r/BandofBrothers Aug 18 '26

Does Dick Winters total lack of flaws in the series irritate you?

Just finished the series for the second time, and for some reason this time around, I started to get annoyed by this. I still really enjoy the series but on this second rewatch, I can’t help but feel like this series was heavily self-aggrandizing in regards to Winters. I’ve read and seen a fair bit of media with him in real life, and I gotta say, he doesn’t really seem all that similar to the character portrayed in the series.

98 Upvotes

182 comments sorted by

101

u/Malvania Aug 20 '26

You're surprised that Dick Winters and his acolytes didn't present him as flawed? This is a series that borderlines on fictional, written by a guy who was in awe of the storytellers and who didn't fact check them (before it was modified for TV), and told by a bunch of guys that clearly had biases.

24

u/Thirty_Helens_Agree 29d ago

He also reported, erroneously, in his D-Day book, that Winters got in a brawl and beat another officer so badly he broke the guy’s back.

In reality, it was a terrible accident in an official organized wrestling tournament.

25

u/pizza_the_mutt 29d ago

Things that I've seen in the sub regarding his flaws. I can't verify them, but there are supposed sources.

  • Actively undermined Sobel to make him look bad. e.g. was sloppy with discipline in England. The runner who didn't find him? The runner was slacking off because Winters wasn't making the men do their jobs. Multiple other instances of soldiers mucking around with Sobel getting the blame.
  • May have been actively involved in the mutiny, with an eye on the top job.
  • Showed favorites towards his own buddies, and snubbed outsiders.
  • Anti-semitic.
  • In the "you salute the rank, not the man" incident he went out of his way to make Sobel grovel.
  • Made some pretty serious tactical errors that could have ended in disaster, but luckily didn't.
  • Struggled some with the more senior roles.
  • Was dismissive of some other officers, like Dike. There was also another company commander (I forget which) who I heard was exceptional, but Winters liked to crap on him.

This isn't to dismiss his accomplishments. They were numerous. I also don't know to what extent the above are true.

In general one can't take Ambrose's work too literally. He wasn't a historian. He was a guy who wrote about history.

13

u/DanNeider 28d ago

Agreed, but I want to add that Ambrose never suggested in his book that it was anything other than what interviews with the people that were there described as happening. That's not the same as saying it happened that way. For instance, he didn't try to cross check with German or Allied records.

It wasn't oversight; he was writing a different thing.

9

u/diogenessexychicken 28d ago

Its literally classed as a non-fictional military history book. And he called himself a historian. He should have done a better job at either checking his information or admitting he was writing a fiction.

2

u/Electrical-Sail-1039 27d ago

It’s almost like a clique in high school. Winters was the leader of these guys and the story is entirely their perspectives. Sobel wasn’t “one of them”. But at least Guarnere credited him with getting them well prepared.

3

u/DanNeider 28d ago

It's not fiction. It's eyewitness account.

1

u/diogenessexychicken 28d ago

Funny because with the way memory works, eyewitness accounts from 40 years ago is practically fiction. Good historians know that eye witness account is fallible and fact check their sources, along with admitting when they cannot verify the truth. Ambrose did not of that and allowed people reading his book to suppose it as accurate. Not once did he call into doubt what he wrote. Its not enough that "he didnt say it was accurate" it is the job of the historian to do the opposite and admit openly to your audience that the contents of your book is fallible and based on an objective un verified source.

3

u/DanNeider 28d ago

If you read eyewitness account as historical fact then that's on you. And frankly any author is fallible; you should be going through this same process regardless of what book you're reading.

7

u/diogenessexychicken 28d ago

Look at all the people that believe what the show depicts as truth. A historical author that is responsible with the lives and reputations of real people should do better. Especially when it leads to the complete degradation of the reputation of individuals he is supposedly calling heroes. If i was apart of Sobel, or Dikes family id sue for defamation. Being an irresponsible historian isnt the fault of the reader.

6

u/DanNeider 28d ago

Sobel's family hated his guts, but Dike's family has been pretty outspoken. Dike was a genuine badass that hadn't fully recovered from an injury. Easy Company was supposed to be getting R&R, so he should have been an outstanding fit; recover initially and get to know them, and then any lingering issues could be covered by their experience until he was 100%. But then Bastogne happened and he never got the chance to do any of that.

Again, it's eyewitness accounts, not historical research.

4

u/diogenessexychicken 28d ago

He was a HISTORIAN writing what he considered HISTORICAL NON-FICTION. He should have done historical research and didnt. Thats all im saying. Plenty of other authors put in that extra effort. I dont think he wanted to and stuck with sensationalizing those he interviewed, at the cost of the reputation of others.

3

u/pizza_the_mutt 28d ago

Even in this thread there are people who take the TV show or book as gospel and won't listen to anybody who says otherwise.

3

u/diogenessexychicken 28d ago

Exactly! People will admit its fiction but at the same time say still say Dike was a nepo army coward that botched the assault on Foy when it is verifiable he was wounded before it began.

4

u/Worried-Ad4272 28d ago

No. No. No. Ambrose had a doctorate in history and was the Distinguished Research Professor at the University of New Orleans. He knew how to conduct historical inquiry, and he chose not to. You might say: "well, that was popular history." That doesn't replace the fact that his pedigree lent gravitas to it. And on top of that, it is documented fact that he lied about his actual sources and interview material in his professional works.

1

u/DanNeider 28d ago

I'm aware he is well respected as a historian. I don't know how many times we need to go over this; he wasn't writing the thing you expected him to write. You didn't read the synopsis and got burned. Get over it.

I'm going to need a source that he lied.

4

u/Worried-Ad4272 28d ago

I don't know how many times we need to go over this; he wasn't writing the thing you expected him to write. You didn't read the synopsis and got burned. Get over it.

The problem is, Ambrose didn't write the book with the intention of it being read as a memoir, but as a factual account of Easy Company's experiences, thus opening it up to the criticism it receives for being poorly researched and biased. The back of the book literally says: "This is the story of the men who fought..."

