| Descripción y Comentario
Amazon.comPublished to mark the 50th anniversary of the invasion of Normandy, Stephen E. Ambrose's D-Day: June 6, 1944 relies on over 1,400 interviews with veterans, as well as prodigious research in military archives on both sides of the Atlantic. He provides a comprehensive history of the invasion which also eloquently testifies as to how common soldiers performed extraordinary feats. A major theme of the book, upon which Ambrose would later expand in Citizen Soldiers, is how the soldiers from the democratic Allied nations rose to the occasion and outperformed German troops thought to be invincible. The many small stories that Ambrose collected from paratroopers, sailors, infantrymen, and civilians make the excitement, confusion, and sheer terror of D-day come alive on the page. --Robert McNamara
Book Description Stephen E. Ambrose draws from more than 1,400 interviews with American, British, Canadian, French, and German veterans to create the preeminent chronicle of the most important day in the twentieth century. Ambrose reveals how the original plans for the invasion were abandoned, and how ordinary soldiers and officers acted on their own initiative. D-Day is above all the epic story of men at the most demanding moment of their existence, when the horrors, complexities, and triumphs of life are laid bare. Ambrose portrays the faces of courage and heroism, fear and determination -- what Eisenhower called "the fury of an aroused democracy" -- that shaped the victory of the citizen soldiers whom Hitler had disparaged.
|
Comentarios del público
 Patronising and condescending - US centric account
I finished Mr Ambrose's book after starting it a year ago. I felt compelled to put it down eight times during those 12 months because of the patronising and condescending manner in which he formulated and presented his view on everyone BUT the American forces leading up to; on and post D-Day. I had hoped to present this book to my father, a former Desert Rat but felt that he would probably rage and rail against the author to the extent that he would probably 'hop his twig'.
If you wish to read this book then I would recommend it, with one proviso; read it for the anecdotal accounts of the men who were there and NOT Mr Ambrose's interpretation of how he crafted his language to pour scorn and derision on the Canadians, French and British. For he brings nothing new to light on Operation Overlord but yet has done a splendid job on including accounts of US servicemen and the tasks that were set before them.
While the publisher's have dutifully titled it "D-Day - June 6, 1944: the Climatic battle of World War II", I believe it should be fairly entitled, "D-Day: anecdotes from the US Armed Forces". That way, the publishers can solve a riddle of putting in 3 chapters out of 32 (or 45 pages of a total of 576) for the 'rest' of the nations that bravely gave their men and women to this operation.
I would give this book to my local library so they can place it next to "Saving Private Ryan" and "U-571" where America wins the war, again, again, again.
Simon and Schuster should do THEIR homework better in the future.
Fecha: 2007-04-18
 Disappointing, and big time.
The positive: The first hand accounts of soldiers fighting there.
The bad: Almost anything else, both the editing and him interjecting his own unfounded opinion, often based on nothing more then ideological opinion. Even the title is highly misleading.
I bought this book, knowing Ambrose's books about Eisenhower, and wanting to read something during a three day train-ride form San Fransisco to Chicago. I was really disappointed.
I found the book to be highly biased, and, short of the anecdotes by those involved, worthless as a serious history book. The only good soldier it seems was the American soldier, the Germans are portrayed as vastly inferior (unless complimenting them makes the Americans look better), and the other Allies are only slightly better than the Germans. It made me wonder for what reason then (if Ambrose's opinion would be true) it took the Americans so long to break out, or why they had such a hard time before (Kasserine, Anzio, Cassino) and after (Ardennes ie), with the majority of the German forces (both quantity and quality) fighting the Soviets.
Apart from ideological opinion (fighters for democracy always fight better), he presents no solid proof to support many of his notions about American (or to a lesser degree allied superiority) apart from the very obvious (more men, airplanes, ships and tanks), even though his opinion is contrary to most evidence there is (statistics, battlefield accounts etc. etc). In fact, to a degree it even seems to contradict basic American military doctrine, which focuses on the use of overwhelming firepower (air and artillery) rather then training and quality of the individual soldier.
Further, the book is seemingly devoted, when the troops finally land, to the landings on Omaha, with a little attention for Utah and virtually none for the others. Which makes the title (and the reviews on the back) highly misleading. Apart from the fact that battles like the Battle of Britian, El Alamein, Stalingrad, Kursk and most likely even Bagration would rank above D-Day as far as climactic battles go for WW II (for post WW II is another thing) even if for many men storming the beaches it was the climax after a long wait.
