Plagiarism accusations aside, Ambrose is just the worst kind of pop history. Especially in regards to the American Army in WWII, he lacks even the pretense of objectivity, and is mostly just is unleashing his awestruck inner twelve year old (which is perhaps the audience best suited to his books...). I think that this quote from the epilogue of Citizen Soldiers is an accurate self-description by Ambrose. Talking about the GI Vets who lived in his neighborhood:

Beginning in 1947, when I was twelve, I was allowed to go with them [hunting]. We slept in a small farmhouse, side by side in sleeping bags on the floor. There was some drinking-not much, as we would get up at 4:00am (0400 to the ex-GIs, which mystified me), but enough to loosen their tongues. In addition, their rifles came from around the world-Czech, British, Russian, American, Japanese, French-and each man had a story about how he acquired his rifle. It was there that I heard my first war stories. I've been listening ever since. I thought then that these guys were giants. I still do. Emphasis mine

I don't know whether that is a confessional moment of self-awareness, or an ironic, unintended admission of bias, but I think it goes a long way in explaining Ambrose. He is an unabashed booster for the US Army. The most enjoyable book of his I have read was Pegasus Bridge, and when I finished, it struck me that the reason I enjoyed it so much in comparison was probably because there were no Americans involved for him to fawn over. To throw in a few more voices that echo this perspective, I would first point to this review of Citizen Soldiers, which gives me one of my favorite academic putdowns from a review ever:

While Ambrose presents an abundance of evidence for the grisly and awful nature of combat-the noise, shock, and feelings of total helplessness and bewilderment that it could induce ("I dreaded going into combat again") - his read on the American war effort is that it was heroic, spectacular, and magnificent. In that sense, his narrative sometimes seems to drift into a form of cheerleading that disconnects from the evidence.

And finally, I will direct you to this review of Band of Brothers by the historian R. A. Forczyk, with the not so subtle title of "Errors, Exaggerations & Vicious Slander" The short of it is, that Forczyk's assertion is Ambrose accepts the perspective of his subjects uncritically and without properly contextualizing. Use of oral histories is not a sin in of itself - if anything it is a core part of historical work - but taking them as gospel truth is troubling even in the best of circumstances, and Ambrose decidedly overvalues them in Forczyk's view.

So sum of it is, he is fluff, but I'm hesitant to even cautiously endorse him, since there is better fluff out there. I will say, that when you're fourteen, his books are pretty awesome (anecdotal evidence. I know. I should be ashamed). They are the kind of fluff that gets a kid interested in that sort of history... but as I said, that's 'cause he lets his inner child write them.

This is a perfectly fine question -- we allow questions about historiography (the study and theory of history) here.

For what its worth i could add that Niklas Zetterling is heavy criticizing Stephen Ambrose. In his chapter about combat effectivness he takes Ambrose general opinion about the US performance, which was already highlighted in the other comment, and list his mistakes and misunderstandings. He doesn't review Ambrose works but he used him as a example for the opposite view point...

• misuse of sources

• taking accounts of soldiers for fact

• using incorrect sources for what he is trying to study

• general lack of understanding

• he critizies his general writing style. Which reads "fanboyish" ( my interpretation

• a general misrepresenting of events

" There have been other arguments, less littered with flaws than Ambrose's,..."

Reading the quoted passages of Ambroses book he seems to be more a writer than a historians, his opinion and conclusions don't seem to have alot of value.

Done under a throwaway account, because this will be very controversial.

You've stepped in it now.

There are legitimate reasons to question Ambrose - but there is also a lot of academic snobbery when it comes to Ambrose.

The first, and the most important is that there is evidence that Ambrose plagiarized from other works. That's indisputable. The degree to which he plagiarized reveals a author who came to the forefront before the age of the Internet and Google made detecting such things much much easier.

The other criticism is pretty much a conflict at two particular visions of history. The first - let's call it academic eschews things that the second - let's call it popular - finds attractive.

So the criticism that I don't think holds water is the criticism of how dare Ambrose take his subjects at face value, and write a narrative from their point of view, rather then (pretend) to be a objective even handed arbitrator of truth from a ivory tower that so much of Historical community strives for.

What Ambrose does, and does incredibly well is let you know what it was like to be one of these men, who started at Normandy, and ended up at the Eagles Nest.

In this sense, Ambrose is calling back to a earlier form of history. History as story that enlightens, and praises and glorifies things that the author feels is good. This is a form of history that the Romans would have embraced.

At the end of the day this is what Ambrose does. His thesis is simple - that the E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne was a band of brothers, that the Citizen solider was a real thing, and distinct from the German armies, the soviet armies, and were thus simultaneously more civilized and more incapable of war. But the power lays in personal narratives. What was it like to be these men? What was it like to be isolated in command? What was it like to be exploring a new country?

There is a risk to this, as one of the responses above note. It's always possible to ignore truth in favor of a tortured moral lesson ("disconnect it from evidence"). But I would argue that the reverse often happens in the historical community. Since the only way to really get published or accepted in the community is to write "something new" or "revise our understanding of" something, to be critical of something that society has viewed in a particular way. I think the modern community tends to disregard primary sources and experiences in favor of (sometimes twisted) new arguments and a "fresh new take".

At the end of the day, I am really not willing to crucify Ambrose for calling something "80mm" when it is in fact, a German "81mm." In the most important element - the historical record bears out the story that Ambrose tells here. Well before ever reading Ambrose's book, and well before the book was published, I found constant references to Winters, and to the 101st Airborne. They did win the medals that they won, they did go through the battles and experiences that were documented. And yes, they were shocked by the concentration camps.

There is no question that these men where changed by the world, and changed the world and I for one, am glad to read their stories. What else is history, if not our story through time? When I want insanely detailed, rigorous, but detached analysis, I will go pick up Rick Atkins awesome three part series on the American Army during the war.

This would get posted the day after I order his book Undaunted Courage about Lewis and Clark.

Is it not worth the read?

At the risk of being mobbed, I have to disagree. I don't read his books as an authoritative historical overview. I look at his books as compilations of oral histories. Oral histories have the merit of being a first hand account that gives you a feel for the time. It's true that the persons interviewed may have stuff wrong. If you go elsewhere for the highly accurate overview and to Ambrose for the eye witness part of history, I don't see the problem as long as you understand that eye witnesses make mistakes. To be fair, Ambrose is such a fan that he doesn't step back to explain what he's doing and perhaps he should. It's been awhile since I read one of his books, maybe he makes it seem like he's being an authoritative historian but if so, I don't recall that. Perhaps he believed he was doing his own take on history based on what the people of the time said about it. I find it fascinating, personally.

I've used, and have been using, "Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy since 1938" for the past two years in my undergraduate degree and found it both useful for understanding the Cold War politics of the USA post WW2 and generally containing an anti-USA argument - especially on the topics of Nixon, Kissinger, and Vietnam. Could we draw the distinction between his broader historical work and his "awestruck" work in 'Band of Brother'?