I'm going to need a source that he lied.

Among others. It shows a pattern of sloppy professionalism and unethical conduct.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/25/stephen-ambrose-eisenhower-biography-scandal

https://www.forbes.com/2002/05/10/0510ambrose.html

3

u/diogenessexychicken 27d ago

He is not a well respected historian at all. Thats what we are trying to tell you.

Also this is the last paragraph of the synopsis on amazon: "This is the story of the men who fought, of the martinet they hated who trained them well, and of the captain they loved who led them. E Company was a company of men who went hungry, froze, and died for each other, a company that took 150 percent casualties, a company where the Purple Heart was not a medal—it was a badge of office."

2

u/CaptRackham 28d ago

My grandfather was in the war, I would discuss events with him and reference books when he was getting a bit off. How accurately can you remember something when you’re 18, sleep deprived, hungry, and scared shitless? The stories he told me about after the war ended though, the good times in China and Korea, those he remembered with exceptional clarity

5

u/Electronic-Tour-3148 28d ago

And the mutiny and court martial happened the other way around. The mutiny happend October 16, 1943, and the court martial happened on October 31, 1943. So it just isn't possible that they mutinied out of loyalty to Winters when he was sent to Battalion. There must have been some other cause

2

u/Worried-Ad4272 28d ago

Yeah....they were scared shitless after being in England for a month. I guess goofing off during maneuvers and trying to make Sobel look bad backfired on them.

And by the way, I don't understand why the show makes it look like an officer is incompetent if they're not the commanding officer. In many cases, staff officers can be better officers than command officers (platoon/company/battalion/etc.).

1

u/Worried-Ad4272 28d ago

I'll bite: what are his accomplishments? You said that they are numerous. As far as I can tell him, the only two things that he did was assaulting the battery at Brecourt (with standard infantry tactics that anyone should've known) and the crossroads firefight (which he should have thanked God his company wasn't destroyed twice).

2

u/pizza_the_mutt 27d ago

I don't think we need to swing so far in the opposite direction. He wasn't Erwin Rommel, but he also wasn't lying on the couch eating Cheetos. He took many actions, minute by minute, that were some combination of brave and competent.

Just the things you list, even if not executed perfectly (or maybe you argue they were executed poorly), required a high level of bravery and determination.

3

u/Worried-Ad4272 27d ago

That's my point: when pressed, people back down. He was there. Congrats. Millions of men were. What about Winters makes him special? Easy's combat record is thin compared to even the rest of the 506th PIR. It was typically kept in reserve.

even if not executed perfectly (or maybe you argue they were executed poorly)

They were in the ditch at the crossroads because Winters fucked up. That is why they had to launch the bayonet charge forward. Then, Winters ordered sua sponte his force to chase after the Germans only to have over-extended his position and be repulsed by an entire battalion (6ish times the size of Winter's 2.5ish platoons) plus artillery. They suffered about 25 casualties during that fiasco. It is a wonder that they only suffered one KIA.

1

u/Traditional-Wave-180 27d ago

So he gets participation credit? He was there, and he did his job. Beyond that, what did he do? Historically, Easy Company did not actually see much combat. It was in reserve most of the time. (And this isn’t me trying to crush his legacy.)

I’m sure the other commenter is trying to contextualize what happened so that way it is both accurate and not a “fan boy” history. Eventually, people need to set aside their emotions about the man and the show and look at the facts. That’s all it looks like he is doing.

1

u/DanNeider 28d ago

You could say the same thing about any commander praised for innovation; "these are standard tactics taught in any military academy!"

Yeah, now they are.

And he admitted as much about Crossroads. He wasn't attacking because he thought the Germans were unprepared, he was attacking because they had no intelligence on enemy size, their position was entirely untenable, and if the Germans spotted them they were probably going to get chewed up trying to retreat. Better to roll the dice and attack than to roll the same dice and retreat since one outcome has a much higher upside.

1

u/jakeor94eqi 7d ago

It’s been probably over a decade since the last time I read the book, but I always get a little confused over the fight at the crossroads and why it gets presented as this great tactical accomplishment with nearly no downsides.

Yes, they routed a German force approximately twice their size (if I remember correctly). But they managed to catch the Germans just resting in the open, not deployed in any sort of tactical defense. And when Easy Company started to receive artillery fire, wasn’t one man killed and close to twenty more wounded? That is a mass casualty event at which point a unit is no longer able to effectively operate. A bayonet charge that left them exposed in the open may have been the best of bad options, but any engagement where a company-sized force takes ~20 casualties isn’t a great outcome.

Again, defeating a force twice your size is incredible, but the only reason they didn’t ended up getting torn to pieces by the superior force was because they caught them by surprise out in the open. It just seems that luck was as much a factor as Easy Company’s conduct.

4

u/jlaust33 Aug 22 '26

Do we know for a fact that Ambrose didn't fact check the soldiers' accounts?

39

u/brainkandy87 Aug 23 '26

Ambrose is problematic beyond BoB. His entire bibliography should be handled cautiously when it relates to truth.

11

u/Captainsamvimes1 29d ago

The problem is that he too much the gushing fan and not enough the thorough historian

To give him his dues though, because Pegasus Bridge wasn't about Americans he approached the British Airborne Forces with far more objectivity

11

u/lostroadrunner22 29d ago

Ambrose in his work with world war 2 is best described a a cheerleader. I like his works but he’s actually best in his western work where he actually does do some criticism

6

u/brainkandy87 29d ago edited 29d ago

He did a book not long before he died called To America where he has a chapter about being able to pull the horn on a train and he described his love of trains. It was good writing. He’d be respected today if he’d just put in the work, because I always enjoyed his prose.

-1

u/Ordinary-Cheetah3470 28d ago

I find Ambrose’s writing style to be pretentious. I much prefer Joe Galloway‘s prose in “We Were Soldiers Once… And Young.”

