A review by wwatts1734
Band of Brothers: E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne from Normandy to Hitler's Eagle's Nest by Stephen E. Ambrose
2.0
I really enjoyed the HBO mini-series "Band of Brothers", so when I picked up this book I really thought that I would like it. I have to say that this is the only case I have ever come across where the movie was better than the book. I mean, a LOT better.
Ambrose's history of Easy Company is built around interviews that he conducted with members of the unit during a unit reunion. When I read this, I couldn't help but think that the only research that Ambrose did for this book was to conduct these interviews, and then spend about a week in various military archives to fill out the facts. Now, I'm not opposed to histories based on witness testimony, in fact, I have read some great histories written in this vein. The problem with "Band of Brothers" is that Ambrose interviewed a bunch of guys who happened to have been in attendance at this particular reunion, and used their testimony uncritically without seeking out alternative viewpoints. For example, the original commander of Easy Company was an officer named Herbert Sobel. Sobel was interred in a VA hospital at the time that this Easy Company reunion took place, and he died shortly afterward. It would have been great if Ambrose had interviewed Sobel before he died, or at least some of his relatives. But he didn't do that. Instead, he took down the views of men who disliked Sobel and protrayed the man as a monster. Now, perhaps Sobel was a monster. But my intuition tells me that, if Sobel was almost single-handedly was responsible for training Easy Company, which the men of Easy Company will verify, and since Easy Company had one of the best combat records in this European theater, then it goes to reason that Sobel must have known what he was doing. But you do not get this impression from "Band of Brothers." As a military historian, Ambrose should have asked these questions, but he doesn't. I'm sure that there are other issues in Easy Company's history that never receive treatment from Ambrose. When a historian is lazy, his history suffers.
Honestly, I would not recommend this book to anyone. If you want to learn about Easy Company, see the mini-series. It's far more entertaining, and at least the mini-series does not claim to be history.
Ambrose's history of Easy Company is built around interviews that he conducted with members of the unit during a unit reunion. When I read this, I couldn't help but think that the only research that Ambrose did for this book was to conduct these interviews, and then spend about a week in various military archives to fill out the facts. Now, I'm not opposed to histories based on witness testimony, in fact, I have read some great histories written in this vein. The problem with "Band of Brothers" is that Ambrose interviewed a bunch of guys who happened to have been in attendance at this particular reunion, and used their testimony uncritically without seeking out alternative viewpoints. For example, the original commander of Easy Company was an officer named Herbert Sobel. Sobel was interred in a VA hospital at the time that this Easy Company reunion took place, and he died shortly afterward. It would have been great if Ambrose had interviewed Sobel before he died, or at least some of his relatives. But he didn't do that. Instead, he took down the views of men who disliked Sobel and protrayed the man as a monster. Now, perhaps Sobel was a monster. But my intuition tells me that, if Sobel was almost single-handedly was responsible for training Easy Company, which the men of Easy Company will verify, and since Easy Company had one of the best combat records in this European theater, then it goes to reason that Sobel must have known what he was doing. But you do not get this impression from "Band of Brothers." As a military historian, Ambrose should have asked these questions, but he doesn't. I'm sure that there are other issues in Easy Company's history that never receive treatment from Ambrose. When a historian is lazy, his history suffers.
Honestly, I would not recommend this book to anyone. If you want to learn about Easy Company, see the mini-series. It's far more entertaining, and at least the mini-series does not claim to be history.