore. I assume any further books from him are attempts to pay his legal expenses.

He is a serious author all the way , you like it or not

[jerry c.]

cant wait for his himmler bio.

[LarryHW.]

He is a serious author all the way , you like it or not

You are right that what I like or not is irrelvant. His bigger problem is that not a single serious historian or scholar supports him and he has had his rear end handed to him in several court matters.

[LarryHW.]

He is a serious author all the way , you like it or not

You are absolutely right that my feelings about him are irrelevant. Of far more imporatnce are the facts that there is not a single serious historian or scholar that supports him and he has had his behind handed to him in several court actions.

[pasoleati]

What difference do the war aims of a combatant nation make in evaluating its actions?

It shouldn't and it is a definitive fact that the laws of warfare in effect during WW2 made no such differentiation either. It is an unfortunate and totally dishonest phenomenon that representatives of some nations/cultures have raised themselves above others in determining "right" or "wrong" war aims and thus issuing holy condemnations to those who disagree with them. And of course these same representatives always demand that their war aims be always considered "right". For example, for a true Bolshevik anything that hindered world revolution was wrong and anything that helped it right with constantly fluid standards. One certain way to spot a nation/culture having such an ideology is that it attempts to impose its political system on others ONE way OR another, sometimes wearing a pleasant face. I shall refrain from naming any names.

[pasoleati]

You are absolutely right that my feelings about him are irrelevant. Of far more imporatnce are the facts that there is not a single serious historian or scholar that supports him and he has had his behind handed to him in several court actions.

Well, is that wonder when the so-called "serious historians" are likely to lose their jobs if they dare to support him? To put it this way: what is the likelihood of a history professor getting hired by a US university if he is simultaneously a rightist and non-philosemite (a leftist non-philosemite* is whole another ballgame)? In fact, the same applies to any university in the Western world.

*A person can be a non-philosemite without being an anti-semite.

[Mark C. Yerger]

You are right that what I like or not is irrelvant. His bigger problem is that not a single serious historian or scholar supports him and he has had his rear end handed to him in several court matters.

I've probably read as much or more as anyone on the SS and written more books on the topic than anyone else I'm aware of. Most of the time I'm buried in original documentation, it's the "real deal." I study Waffen-SS but after 30 years I think I can hold a conversation on the Orpo, RuSHA, SD, or Einsatzgruppen a tad above television.

Anyone who denies Holocaust events or gives some part of one percent as the number of people destroyed, or says it's Allied propaganda is somewhere between looney and stupid. It reflects either political support of the period or some other mis-directed sense of social/historical responsibility be it verbal or in print.

Both extreme ends of the spectrum, anti or pro regardless of whatever aspect of any historical topic, is one reason many don't seek assistance from others. Some prefer to inject their opinion, political beliefs, or a hatred of some group or individual that can't be changed no matter what documentation they are shown. I can write a book on any topic with the opposite opinion injected into a reader's head than another author. That's why I write data/research. That is, fact with no opinion.

I always assumed a reader had mental function above a potted plant. Personally, my prerogative, if Irving, Max Hastings, and several others asked for help I wouldn't even bother to reply. And in that list the reaction would be the same from my colleagues who are also considerably more than a bit beyond TV knowledge or books bought at Wal-Mart.

In this thread maybe the opinion is "best I read so far." With no period document research I'd think books actually read should be a considerable number. By that I infer not a few dozen bargain table junk publications. And any who have done that would have an opinion on Irving a tad different than expressed by some here. I consider the source, age, and knowledge level when assimilating an opinion. Must admit some on here I find hilarious and I wouldn't even want to be listed with them. I'd take it as a personal insult. Considering Munin Verlag wrote Waffen-SS unit histories for decades with ZERO legal problems strictly from that. I'll assume anyone with court problems in Germany as an author is a few trees short of a forest in some way. Use some functional logic.

[Mil-Archive]

cant wait for his himmler bio.

I've had it on pre-order for a while and am also really looking forward to it.