Writing and editing: IMHO an atrocious job was done by the editor. Ambrose repeats himself regularly, sometimes seemingly copying sections he wrote just a few pages earlier. It becomes really annoying, and distracting. And therefor it takes away from the stories from those who fought there.
In the end, I found it more interesting to watch the Nevada desert or the Great Plains between Lincoln, Nebraska, and Chicago then read another page. And I doubt I will ever find the desire to finish it.
Fecha: 2007-03-22
 great condition
It took a long time to receive the merchandise. I just received the book yesterday and I ordered it 6 weeks ago.
Fecha: 2007-03-09
 Engaging and Dramatic Book!
I've just starting getting into WWII history and have read a few books now to have a good overall understanding of the European campaign. Knowing that Ambrose is currently at the forefront of some of the recent historical books on WWII and after reading and enjoying Band of Brothers I decided to read D-Day and Citizen Soldiers.
Overall I found D-Day to be an exicting and very informative text into the events that lead up to and occured on June 6, 1944. I mostly appreciated his attention to the events prior to the invasion day and the srategies that surrounded the operation to help make it successful. The text bogs down a bit in details surrounding the Omaha beach invasion but otherwise gives a good account of the entire day from the dropping of the paratroopers behind Utah to Omaha, Gold, Juno, and Sword Beaches. The text is most heavily weight on the paratrooper drop and the Omaha invasion but this is understandable as these were probably the more dramatics event that day on a grand scale.
As for some of the criticism Ambrose takes for telling an over patriotic or revisionist history of D-Day, I don't think those accusations are fair. First off Ambrose is not writing a strictly unopinionated documentation of events; he is writing an account of history through the experiences of those who were there and formulates and interjects his opinions of what occured. this must be understood when reading this book. As for being too patriotic it must also be noted that this book is written from an allied perspective, and weighted heavily towards the american participation. Ambrose does mention from time to time the experiences of the German Army but the focus of this book is really to document the allied experience. As for his opinions on the war startegy, I believe he fairly criticizes and praises both sides and obviously the allies did present an heroic and strategic campaign because ultimately they did crack the Atlantic Wall and went on to liberate France and occupy Germany.
Bottom line for me, a great book for an exciting and compelling read about one of the greatest invasion efforts in history.
Fecha: 2007-02-14
Biased revisionism
Stephen Ambrose is nothing more than a revisionist hack. To hear him tell it, D-Day's success would mean defeat for Germany and D-Day's failure would mean a German victory in WWII. This is a complete fabrication. Perhaps Hitler had thought that this would be the outcome, but Stalin and the Soviet Union were going to overrun Germany no matter what the cost would be, and they would extract revenge for the autrocities on the Eastern Front regardless of an allied invasion of France. By the time the Western Allies invade Stalin doesn't need their help in defeating Germany. He asked them to invade in 1942 when Russia's situation was in peril. But by 1944 the Germans were on the defensive or in flight. They were pushed out of most of the Soviet Union. They no longer had the ability to launch an offensive. All they could do was retreat or die.
So on June 6, 1944 the western allies invade Normandy and begin the liberation of France. WHO CARES? The Nazis had already lost in January of 1943 at Stalingrad. THAT, and not D-Day, was the pivotal battle of WWII. Had the Nazis won Stalingrad there would have been no D-Day. In fact, had the Nazis taken Moscow in 1941 there would have been no Stalingrad.
In fact, one need only look at the Battle of the Bulge to see that D-Day was not the pivotal battle of WWII. Of course storming a beach is a lot sexier than starving and freezing to death at Bastogne.
So as pivotal battles go D-Day was far less significant to the outcome of WWII as it is to the inevitable Cold War. And yet Stephen Ambrose deludes most Americans into believing that it was our actions on June 6, 1944 that defeated the Nazis so that we could take credit for winning the war in Europe. That is an easy sell in America, but historically utter garbage. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ambrose rewrites history from a deceptive American perspective were only American actions have historical meaning.
Ambrose is "pop" history for an audience that knows little to nothing about the subject matter at hand.
Fecha: 2006-11-13
|
|