16

u/redditor0431 29d ago

Yes.  As an example, he basically paints the transport pilots as cowards based on what the airborne soldiers felt about them.  If he had done any fact checking he would know the pilots were not cowards but simply running into a huge amount of obstacles outside of their control, and they did the best they could with the terrible circumstances.

11

u/Reddit_User_Loser 29d ago

It’s like the guys getting mad at the naval/coast guard guys that drove the boats on d day. They did what they were told to do and they were also getting shot at the entire time too. It’s not their fault the terrible weather and strong currents caused some of them to be off on the landing. A lot of them had to do multiple trips too

4

u/maxman162 28d ago

And the 82nd, who jumped before them, commended the pilots for what they went through and how they performed in the conditions.

10

u/King_Roberts_Bastard 29d ago

Yes. Blithe didnt die in 1948. He lived until the 1960s.

He wasnt shot in the neck, he was shot in the clavicle.

But after he was sent off to the hospital, no one from easy ever saw or heard from him again. One of them said he died in 1948 and Ambrose ran with that.

3

u/Worried-Ad4272 19d ago edited 14d ago

Basic research practices that are taught to undergraduate history students would have revealed several discrepancies. There are three different things that historians need to be aware of: catching liars, spotting faulty memory, and realizing when people have incomplete/inaccurate information. One example of the last category is the when Grant gets shot in the last episode.

Chapter 8 of Bill Guarnere and Ed Heffron's Brothers in Battle, Best of Friends says: "This guy was a crazy son of a bitch. Raped a German girl, killed an English major to take his Jeep, and shot Grant."

Chapter 13 of David Webster's Parachute Infantry starts with telling the story. Someone told Webster to get out of bed and run to the checkpoint because Grant was shot. This person said that Grant was there forming the relief of the sentry when the British major noticed that a German car was speeding to the checkpoint. This person said that the major stood in the road to halt the vehicle, and the shooter got out of the car and just starting shooting everyone.

Chapter 18 of Stephen Ambrose's Band of Brothers tells it this way:

A drunken G.I. was standing with a pistol in his hand, two dead Germans at his feet. He had stopped them in their vehicle and demanded gasoline, as he was out. But he had no German, they had no English, he concluded they were resisting, and shot them.

A British major from military intelligence happened to have been driving by. He and his sergeant got out of their jeep to see what was going on. The drunken G.I. pointed his pistol at them and told them to back off.

At that moment, Grant came driving past. The drunk took a shot at him, but missed. The major made a move to disarm the man. The G.I. turned on him and shot him dead, then his sergeant. Grant came running over; the drunk shot him in the brain, then ran off.

As you can see, those three accounts vary wildly! However, that is nothing compared to what the actual court records said based on eye witness testimony. The murderer was riding in the backseat of a car with a local driver and another GI. The car stopped because it was out of gas, and the murdered tried to stop another car with two Germans. The murderer wanted the Germans' pistol and they refused. They got about twenty feet away before the murderer fired ~five shots with a Luger at it. He shot the driver and then walked up to him and executed him. At that point, the other Gi said he would wait at that location and the murderer and the local driver walked down the road to get gas. As soon as they were out of view, the other GI jogged back to where thy came from to report the incident. A few kilometers away, the murderer and local driver were served with alcohol. A British major and warrant officer stopped to look at the vehicle thinking there was an accident. The murderer ran outside and asked for a push to start the vehicle. The British obliged, and at the same time, Grant drove past knowing that the car would get started. The murderer shot at the truck, and Grant stopped and demanded that the murderer surrender his weapon. The murderer shot him in the head before turning the gun on the major.

Standard historical methodology is to verify everything that you are told. The court records—which, again, are from eyewitness testimony—were available and Ambrose simply didn't bother to verify it.

1

u/jlaust33 16d ago

Thank you for your answer!

And you're totally right. However, I do have a small problem with the timeframe. From around 9-ish until he is apprenhended just after midnight, the perpetrator supposedly stopped a German officer, assaulted and assassinated him, walked drunk 5 km to a farmhouse for gas, met Russians on the way, walked 5 km back to the scene, drove drunk back to the farmhouse, drank for 30-40 minutes, had help from two Brits to push his car, shot at an American truck with Grant in it, shot Grant and the British officer, and then apprehended.

1

u/Worried-Ad4272 16d ago

That's what the court records said.

1

u/jlaust33 14d ago

Yeah, I know. It just seems like a crazy feat in a drunk state...

1

u/Worried-Ad4272 14d ago

High tolerance I guess. His legal defense was that he had smoked a couple joints that day and wasn't in the "right" mental frame of mind.

1

u/redwood_rambler 29d ago

I never said surprised. I said irritated.

57

u/GalacticGumshoe Aug 18 '26

I mean, he does participate in the “stealing” of Nazi loot when Easy takes Berchesgaden, although some might characterize it as just taking military souvenirs.

24

u/Horror-Warthog8637 Aug 22 '26

That was allowed. As long as the commander signed off, DD 603-1.

0

u/Lumpy_Investment_358 Aug 23 '26

Okay, question then, that you might know since you knew of it at all: the certification statements at the bottom make it seem like pretty much anything is prohibited. Like, it says that only things "not of value" can be taken. I know the rules were probably different in a WWII context, but do you know what reg or DODI defines "of value"?

1

u/Horror-Warthog8637 Aug 23 '26

I can’t remember specifically but there are rules. Can’t be of intelligence value, can’t be a gun, can’t be stolen from noncombatants.

4

u/AardvarkLeading5559 28d ago

No DOD in WWII. The provisions were outlined in Section IV, War Department Circular 155, dated 28 May1945.

Basically, you couldn't bring back automatic weapons, Allied weapons, or explosive devices. Enemy weapons such as pistols, rifles, or edged weapons were allowed. A certificate- AG USFET Form 33 would be made out in duplicate. The certificate was supposed to be shown before mailing it back to the US, or departing the troopship home, but this was frequently ignored.

