American History by British Authors ...

[Two Types]

This is a curious question but I am hoping to get a little feedback from readers of American WW2 history:

I am often told that American readers are very hostile to history books about the American role in WW2 that are written by non-American authors. As such, American publishers are unwilling to sign British authors to cover American topics. As readers of WW2 American history, is this true?

The reason I ask is that I am a historian/author whose work has yet in cross the Atlantic in any meaningful way. I wish to explore the American market, however when I come up with ideas for books on American topics I find myself confronted by the issue of being a Brit writing about Americans.

I would be interested in any feedback on this, and in particular if you have experienced books where British writers have failed to write effectively/fairly on American topics.

Thank you.

 

[Stanley Doble]

I suspect American readers feel the same way about WW2 books written by Brits, as Brits feel about books written by Americans and for more or less the same reason.

To me this is childish and immature. I'll read books from both sides and enjoy them as long as I learn something new, or get a new slant on things. Even though as a Canadian I know the very real Canadian contributions will be slighted or ignored. I seldom read Canadian books on the subject anymore because I already know more or less what they will say.

 

[dhermann1]

If you want to find a British writer who wrote very succcessfully about the US, check out Alistair Cooke. I believe he wound up a US citizen, but he made a career out of interpreting Ameica to Britain and to America as well.
I think the big bone of contention is that we in the US think that we totally saved the feckless and hopeless old world from itself in both WW I and WW II. We don't want to give the Brits credit for the terrific fight they put up from 1939 through 1942 (and of course beyond). We think Montgomery was just a jerk rather than both a jerk AND a great general, we can laugh at Britain's unpreparedness in 1939, and forget our equal degree of unpreparedness in 1941. Etc., etc.
If you get away from the World Wars (and of course the little business back in 1776) I think you'll be on safer ground.
But really, you should just explore what you're interested in, find insights that are striking to you, and share them. Let the whiners whine.
The wonderful thing about history is that no matter how much ground seems to have been thoroughly picked over, there always seems to be new dimensions to discover.

 

[MisterCairo]

I suspect American readers feel the same way about WW2 books written by Brits, as Brits feel about books written by Americans and for more or less the same reason.

To me this is childish and immature. I'll read books from both sides and enjoy them as long as I learn something new, or get a new slant on things. Even though as a Canadian I know the very real Canadian contributions will be slighted or ignored. I seldom read Canadian books on the subject anymore because I already know more or less what they will say.

Canada was in the war?

I can't speak for American readers (another Canuck), but would hope any author would be judged on the quality of their research, the readability of their prose, and the breadth of the subject, rather than on nationality. While Canada's efforts are often ignored, when they are discussed by the many British and American authors I've read, they are well researched, critiqued fairly and generally well covered.

 

[Chasseur]

It really depends on what market you are looking to enter. I would imagine that for the "WWII buff/casual reader" market it might be harder because as Dhermann well said, in the States many of the casual reader buffs just want the same stuff recycled from all those films in the 1960s and 70s: Monty was overrated, Patton was a genius, the Germans were gods of war, the Brits, Russians, French, Italians (etc.) were terrible fighters, etc.

For the serious researcher buff or academic I think the market is pretty open to whatever background an author might have. One of my good friends is a British military historian of WWII who often writes on the US experience (but mostly on the Germans), and his stuff has been well received: http://www.amazon.com/Clash-Arms-How-Allies-Normandy/dp/0806136057/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329169687&sr=8-1 Though it might help that he was US trained and is critical of the British army

 

[Edward]

If you want to find a British writer who wrote very succcessfully about the US, check out Alistair Cooke. I believe he wound up a US citizen, but he made a career out of interpreting Ameica to Britain and to America as well.
I think the big bone of contention is that we in the US think that we totally saved the feckless and hopeless old world from itself in both WW I and WW II. We don't want to give the Brits credit for the terrific fight they put up from 1939 through 1942 (and of course beyond). We think Montgomery was just a jerk rather than both a jerk AND a great general, we can laugh at Britain's unpreparedness in 1939, and forget our equal degree of unpreparedness in 1941. Etc., etc.
If you get away from the World Wars (and of course the little business back in 1776) I think you'll be on safer ground.
But really, you should just explore what you're interested in, find insights that are striking to you, and share them. Let the whiners whine.
The wonderful thing about history is that no matter how much ground seems to have been thoroughly picked over, there always seems to be new dimensions to discover.

