Happy new year people!! I don't know if it's been already mentioned in this forum, but here it is. I guess this topic would be inevitable, so here it is the next Antony Beevor https://www.amazon.co.uk/Arnhem-Bat...1_238?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1514835267&sr=1-238
I actually like his books, a lot of people complain that he's not thorough enough, and his writing style his a lot like a thriller novelist, i really like his books. Perfect to read early in the morning when you commute to work, and later in the evening when returning home. It's quite enjoyable.
I'm just having fun. I enjoy his books and his narrative style, however, as other posters have commented, his history is spotty and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Many rogues on the forum get heart palpitations when his name is uttered .
I think what really bothers me is his complete, uncritical acceptance of any and all oral history and secondary sources...especially anything from Hastings.
He's a "populist author", he writes his history like a novel, and goes for excitement over accuracy, and if some "source" tells him something exciting and movie like in terms of action and cliffhanger, he damn sure gonna use it. He knows that the only WWII books the majority of his readers have, are probably his books and James Holland's (which by the way has a new book also https://www.amazon.co.uk/Big-Week-J...coding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=GCWHA91WH1XQQ11J93BF). But like i said, it's 6.30 AM, i'm on a train going to work.... it's a perfect book to read.
That's an interesting point. Oral history is a tough one. Having read and conducted hundreds of oral history interviews it is tough to nail down fact or fiction using them alone. Generally, you see trends develop and can draw conclusions to fill the gaps while cross referencing. Many of the witnesses, as you know, are so far removed from the time you have make due. It is time consuming and he doesn't seem to put the time in. He is so reliant on his prose to make his pieces work I suppose.