Writer "Antony Beevor"

[Ricardo Silva]

Just got "D Day " from this author, and i believe it's probably as good as two the two other books i've read: "The Battle of Berlin" and "Stalingrad". His narratives have a very human touch and lots of details. It's common to find personal accounts on his books and lots of great maps. I strongly recommend his books.
He is recognized as one of the best (for some, the best) military history writer, and he as already written about the spanish civil war, the liberation of paris, among others.
This said, i also have to say that his books are written for the general public, as such, they are not specialized in a specific unit, and they don't give the kind of informations that you get on a Schiffer book. But they sure are a great way of spending a winter afternoon at home.
I'm curious to see what will he write next, maybe eastern front (?), he already has two great books about in that area.

[Mansal D]

I've only read his "Stalingrad", but the plethora of sources and information is awe inspiring. Naturally he has many resources at his disposal, but they are great nonetheless. As far as the writing is concerned, I would go with others like Richard Hargreaves.

[Richard Hargreaves]

I've only read his "Stalingrad", but the plethora of sources and information is awe inspiring. Naturally he has many resources at his disposal, but they are great nonetheless. As far as the writing is concerned, I would go with others like Richard Hargreaves.

I'm not really in Beevor's league on many fronts. Whether or not I'm a better writer I leave to the judgment of others, but I'll concede he's a better military historian - he's a retired officer and student of military history. I'm a storyteller who writes about conflict.

Beevor's someone who polarises opinion - as the threads here and over at AHF just for starters show. I've chatted with a few authors about what I call the increasing "Beevorisation" of military history; ie, if your a 'name', you can get pretty much anything published, irrespective of quality or subject. If you're not, it's a much tougher struggle.

Beevor has access to funds - and hence resources/archives/sources - out of the reach of most historians, which is what really makes it much harder for most historians to compete; my advances cover about 1/4- 1/3 the cost of producing a book (and that's not accounting for my time...).

The last I heard was that he was working on a Leningrad book - but that was before D-Day, so I don't know if it was cancelled.

[Mansal D]

Like I said, as far as the writing is concerned, I'd rather read Richard Hargreaves. Your writing is much easier and enjoyable to read than his.

[Ricardo Silva]

I really have to get one of your books Richard,
i'm constantly reading great remarks about them, and i really liked reading the samples you posted.
Since i started working in my tesis, i've been working with several archives, and...sometimes it's really hard to get what i need.
An example, i once wen't personally to a portuguese archive (Torre do Tombo) to ask for access to the personal file of a portuguese volunteer of the Blue Division, this file was presumably made by the secret police, and since i wasn't sure about its existence, i first asked. Well...they couldn't answer that question, but i was told to write a request. I did, and i called them once a month. It took them 5 months just to say that...there were no file with that name. Well, right now i have a few dozen names, and i guess that this will take a long time to process...but one should not give up easely, it takes time, but it is very rewarding to get some vital documents and getting another step closer to the final goal.
I already compiled almost a thousand documents from several countries and archives, and i'm not even near what i need, and the cost of this...is scaring.
Beevor has built an incredible array of contacts all around the globe, that help him in his researches, and this is something that has a tremendous value for a professional military history writer. That book about Leningrad will surely interest my, since it is the area of operations of the Blue Division.

[Rotanhäntäpistin]

Ricardo, do yourselves a favour, and forget Beevor. In fact, if you wish to avoid contaminating your library, take all his "works" out and burn them. I have the misfortune of going through his D-Day, Stalingrad and Berlin books and luckily they were library copies, so worthless they were. They don´t deserve to be called military history at all, they are social history in the best (and therefore worst) leftist-feminist tradition. Just like one Finnish reviewer noted, a far better British ex-officer "popular" writer is Michael Reynolds. Beevor is not worthy even as his shoe polisher.

[Die Blechtrommel]

I have the misfortune of going through his D-Day, Stalingrad and Berlin books and luckily they were library copies, so worthless they were.

The fact is that the Finnish translations suck!

There are so many translation errors that it mixes facts from fiction.
I think we should read the original, English versions, before we judge Mr. Beevor!

Greets
Juha-Pekka

[Ricardo Silva]

I've read both books in portuguese, and this last one is also translated. I've been lucky that they were well translated, but sometimes the person doing the translation is not acquainted with military terms, and when some have a double meanning, mistakes occur.
It's not the first time that i write to a newspaper because of major errors or false interpretation, and in one case, the journalist just made up the numbers, he must have thought that no one would notice...but there is always someone that does.
As to Beevor, i understand that he may not please everyone, which is normal. His books are very broad, and that happens because he writes mostly about major battles/campaigns, in these kind of writing having all the details would require an encyclopedia, not a book. Where i think you (Rotanhäntäpistin) wen't a little to far on the critic, is saying that he writes in the "leftist-feminist tradition", i just can't see where are those feminist traces, and i can't see either where was he a leftist. To say the truth, in "Berlin" he was quite fare to both sides, underlining the savagerie and bravery that both armies commited. And if it is true that he gives a a lot of space to the civilians, and the brutality they endured (social history?...), his books are mostly about the miliatry movements, leaders and even equipment (military history). But everyone has the right to have his own opinion, in my case, i'll just keep the books away from the fire.