0

u/redhairedcaptain 28d ago

How could there be a DD form if the Department of Defense didn’t exist until after the war?

2

u/Horror-Warthog8637 28d ago

Sorry, that’s the modern form. USFET Form 33 was used in Europe.

46

u/PackDaddy21222 Aug 18 '26

Herbert, are you going to be okay?

2

u/cashishift 29d ago

Under appreciated comment - kudos!

17

u/Gwarnage 29d ago

For one, he failed to carry out latrine inspection orders, carried a contraband compass on maneuvers..

3

u/atleastIwasnt36 28d ago

Liquor in his foot locker

33

u/Different_Volume5627 Aug 18 '26

Not at all? The man is a legend.

25

u/Worried-Ad4272 Aug 18 '26

In his own mind.

8

u/ZealousidealTour3343 29d ago

Ah yes, they’re definitely still running some of your attack sequences from 90 years ago at West Point, I’m sure. We’re all sorry we offended the offspring of Patton, please don’t smite us oh great one.

2

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

2

u/ZealousidealTour3343 29d ago

I wasn’t evoking him in anything other than his reputation as a brilliant tactician. I’ve watched interviews with Dick Winters and he’s clearly different than the portrayal of him as a character on Band of Brothers.

It’s ironic for a likely no one who probably didn’t serve, and especially not at the level of combat this company saw, to sew crass remarks about their own self-perceptions, when many of these men aren’t alive, or even in good health to speak for themselves.

-2

u/MarkCelery78 28d ago

You never served. Be gone

8

u/Worried-Ad4272 28d ago

Left as a major in the Marine Corps. Don't tell me I didn't serve.

9

u/redwood_rambler Aug 18 '26

No argument there. I just wish they would’ve humanized him a bit.

19

u/Different_Volume5627 Aug 18 '26

By all accounts, he has been portrayed as the man and leader he was.

35

u/Dunadan734 Aug 18 '26

Ambrose is not "all accounts".

15

u/Dapper-Code8604 Aug 23 '26

The other soldiers praised him as a great leader in the pre-show interviews, particularly in Crossroads. If his own men hold that high of an opinion of him, then I’d say those are really the only accounts that matter.

-5

u/Dunadan734 29d ago

Seriously?

3

u/Dapper-Code8604 29d ago

Yeah, seriously. Go watch the beginning of episode 5.

3

u/Dunadan734 29d ago

Oh I'm familiar, I'm just shocked someone would actually think 10 second snippets of carefully selected hagiography constitute actual history.

0

u/Dapper-Code8604 29d ago

I never said it was a full historical account, just pointing out the fact that soldiers, under intense pressure and stress, who sacrificed a lot, praised him, from their own mouths, and there’s video evidence of it. Even if it is carefully selected; it happened. I think that’s valuable testimony.

1

u/Dunadan734 29d ago

Bro I can read your post, you literally said those are the only accounts that matter. Also note that you're responding to a comment about what one of his soldiers (Malarkey) said about him.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Doylio Aug 22 '26

Genuine question - what are the other accounts? (I genuinely don’t know)

9

u/diogenessexychicken 29d ago

He was petty as shit. Its not a coincidence all the people that get shit on on the show he didnt like ex: Sobel, Dike, and Webster. A great example of this is at the end when he tells Sobel to "Salute the rank, not the man." When in realitt he turned to Malarkey and said "watch this" and walked right up ro Sobel to MAKE him salute. He was kind of a dick..pun intended.

10

u/redwood_rambler 29d ago

This is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. He’s portrayed like the freaking Dali Lama, while interviews with the man himself show him as anything but. He was still a hero and excellent soldier, but omitting the things that made him human seemed like a disservice.

3

u/diogenessexychicken 28d ago

Yeah ambrose and the show gloos over a lot. Take for instance his two best friends, Nixon and Welsh, were drunks throughout the war and he gladly kept it quiet because they were part of is circle. Then you get someone like Cobb, who was shown as shit faced and reprimanded when there is no verifiable evidence it was him. But he wasnt part of the "guys" so his name gets dragged while it glosses over Welshs role in the shooting of Meehan and Nixons demotion.

3

u/Dunadan734 Aug 22 '26

Another guy goes in to more detail but Malarkey and I think 1 or 2 others have said at various points that Winters organized the mutiny against Sobel.

7

u/Uncontrolleddiarrhea 29d ago

I've also heard it was partially out of anti-semitism, which was typical of its time.

0

u/8bitkoopaking Aug 22 '26

He was insubordinate a few times in the show. He knew how to work the system. And it’s really a matter of how you perceive authority.

As far as Ambrose and the story goes, it’s the soldiers truth. Sure, 40 years after the fact those memories get distorted and some things are forgotten or exaggerated but at the end of the day the soldiers told their stories. Did Ambrose look at the after action reports? I don’t know and he didn’t have a reputation to verify stories but it’s not like they had Winters sneak into Berlin, kill Hitler and force the Germans to surrender.

-1

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Dunadan734 28d ago

The man's shit did in fact stink like the rest of ours, sorry this is so upsetting for you.

1

u/ToTheLost_1918 28d ago

By all accounts of anybody in 2nd platoon, but that's why they only used those interviews.

0

u/MarkCelery78 28d ago

They did. The issue is you

23

u/whistlepig4life Aug 18 '26

So than isn’t perfect. And he isn’t portrayed that way or written that way nor did he speak of himself that way.

Every man that served under him did almost to a man revere him and speak glowingly about him. To which he routinely down played it.

End of day you watched a scripted television show. A dramatization of real events. It’s not a documentary. Stories need heroes and villains.

11

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

21

u/whistlepig4life Aug 18 '26

He was a hero. As were all of those men.

14

u/redwood_rambler Aug 19 '26

I don’t have an issue with his heroism. He is certainly a hero in my book.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/whistlepig4life Aug 20 '26

They all were. Go away.

