The April 26 issue of The New Yorker seems to have added one more nail to the reputation of the late Stephen E. Ambrose, university historian turned hugely popular -—and prolific—author of nonfiction historical narrative. Originally known for his scholarly biographies on Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard M. Nixon, Ambrose broke into the popular market with Band of Brothers: E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne from Normandy to Hitler’s Eagle’s Nest, which was turned into a well-known, and much rebroadcast television series. After he retired from teaching, Ambrose set up a family company, Ambrose-Tubbs, Inc., to help him lead historical tours and work on best sellers about such diverse topics as the Lewis and Clark Expedition, World War II, Crazy Horse, and much more.
In 2002, Ambrose was accused of lifting passages for The Wild Blue: The Men and Boys Who Flew the B-24s over Germany from the work of the historian Thomas Childers. Citing faulty citations, Ambrose apologized, and his publisher promised to put the sentences in question in quotes in future editions. But shortly after, other accusations arose: about passages in books like his Crazy Horse and Custer, Citizen Soldiers, and a volume of his three-volume biography Nixon. Ambrose responded that the relevant material was cited in his footnotes.
Now The New Yorker in an article by Richard Rayner raises new questions about the foundation of Ambrose’s academic reputation: his work on Eisenhower. The article says that while Ambrose always claimed to have been asked by Eisenhower to write an authorized biography, in fact he himself asked permission to do so. Further, while he said that he had had numerous long and often personal discussions with the general, he really met him just a few times. The story came to light after officials at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum came across unpublished correspondence.
Ambrose died late in 2002. According to rankings on Amazon.com, his books continue to sell well.—Karen Winkler
Follow PageView through your favorite RSS reader: 
10 Responses to Another Blow to the Reputation of Stephen Ambrose
davidmo - April 23, 2010 at 4:23 pm
So, who cares? This is a non-issue.
sgaetjens - April 23, 2010 at 4:34 pm
It is only as relevant as academe.
drhypersonic - April 23, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Concur with 1 and 2.
11122741 - April 23, 2010 at 5:13 pm
I really had it with all of these “gotta’s’ on relatively minor trivialities as compared to the corpus and quality of the work; it’s a game many academic play when they can’t make a criticism of any substance and are in the corner having to admit that someone else’s work or success is far superior to theirs. Wether or not Ike asked this guy to write his bio or he spent that much time with him is irrelevant to the quality of the work which stands or falls independent of these gossip column claims.
sgsylvester - April 23, 2010 at 5:23 pm
When Ambrose came out with Undaunted Courage, I challenged his research, his facts, and numerous errors in the text. He said he would correct errors in subsequent editions–there were none. His book on the transcontinental railroad–A Great and Shining Road–was an embarrassment of errors and insupportable conclusions. My thanks for pointing out the errors was to villified by fans of the “great storyteller.” Ambrose was an unrepentent plagairizer. By the way, Band of Brothers contains all the evidence necessary to indicate that Ambrose was dedicated to preserving “the historical myth,” as a more successful critic pointed out.
wendelswerk - April 24, 2010 at 10:47 am
Who cares? I would not be so bold as to wonder your motivations to write such. But these are serious allegations. Ambrose may have attempted to become prolific by producing shoddy work in the name of press and profits. If a student of his, mine or ours were to turn in a major paper by plagiarizing other texts we would fail the student. So why does Ambrose, a former Professor get a pass?If there is any good that came out of Ambrose’s work is that it brought many individuals to history. But at what cost?
mbelvadi - April 24, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Another response to the “who cares about these minor things” is that if they are actually deliberate lies rather than truly accidental mistakes, the doctrine of “little lie, big lie” starts to become relevant and raise questions as to what among the important parts of the man’s work can be trusted. Also, if something like how many times he met with Ike really doesn’t matter to judging his scholarship, why would he lie about it? Obviously he thought there was something to be gained, and exactly what he gained is what needs to be taken back.
kerr7920 - April 24, 2010 at 7:44 pm
The Chronicle report diminishes the true extent of Ambrose’s deceit. Read the New Yorker’s story. In his Eisenhower book, Ambrose cites as evidence to support his assertions many, many interviews with Ike that never happened.
adesr - April 25, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Since human beings are always searching or trying to investigate the truths and since these scholars provide texts and also teach are children, this is an important topic to expose plagarism.
tee_bee - May 3, 2010 at 12:11 am
While this isn’t news, in the sense that it’s well known that Ambrose was loose with facts and a serial plagiarizer, it’s worthwhile to continue to expose his sloppiness.