[Rotanhäntäpistin]

Ricardo, at least here in Finland the so called "new military history" which basically means social history and gender history is an arena that is 99.9% dominated by leftist-green females or leftist-green males who have lost their balls. To this group proper military history is out of fashion. Perhaps Die Blechtrommel remembers the case from a few years ago when a few people from the Joensuu University representing the previously mentioned group addressed the public in Helsingin Sanomat that funding should be directed from traditional military history to such modern and up-to-date topics like "Gay eroticism of the Officer Corps". And frankly when I compare e.g. David Glantz to Antony Beevor, I have little trouble in putting Beevor to that group pf people.

[Ricardo Silva]

a few years ago when a few people from the Joensuu University representing the previously mentioned group addressed the public in Helsingin Sanomat that funding should be directed from traditional military history to such modern and up-to-date topics like "Gay eroticism of the Officer Corps"

I couldn't imagine that this kind of idea could even be considered military history...indeed, it's more a bad joke than anything else.
In portugal we had a major war in the sixties and seventies (1961-1974) during which almost a whole generation of men had to endure 2/3 years in angola, mozambique or guinea-bissau, we also fought in the first world war, and had a few volunteers in the second. The men in my family all wen't into the army, i was a mortar man, my father was in the cavalry, but we also had marines, paras,...it's a tradition. Luckily we didn't lost no one in my family, but thousands died all over the world, and we have many, many, many histories of bravery. Our "modern military history" is mostly about the colonial war, and thankfully the historians in my country are respectfull. Of what i read about finland, you also had a lot of bravery in the way you fought the soviet agression and the continuation war, so...i find it odd that that people may be so ridiculous. You should be proud of your military heritage, the finish armed forces have my admiration.
When you compare Glantz with Beevor, i think it's not fair. Since they are in two very different "championships", David Glantz is an expert in the eastern front (and manchuria), you know that his books are hyper detailed, but very specific. You don't expect to see a book about the liberation of paris by Glantz...but you can expect that and much more from beevor, he goes from paris to the spanish civil war, then stalingrad, or normandy. He is a different historian, not being an expert in a specific issue, doens't mean he can't write good books, he is polyvalent and is able to work in very different scenarios and still write good books.

[panzermahn]

I think it's a bit unfair to judge Beevor unless we read his books in the original language when it was written (English)

I have his Stalingrad, Berlin and D-Day books and I would say Stalingrad remains the best work that he has done. Berlin had the similar feel of Stalingrad but there are some mistakes (of dates, names and datas) and D-Day was a disappointment.

The style of Beevor reminds me how David Irving wrote his books, with eloquent critic, puns and sarcasm included which I find it brilliant (D-Day is just too boring compare with Stalingrad and Berlin)

It's also true what Richard had said, Beevorisation of military history. I noticed it happened after Beevor won the awards and accolades for Stalingrad back in 1998 as well as for Berlin in 2001. The fame and the fortune from the Stalingrad and Berlin books resulted Beevor became a "Guido Knopp" of Britain, involved in talk shows, radio shows, numerous interviews, documentaries (aka "Hitler" Channel) etc...like what you a called a celebrity historian, where after 1 or 2 books that made you famous, resulting the next output had deteriorating quality (like how the D-Day work by Beevor)

After John Keegan, there seems to be lack of a true military historian in Britain such as in the league of David Glantz, Joachim Hoffmann, Rolf Hinze and Heinz Magenheimer. After the Stalingrad and Berlin, Beevor seems a worthy heir but it was not to be.

P.S. Sorry to say but Professor John Erickson was too much a Russophile to be an impartial and neutral military historian

[Jan-Hendrik]

Beevors book on Berlin 1945 was rather a flop....nice taht something in english language was published....but, overall, ten times weaker than his Stalingrad Volume, apart from the mass of prime material he could have used.

Jan-Hendrik

[Rotanhäntäpistin]

Panzermahn is indeed correct about John Erickson and his bias for at least for me an author that starts his book with the words "Death to Fascism!" cannot pretent to have any objectivity. As those words were in Russian, the bias is even greater. And if still in doubt, one has to only read his sections dealing with Finland and one can no longer have any doubts, the text is exactly like out of the mouth of a Communist party apparatshik.

[Rotanhäntäpistin]

One more thing. As far as I know, Beevor does not speak Russian and thus has to rely on whatever his assistants tell him. On the other hand, Glantz is fluent in Russian.

[Michate]

Ricardo, at least here in Finland the so called "new military history" which basically means social history and gender history is an arena that is 99.9% dominated by leftist-green females or leftist-green males who have lost their balls. To this group proper military history is out of fashion. Perhaps Die Blechtrommel remembers the case from a few years ago when a few people from the Joensuu University representing the previously mentioned group addressed the public in Helsingin Sanomat that funding should be directed from traditional military history to such modern and up-to-date topics like "Gay eroticism of the Officer Corps". And frankly when I compare e.g. David Glantz to Antony Beevor, I have little trouble in putting Beevor to that group pf people.

Bull's eye. Sadly, it is all the same in Germany. If you look at what is often cheered as "the revival of military history in academic circles", 90% of that it is about anything (anything meaning all kinds of postmodernist poppycock combined with the usual "Vernichtungskrieg" mantra), but not military history.