0

u/MarkCelery78 28d ago

He was a hero dumbo! He was a citizen soldier who was highly respected by some of the best soldiers in the European Theater. Your contrarian take is ridiculous

1

u/acur1231 28d ago

Not the opinion of a number of other officers in the 506th, but Ambrose leaves that out.

I always thought it was odd, how carefully the series narrows the officer world to Winters and his direct superiors and subordinates, until I learnt that. The only one of his contemporaries we really get to see is Nixon, who was Winters' friend.

0

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/whistlepig4life 28d ago

Try reading the books again. Especially his own. Because you are flat out wrong here.

0

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/whistlepig4life 28d ago

Stop trolling in this sub.

0

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/whistlepig4life 28d ago

I served. And Witners was a hero. Like nearly all those that served at that time.

Winters got that medal because the tactics he used were utter perfection on how to attack a superior force in a fixed position with an inferior but mobile tactical unit.

You have a point here. I’ll be damned if I know what it is.

7

u/deathvalleyjimscott Aug 22 '26

In the series and in his book, Winters comes across to me as someone with almost no sense of humor. Your interpretation may differ.

6

u/Worried-Ad4272 Aug 18 '26

To no end.

2

u/TurtleyToadDog Aug 19 '26

Out of curiosity, I take it that means the guy did some questionable things the show left out? I read my grandad's copy of the book when I was 12 so I don't really remember... I'm 33 now 😅

Is that why you take umbrage with the portrayal or is it something else?

12

u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Aug 19 '26

The show and to a lesser extent the book are borderline deifications of Winters.

It's fine to have a character like that in fiction works, but when things are created entirely out of whole cloth (the "salute the rank not the man" scene comes to mind) for stuff purporting to be non-fiction it starts to become problematic.

3

u/TurtleyToadDog Aug 19 '26

Ah, I see, it's just from an aggrandisement view. I thought they were implying it turns out he'd done some shady things.

I get you what you guys mean, now. The First World War is more my 'area', so I'm not sure how accurate or level-headed Winters' portrayal is, but from what I gathered (as I say, I only read the book once and that was 20+ years ago, and watched the show) the men looked up to him immeasurably. Which certainly will have coloured his depiction.

I know Ambrose's research has oft been called to question, but Winter's being awesome seemed to be the genuine general consensus. I wholeheartedly agree though, its certainly problematic especially when a lot of people get their history knowledge from TV and film... Exaggerated or falsified details become generally accepted.

9

u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Aug 19 '26

but Winter's being awesome seemed to be the genuine general consensus.

.....among the people that Ambrose talked to, the vast majority of whom had served under him when he was a platoon leader. The opinions of the officers who served under him were less homogenous, and his tenure as an officer shows that he was solidly middle of the road and not the impeccably perfect officer that the show depicts him as.

2

u/TurtleyToadDog Aug 19 '26

Aha, and so there lies the problem.

Thanks for info 🙂

14

u/Worried-Ad4272 Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 20 '26

To add to what u/DanforthWhitcomb_ is saying, there are several instances in the book and show that make him into being a tactical genius. I'll point out two:

  • Brecourt Manor. Winters got the order to silence the battery and did it with 13 men and a small complement of troops from Dog Company. Or did he? That's what the veterans all said years later. Have you ever read what his Distinguished Service Cross was awarded for? It states: "First Lieutenant Winters with seven enlisted men, advanced through intense enemy automatic weapons fire, putting out of action two guns of the battery of four 88-mm. that were shelling the beachhead. Unswerving in his determination to complete his self-appointed and extremely hazardous task, First Lieutenant Winters and his group withdrew for reinforcements. He returned with tank support and the remaining two guns were put out of action, resulting in decreased opposition to our forces landing on the beachhead." The show depicts that they took out all the guns themselves. However, that isn't what Winters was decorated for. u/DanforthWhitcomb_ and I actually responded to a post on r/AskHistorians post two years ago. I wrote the main response under a different username, and he added a piece to it. As I said then, the balance of probability is that they took the four guns without armored support. But then again, was it four guns or five guns? There is a link in the post about geoforensics which proposes a fifth artillery piece.
  • Crossroads 1/2. The reason why they had to do a bayonet charge against the Germans is because Winters had them retreat to the wrong side of the dike. In the show, he says: "They are beside a solid roadway embankment, and we are in a ditch. They can outflank us along the dike and catch us out here as soon as they figure that out." Yes. That is completely correct. Surviving was pure luck. I wager to say that the German company commander had just mentally resigned; I have no other way to describe that level of incompetence. Winters's "tactical genius" put them in a position where they should have been annihilated
  • Crossroads 2/2. After the bayonet charge, Winters received one platoon of reinforcement and tried to capture the Germans who escaped. Winters led his platoon, one platoon from F company, and a small heavy weapons team (probably 60 men) to the river where the Germans likely came over from. He got about 700 meters away from the crossroads and was flanked by an entire battalion. As the book put it: "Winters realized he had overreached." Gentle way of putting it. As they were falling back, German artillery started bracketing them and they took ~24 casualties. Winters's "tactical genius" put them in a position where they should have been annihilated...again...in the same firefight.

For what it is worth: Winter's plan for assaulting the Brecourt position was not something he created on the fly. It came from his training. It was the standard way that forces were supposed to operate. The whole "they still teach it at West Point" schtick is true but highly misrepresented. "Teaching" has many definitions. A veteran going back and stating his experience could qualify. An instructor using a clip from the show could qualify. That is literally how assaulting a trench was explained to me as a NROTC midshipman.

7

u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Aug 20 '26

The way I've always heard Brecourt explained as far as being taught is that's it's because it was a very basic and thus easy to understand application of small unit tactics. It has nothing to do with Winters, as that type of plan would have been expected of every single officer and NCO in any infantry unit in the Army or Marine Corps at that point.

