Blood Brothers (Stephen E. Ambrose)

A few days ago, the commentary from the series Band of Brothers , I mentioned that this was based on the novel by Stephen E. Ambrose. Well, today we will talk about this novel.

The author, from what I read was-he died in 2002, shortly after it premiered the television series, a good specialist in World War II, leading to direct the "National D Day Museum" was built to commemorate the landing in Normandy.

Its original title "Band of Brothers" is taken from a fragment of the work of Shakespare Henry V, a speech before the battle and that is:

"From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it Shall Be Remembered-

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For I to-day historical That sheds blood with me

Shall be my brother "

That a fairly free translation would be:

"From now until the end of days

So we will be remembered

We few, we happy few, we brothers

Because today, that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother "

As we are based on the adventures of Company E of the 506 Parachute Regiment, from its formation to its dissolution. Apparently the author was interested in covering a story based on the Normandy landing and stumbled upon this division, which became famous for several reasons: D-Day, support the front in the Ardennes, and capture of the "Eagle Nest".

As a last reference to the series say that this captures the essence of the book, as well as the format allows, for 500 pages given for almost ten hours on screen, so you can pay great attention to detail and sometimes taken sometimes certain licenses, to dramatize certain moments in the book are given in passing, and the series take some screen time, such as scenes of concentration camp in the book are much less raw-bet there by Spielberg, who was left wanting more in "Schindler's List". Removing certain licenses such adaptation is faithful.

But what interested me the book was a bit to understand the essence, or psychology, as preferred, of the characters. Which is what led some boys to enroll voluntarily to go fight in another continent, in a war they did not have to defend or to their country or their families?

While this is certainly the subject of another post deeper in these times where everything is politically incorrect war would have to look a bit of our history, because if not for people like: selfless and noble ideals he believed in as of democracy or freedom probably the future of Europe would have been very different. Current politicians who deny the U.S. role in the world should look a little back and recognize these contributions, unselfish, at least at the level of the great army, which ultimately is what won the war. After this subsection we continue with the rest of the book

The vast majority were in their twenties, quite unconscious, and eager for adventure. In addition, the pay as a paratrooper was considerably higher than that of other bodies of infantry, but also their training, the more professional-and hard-who had taught before, and became a professional authentic civil war.

It is noteworthy that his training began almost two years before D-Day-In fact, some of the testimonies at the end is illuminating: one of these soldiers reenganchó later and ended up being a special adviser to the prestigious "Delta Force", and ensures that these elite troops were no better prepared than they.

The book contains several interesting paradoxes as the company achieved its level of training by an officer who hated all its methods, which probably saved more than one, but it was absolutely useless as a field officer, while all the NCOs Company, the body which gave unity and sense rebelled before the battle even plotted to shoot him, before death carried them all, something that was not necessary. However, this common hatred gave coherence and unity, which was one of the things that most surprised the author used to write on military issues, which distinguished them as one of the best units of the army.

Instead everyone is praising the leader who had in combat, Major Richard Winters-by allusions in the book the main character, who had followed wherever he went, being the first who took risks in the action, and rose to command the battalion, showing large dose of common sense, even in contravention of orders.

The book focuses on the three or four major operations in which the Company took part. To me, I have not read much about the war, one aspect that surprised me is that the troops were preparing for almost two years and then counting all the campaigns are not fought on the front line, rather than four or five months . However, from what I read on, it is very rarely exceeding 120 days of combat at this level, it is when the performance, mental stress, makes them more vulnerable, and practically useless, so they were a company with a history in combat relatively high.

Are these data, which can easily be given strokes, just made fun, and certainly teaching the book. Despite the wealth of information this is wisely proportioned so that there is an overdose, and both are intertwined personal stories, and general data or campaigns, resulting in an enjoyable read.

Furthermore, not claiming to be heroes, but as trained people who developed the mission had been entrusted. They have many details, as many cases of friendly fire or accidents stupid, caused by drunken soldiers, for example, that have nothing heroic. Instead, humanize the characters, that basically were young people, who saw in those few months than much of what we will never see.

The enemy is demonized. In fact, in another of the paradoxes that have attracted my attention, are more parallels, in form of being, discipline, or view with the Germans that much of the people who had come to liberate, as French or Belgians.

In short, these stories about a particular topic seem a good way to address the issue, provided there is interest, of course, to be based on several deeper into the subject and then venture into texts "ambitious" on the subject.