Heh. I had an argument in Another Place with a bunch of folks from the US who were genuinely outraged that I did not share their apparently very genuine view that I would be (and I promise you, one of them really said this) "speaking German if it weren't for us". Fawning gratitude was demanded towards these descendants of those who had apparently won the war pretty much single-handedly. You know, WW2.... 1942-45.... Of course I hasten to add that I believe these to be wholly unrepresentative of the US at large, albeit that there is a proportion of the WW2 interest market that seem to think enough like this that if you contradict it you'll get flak. Maybe the publishers are too aware of a loud minority? Personally I'd love to read a book that exploded a lot of popular myths that have grown up around WW2 via cinema and whatever.

 

[DJH]

I don't know, Edward. I've lived in the US for 20 odd years (I'm an Essex guy, but I never had the XR3i ) and I hear that "speaking German" thing quite often. I'd say it is quite a widely held view here.

 

[Two Types]

Thanks for your input, folks. In the past I have chosen to write about the British simply because I feel I can understand them better, since they are people I have grown up around. Thus my first five boks have concentrated on British themes. But one has to keep moving in order to attract a wider readership. I am still uncertain whether my unfamiliarity with the conditions in the USA during the period (and thus the things that shaped the character of the participants) might be a hinderance. And I genuinely believe such factors can be fundamental to a writer's ability to accurately represent a story.

I always laugh about certain aspects of the differences between the two armies: I once interviewed a veteran who was born in Rochester (New York State) but lived in England from the age of five. When he reached the age of 18 in 1943 he went to a US Army HQ in the UK and attempted to join (since he preferred the uniform and liked the idea of extra money). He took a medical and was rejected on the grounds that he had too few teeth! He then volunteered for the British Army and nobody looked at his teeth.
Mind you, when he left the army he decided to move back to the USA and went to the Embassy in London to get a passport. When asked the standard question of whether he had ever served in a foreign army he told them that he had served in the British Army. They then told him he had forfeited his right to claim US citizenship on those grounds. From that day onwards he decided he was British not American.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Heh. I had an argument in Another Place with a bunch of folks from the US who were genuinely outraged that I did not share their apparently very genuine view that I would be (and I promise you, one of them really said this) "speaking German if it weren't for us". Fawning gratitude was demanded towards these descendants of those who had apparently won the war pretty much single-handedly. You know, WW2.... 1942-45.... Of course I hasten to add that I believe these to be wholly unrepresentative of the US at large, albeit that there is a proportion of the WW2 interest market that seem to think enough like this that if you contradict it you'll get flak. Maybe the publishers are too aware of a loud minority? Personally I'd love to read a book that exploded a lot of popular myths that have grown up around WW2 via cinema and whatever.

Don't forget that those kinds of views don't represent all Americans -- there were those at the time, and there are still those of us today who think forcing England to stand alone in 1940-41 was one of America's great 20th Century shames, and the shrill views of Firsters and neo-Firsters don't reflect our opinions in any way.

 

[Sharpsburg]

Not WWII, but the American Revolution. A few years ago there was a series on PBS i think by a british historian about the Am. Rev. from the British point of view. Really quite fascinating to hear how the war was just one small part of a larger global war. Great perspective and i learned alot about OUR history as well.

 

[Edward]

Don't forget that those kinds of views don't represent all Americans -- there were those at the time, and there are still those of us today who think forcing England to stand alone in 1940-41 was one of America's great 20th Century shames, and the shrill views of Firsters and neo-Firsters don't reflect our opinions in any way.

Oh, absolutely - as I said, I don't assume that all think that way. It actually struck me as odd anyone would by now, though DJH has seen more of it than I have. I suspect a lot might vary with location and historical knowledge.

Honestly, though, I can understand the viewpoint of those in the US at the time who didn't want to get involved in the European war. Seems to me that one of the most popular revisionisms here in the UK at least has been to retrospectively make the case for war based on a lot of what only became known about the worst excesses of the Nazi regime after the fact. In terms of what they would actually have known in '39, or '40, I can see it being a much more ambiguous situation. I certainly doubt I'd have joined up myself (the small matter of now being too old for early war recruitment aside).