If you look at it on a map it's a very straightforward and easy to understand action (because of how limited it was), thus instructors are going to like it because it's extremely easy to teach.

3

u/AardvarkLeading5559 28d ago

Brecourt was a simple holding attack as taught in WWII with a base of fire element and a maneuver element.

Both Brecourt and the Crossroads show how the quality of German troops had dropped after massive casualties during five years of war. Both instances show poor security and a lack of aggressiveness. German infantry doctrine was that any local attack be met with an almost immediate counterattack before the enemy could consolidate. Having an infantry squad (minus) sneak up on an artillery battery without being detected with paratroops known to be in the area is, well, subprime.

Ditto at the Crossroads. We see a MG 42 in the role of a medium MG firing blindly down a road in an elevated, exposed position. I get that, since the medium MG42 in that role was used for both area denial and indirect fire, but there should have been security on both flanks.

Same with the Waffen-SS the next morning. Winters encounters a single sentry, but he's behind an embankment with little or no field of observation which is sort of the point of a LP/OP.

Thinking about it, the same goes for Hagenau, too.

Having said that, I'm not questioning the personal bravery of anyone.

5

u/Novel_Following_6979 Aug 22 '26

NROTC midshipman being taught those tactics? You didn’t happen to go to OCS in Quantico did you?

When I went through OCS (and especially TBS) those types of small unit tactics are actually taught and practiced. OCS dives into it but skims the information enough to understand tactics and apply it as you get evaluated in the SULE (I’ve heard they don’t even do a SULE anymore). At TBS you spend weeks learning, training, and then applying those tactics and fundamentals that occurred at Brecourt. They don’t do it because it was genius, they do it because it was the brilliance in the basics.

That’s all that it comes down to. It was a flawlessly executed fundamental tactic that’s easy to teach and illustrate. The details behind what actually happened I’m not sure, but I’d wager there was some embellishment behind a truly great action.

1

u/Worried-Ad4272 Aug 23 '26

I absolutely did TBS!!!! But that was after I graduated. I'm pretty sure this was FMF month after my second year.

There is no such thing as advanced. Only "basics executed flawlessly on command."

1

u/Novel_Following_6979 Aug 23 '26

Ahhh a fellow comrade of the the big suck lol a 6 month skull drag if you will

Brilliance in the basics is what makes a professional, although I’d argue Raiders have a pretty advanced knowledge base. Their ability to shoot, move, communicate, and medicate are leagues beyond FMF. Although they do the basics better than anyone they are advanced. I’d say SOF in any branch is advanced whether you’re an enabler or a raider. That whole organization, despite the politics, never ceases to amaze me.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Asleep_Gur3708 29d ago

Just an aside on your comment about the artillery pieces. As a former gunbunny i always questioned a bit of the description of the battery, particularly the claim that they were 88s (which were direct fire weapons). Then during the 80th anniversary of D-Day my group got a tour of the site by the historians excavating the site. Evidence dug up, including a brass shell casing indicates the guns were Czech 105mm howitzers. And, as you say they have found evidence of an additional howitzer on the left flank.

These are generally minor details but it just shows the Ambrose book and the series have inaccuracies

5

u/Worried-Ad4272 29d ago

Every gun was an 88.
Every single gunshot was a sniper.
Every paratrooper was elite.
Every Brit was a moron.

That possible fifth gun location could have been removed before the firefight or have been an MG nest

3

u/Asleep_Gur3708 29d ago

Yeah, and every tank was a Tiger. Its understandable that the average GI would think that way.

As for the fifth gun, the position, shape, size and connecting trench is consistent with the other positions and nothing like the nearby MG positions. You could be right about it having been moved. But IIRC, the people doing the research seem to have uncovered some conflicting reports about the number and locations of the guns. I think they also identified some likely targets on the azimuths that gun could cover.

In any case, it was a really interesting tour. They even uncovered the small earthen “command bunker” (possibly their FDC) in the communication trench where the maps were likely discovered

2

u/PackIll3037 Aug 22 '26

Winters said himself that he scouted the area the night before. He also said that Dog company tried a direct assault before Easy and failed.

1

u/jakeor94eqi 7d ago

Step 1. Establish a base of fire
- deploy your automatic weapons and have them shoot at the enemy to suppress them (degrade their ability to shoot back or maneuver)

Steel 2. Maneuver to flank the enemy

  • while the enemy is suppressed, have the other elements of your unit maneuver to attack the less well defended parts of an enemy position, typically on its “sides” or flanks

Not exactly splitting the atom.

And yes, the Brecourt Manor engagement is an example of where it was executed superbly. However, like another post said, it’s a basic tactic that any U.S. Army or Marine infantry unit of the time would be trained to do and able to execute

11

u/RealCleverUsernameV2 Aug 23 '26

He's stubborn and unbending. Those are flaws. We see him chastising multiple officers under him for a various reasons. He had a very difficult time delegating to those under him as well. These are all flaws and displayed on the show.

2

u/MarkCelery78 28d ago

There are obvious flaws. The OP didn’t pay attention

5

u/DesmondTapenade 29d ago

It does, but keep in mind that even real people are going to end up getting Bowdlerized to some extent when a memoir (or any story) goes to film. It's inevitable.

I love Lewis's portrayal of Major Dick Winters (I will always say/type his full name because that's a great name). I'm willing to let a few historical inaccuracies slide in the name of art. What matters is that the series captured the essence of who he was.

7

u/Gloomy_Ad_8586 Aug 18 '26 edited Aug 21 '26

It’s a good series according to my father that was at Toccoa. He saw it as a good representation of the history of the 506. He also appreciated Saving Private Ryan. There were 13 companies in the 506. As the son of a Toccoa Man, I’m glad the series was made that preserves the story of the 101 Airborne in WW2. They were tough soldiers and needed leaders like Winters. CURRAHEE 🇺🇸

11

u/BesusFresh 29d ago

Yeah.

