Band of Brothers

Stephen Ambrose (or whoever wrote the material he used) relates the history of Easy Company 506 PIR from Camp Toccoa where they were trained to Berchtesgaden at the war's end and how they remained close after the war despite the geographical separation.

Though no great stylist, Ambrose (or whoever) moves the story along easily and clearly. That's the good news.

The bad news is that, 1) He plays fast and loose with the facts. For example he says that Fritz Niland was not immediately pulled off the line when it was thought that his three brothers were killed within three weeks of each other. One of his brothers ultimately survived the war. And his mother did not receive three telegrams the same day. This apparently served, however as the seed for the grossly overrated Saving Private Ryan. Facts maybe stupid things, as Ronald Reagan once said, but that doesn't work for Oprah (see James Frey). 2) He annoyingly sprinkles insider jargon throughout the book as if he was one of the boys. It made me cringe when my father said groovy in an effort to fit in and it made me cringe in this book. 3) He perpetuates the hagiography of WWII as the good war, the victors as the greatest generation, and of America as inherently morally superior. At one point he refers to Easy company's successes as a triumph of democracy over all others. At the same time he contradicts himself throughout the book by emphasizing the fact that Captain Sobel, the hated martinet who was anything but fair and democratic was the key factor in what made Easy, Easy.

None of this is meant to denigrate or diminish the achievements, courage and integrity of the men of Easy Company. They would, however, be better served if those accomplishments were set in more historically accurate and truthful context. How do their reasons for fighting differ from the more complex geopolitical reasons of the military and political leaders? We'll get no answers here.