 

[Stanley Doble]

Don't forget that those kinds of views don't represent all Americans -- there were those at the time, and there are still those of us today who think forcing England to stand alone in 1940-41 was one of America's great 20th Century shames, and the shrill views of Firsters and neo-Firsters don't reflect our opinions in any way.

But England didn't stand alone.

The anti-German coalition at the start of the war (September 1, 1939) consisted of France, Poland, the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales) , the British Commonwealth nations, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Union of South Africa.

It was more than 2 years later that the US joined in, only because they had no choice.

Sept 1 1939, Germany invades Poland

Sept 3, England and France issues ultimatum to Gernany to end the war and leave Poland or face war. Germany ignores ultimatum, England and France declare war. Australia and New Zealand declare war.

Sept 4, South Africa declares war.

Sept 11, Canada declares war.

By the end of the war Canada had the world's third largest navy and fourth largest air force. 1,100,000 Canadians served in the armed forces out of a population of 11,000,000.

 

[The Wolf]

From what I've seen many Americans do believe that WWII started in December of 1941.
However, people I know in the U.S. that read about the war will usually read it all, definitely including books from the U.K.
I think hardest part for Yanks to accept is how important Russia was to the Allies winning.

Best of luck to you.

Sincerely,
The Wolf

 

[Two Types]

But England didn't stand alone.

In addition to the countries you mentioned, there are plenty of other vital factors. Whilst the armies of so many countries were defeated, many of their warships and merchant fleets came to the UK. Without the barges from the Netherlands and Belgium could the British Army have been evacuated from Dunkirk? Then there were the warships (and their crews) from Norway, Poland, France etc. Pilots from Czechoslovakia, Romania and Poland. Spanish, German, Austrian and Hungarian volunteers (and American volunteers pre-1942). Without the mighty Greek merchant fleet could the British have survived? And then there were thousands of men of all nationalities (Chinese, Indian, South American, West Indian etc) sailing on British merchant ships.

Just as some Americans forget that the war started in 1939, too many Britons forget that the war effort was truly international and that Britain never really stood alone.

 

[Atomic Age]

Just as some Americans forget that the war started in 1939, too many Britons forget that the war effort was truly international and that Britain never really stood alone.

I think the Chinese would suggest that the war started in July of 1937 when the Japanese invaded mainland China.

Doug

 

[Flicka]

I think we can all agree that Sweden contributed absolutely nothing to the allied cause. Does that mean I can't write books about Brits and Yanks set during WWII? Why on earth not?

Really. That sort of jingoism is what starts wars in the first place.

 

[Atomic Age]

I don't know why anyone would have a problem with it. I think its always interesting to see yourself from someone else's perspective. There is a commonly held belief, and I think it is often true, that some of the best "American" films, are made by foreign directors, because they have a unique perspective on American culture.

Doug

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I think the Chinese would suggest that the war started in July of 1937 when the Japanese invaded mainland China.

Doug

Actually it started in 1931 when Japan invaded Manchuria. The first Battle of Shanghai took place in January-February 1932.

 

[Edward]

I don't know why anyone would have a problem with it. I think its always interesting to see yourself from someone else's perspective. There is a commonly held belief, and I think it is often true, that some of the best "American" films, are made by foreign directors, because they have a unique perspective on American culture.

Doug

I think it's the old idea that you can criticise your own, but an outsider had better keep their nose out. I've seen it many times. Once, for instance, a friend of mine was in the company of a group of Americans in Italy, all of whom were being really quite vicious about their then President. When, however, an Austrian lady offered a criticism of the man in question, all these Americans turned on her. It's certainly not a US phenomenon either: I know I have said some very, eh, strongly critical things about my own native land and culture, but if one of they English said exactly the same thing, I'll be Uppity Irish in a flash. Human nature, I suppose.

 

[Story]

Maybe the publishers are too aware of a loud minority? Personally I'd love to read a book that exploded a lot of popular myths that have grown up around WW2 via cinema and whatever.

Or suppressed by the Government.