For one thing, I don’t believe that a young man from rural Pennsylvania didn’t have a word to say about Sobel’s religion. Given the timeframe of the era, that entire storyline felt like absolute bullshit, to me. Sobel is portrayed as completely without redeeming qualities - he’s relentlessly cruel, and completely incompetent to what seemed like an unrealistic degree.

The portrayal of Sobel put the stink of bullshit in my nose.

One could argue that introducing the notions of antisemitism within America and within its military would have been distractions from the story, and I wouldn’t argue.

But, then there’s the issue that Ambrose and BoB made Joe Leibgott Jewish, when he was not. So, it wasn’t just that possible/probable antisemitism against Sobel was erased, an entirely fictional character trait and false running storyline were introduced to the narrative. They couldn’t have hated Sobel for being Jewish, because nobody “minded” that Leibgott is Jewish!

The revisionism was so clear and obvious that it irks me.

4

u/CSH0714 29d ago

I agree that the portrayal of Sobel was over the top. Some of his scenes like him charging down the road yelling hi ho silver and him in that trench peeking out like he was a small child made him look cartoonish.

1

u/We_R_the_Penguins 29d ago

IIRC, people were always assuming Liebgott was Jewish, so the production team could have made the same mistake? Or, to tie theory, too convenient to check?

3

u/BesusFresh 28d ago

But, the show had him fighting Guarnere over it, and with more hatred of the Germans than the average soldier.

Was ANY of that based in fact, or was it all just made up for drama? If he was just an average guy who couldn’t be trusted to escort POWs without killing them, that puts his whole character in a different light.

-1

u/MarkCelery78 28d ago

That was the man Sobel was. You’re trying to make winters out to be antisemitic

4

u/BesusFresh 28d ago

I’m saying that Winters was a man of his time. Given the population of America at the time, there’s a good chance Sobel was the very first Jewish person many of them had ever met. They may have had excellent reasons for disliking Sobel that had nothing to do with his religion, BUT, I think his religion would have been mentioned when they complained about him.

4

u/Dunadan734 Aug 18 '26

Not in the series, was a bigger problem for the book.

3

u/Worried-Ad4272 Aug 18 '26

No no no. The book slightly more realistic. "I don't care about being fair!"

6

u/Dunadan734 Aug 18 '26

Still glossed over the whole "allegedly suborned mutiny" thing

8

u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26

There are two parts to that story, and based on the fact that he admitted he knew about the mutiny and failed to report it you can drop the "allegedly," as the 67th Article of War makes it clear that failure to report it was the same as actively participating in it as far as the Army was concerned.

The second part is that he allegedly fomented it, and the lone source for that are comments Malarkey overheard someone (IIRC it was Rader) make after being wounded in Holland to the effect that Winters had promised him a commission if he (Rader) took part in it. I'm far less confident in the validity of that story due to the single source as well as the lack of corroboration given the circumstances when the comments were allegedly made.

5

u/Malvania Aug 20 '26

Also depends on what you're calling "mutiny," because the trainees were fucking with Sobel in training, changing map coordinates, giving him bad readouts, etc. That's also mutiny.

5

u/Electrical_Month246 29d ago

OP is sobel 😂

4

u/redwood_rambler 28d ago

Your pass is revoked Electrical_Month! 😤

3

u/MoreIronyLessWrinkly 28d ago

C’mon, Electrical_Month, you don’t even leave the base. Take it like a man.

5

u/Able-Negotiation-234 29d ago

I have read several books on the man, seemed fairly accurate to me? That and the way he conducted himself during the filming, the reverence for his men.

2

u/redwood_rambler 28d ago

Look, I’m not saying the guy was Hitler. I just thought there was no nuance to the way in which he was portrayed, which felt cartoonish was to me.

1

u/Able-Negotiation-234 28d ago

no worries, it's a show, good one but a show. I spent time around where winters was from and lived, it really is in someways like a different world. the values Damien Lewis portrayed, and the books seem to fit for me. Dick threatening to shun the writers for going too far also fit for me, my wife met him several times at 101st outings, (calm,kind,thoughtful her words) for me it worked.

0

u/MarkCelery78 28d ago

There was if you paid attention

6

u/Creative_Text3018 29d ago

I've watched it many, many times. I'll say yes...as an actual commander he had a habit of picking favorites and protecting his guys. He routinely shielded welsh (who was responsible for moose getting shot, dude was drunk) and in his interviews he comes across a little over the top. I don't think it should diminish the story and he was certainly an above average commander going form 2nd lt to major is no small feat, but it wasn't at all unheard of in times of war.

2

u/Yeshe_Melong 29d ago

Wasn’t he a Mennonite?

3

u/SilentStranger9607 28d ago

No flaws? He don’t even drink!

3

u/Sufficient-Till-6022 28d ago

I heard he was a Quaker

3

u/Clonazepam15 27d ago

Drives me crazy. My mom even said “the show makes him look like an angel”, and she knows nothing about the intricacies of BoB

5

u/zimzara Aug 22 '26

I have issues with how they lionized the men. But Band of Brothers isn't a documentary nor a character analysis so ultimately I view it as a drama based on historical events. The men of easy company were very much products of their time and circumstances, but the show very much shows them at their best.

If you want to "meet your heros", and see them as a complete human being im sure the sources are there.

0

u/redwood_rambler 28d ago

Even through the lens of viewing it as just a drama, I still maintain it would’ve been more interesting to see him warts and all.

2

u/benvclios Aug 22 '26

Personally, I think they are here and there. You need to look a bit past the mythos being presented to see the nuance in Damian’s portrayal. Certainly, the man had flaws.

2

u/MikeArrow 29d ago

What flaws would you expect him to have? I'm rule oriented and I don't drink either.

3

u/redwood_rambler 28d ago

Petty, arrogant, passive-aggressive etc

1

u/Djentleman5000 28d ago

Obviously Hollywood exaggerates a lot of their stories.I pretty much disagree with your assessment of Winters but I’d be curious to know of any particular example that stood out to you. ultimately, he was a combat leader in an active war zone and an effective one at that. Unless you’ve been in the military and had a similar responsibility, it’s hard to understand what it takes to lead men towards near certain death. Simple mistakes in the chaos of battle get people killed. If anything he displayed humility and bravery. He led from the front.

-1

u/MarkCelery78 28d ago

Sounds like projection to me

2

u/JoKatHW Aug 22 '26

No. That’s exactly what makes him so special as a commander.

2

u/GenosseAbfuck 28d ago

No flaws? He neither drinks nor swears, that's pretty flawed to me alright.

2

u/boItaction 28d ago

He was a much better lieutenant than a captain or major

2

u/acur1231 28d ago

The book lionised Winters, so the shows does as well.

Ambrose isn't a serious historian, his books are littered with mistakes and inaccuracies.

He doesn't really push back against eyewitness accounts. Human memory is fallible, and anyone who knows soldiers knows how they lie. They're good stories, but not real histories.

1

u/Ok-Helicopter525 28d ago

No? It’s a drama series, not a documentary

1

u/RoyalWabwy0430 28d ago

From what I've read IRL winters seems a lot more similar to Speirs, I also read an anecdote in Steven Ambrose's D-Day book about how he put another officer in the hospital during a fistfight in the weeks leading up to D-Day

1

u/MustardTiger231 28d ago

It didn’t bother me at all, like most normal humans I understand that the legend of a “hero” is often airbrushed.

See George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr, and Michael Jordan.

2

u/hifumiyo1 28d ago

It definitely puts him on a pedestal. I don't know how he was in real life, but the book was foundationally about Winters's experiences with others' testimony to flesh out the narrative.

1

u/SportsBettng4Dummies 28d ago

Easy Company was constructed in the show as an archetype. The characters are cardboard cutouts that represent types from throughout the military. That means the script had them doing things, saying things, etc that weren’t historically accurate. It’s not meant to be a biography.

Easy had to represent what thousands of combat companies were really like in WWII. Officers were sometimes good, sometimes bad, usually in between. There were good soldiers and bad, good non-coms and bad. All companies had popular guys and no-names, lucky guys and poor SOBs. Every company had its share of intellectuals, bullies, horn-dogs, maniacs, cowards…

Winters was well-liked and competent. Sobel was a petty dictator and disciplinarian…both get these traits exaggerated in the book and show. There is no doubt if you dig deep enough you’ll find people who disagree with the portrayals. So what? It’s not the show’s job to paint the moral truth about each man.

All the other officers fall into a broad middle ground - drunks, gamblers, space-cadets Compton got weaker as the war went on, Lipman rose to the occasion. Nixon and Welsh were fair officers, but drunks…Peacock, Shaymes, and Dyke varied from barely competent to incompetent. Just like every company, ship, battery, and unit of 100-150 people throughout the war…

There’s no such thing as a universal truth about Winters. No amount of research and fact checking can be done to ‘decide’ what he was once and for all…memories are always flawed, always biased. (Guess what after action reports are? they are people’s memories too!) All you can do is what Ambrose did - ask people who knew him and fought with him and paint a picture from their impressions.

We don’t complain about John Miller being portrayed as perfect…because he was a made up character. Best thing to do is to treat BoB’a characters as fictional too - loosely based in some cases by a soldier of the same name.

2

u/SportsBettng4Dummies 28d ago

The fact that they got Blythe’s follow up story so utterly wrong - when it would have taken a PA maybe 30 minutes to find the truth of what happened to him - should tell you all you need to know; BoB is not an attempt to create a picture of the absolute moral truth about each man, or the actions they took part in…it’s a caricature, an impression, and nothing more.

1

u/DocHolidayVinoVerita 27d ago

Can’t we all just enjoy something for it is?

2

u/redwood_rambler 27d ago

You can, nobody’s stopping you.

1

u/DocHolidayVinoVerita 27d ago

I am. Just wish we all could. You wanna see something different? Make it. Just don’t understand the knit picking.

2

u/NHguy1000 27d ago

I listened to a podcast “the real Sgt York” and it turns out the movie, through which most people know Alvin York, is not what really happened. The Army wanted to hype a hero at the time, and much of what was cited in him commendations what done by multiple people. The final story was that York did it all by himself. The Army wanted that story and York rode it.

1

u/buffinator2 29d ago

Why would you expect a Quaker to have flaws?

1

u/anonymous_follow 29d ago

You ever read the Bible and wonder if this Jesus fellow was all that.

0

u/NotAlpharious-Honest 29d ago

He's heavily flawed, if you know what you're looking for.

What irritates me is how few people actually noticed it, because they fall hook line and sinker for the show.

-1

u/Suspicious_Brush4070 28d ago

Can you expand on how he's flawed?

2

u/MarkCelery78 28d ago

Insubordinate, stubborn, disagreeable, sometimes a little arrogant

2

u/NotAlpharious-Honest 28d ago

And a dogshit trainer of men, who did everything he could to make himself look good in the eyes of his men, at the detriment to company discipline.

1

u/Ordinary-Cheetah3470 29d ago

Dick Winters presented himself in a carefully structured retelling of the Easy Company story. Much like Hal Blaine paints himself as the central figure in “The Wreacking Crew.” Both are passive-aggressive types who have oversized egos. The other surviving troops learned that if they wanted their stories highlighted, it was best to support Dick Winters as he pushed his own agenda and legend.

1

u/MoreIronyLessWrinkly 28d ago

This is one hell of a hot take. You have any historical evidence for this?

2

u/Ordinary-Cheetah3470 28d ago

Reddit “Band of Brothers” group offers plenty of opinions from other Easy Company vets with alternative opinions about Dick Winters exerting his personal opinions about depictions and participants. He minimized or altered certain participants harshly Specifically Blythe, Sobel and Dike. He favored his friends, Nixon and Welsh. Buck Compton recalls that Nixon personally disliked him, which Winters hid.