My opinion, but after reading numerous books of all types on WW2, it seems more personal accounts (like Iron Coffins, Up Front and Writer at War) make for a better understanding of history. Many historians trying to write summaries of what happened include a political bias and errors in trying to pinpoint what really happened, some of which Broadzilla pointed out. For instance in Band of Brothers by Ambrose, elements of Easy Company are supposed to be the first ones to make it to the Eagles Nest, but I don't think they were according to other sources. The 7th regiment of 3rd division (the "Cottenbailers") seem to be the first according to other more reliable sources. I don't know about other historians, and I'm not saying that it is a bad way to learn, but first hand accounts of those who were actually "right there" are grade A on my list to get a better view of what happened. They aren't always available, but I like to go to them first. Of course, even the people that were "there" are prone to bias, but you have a better chance of understanding and teasing out that bias since much of the book will be based on the view of one person, which you will get to know from reading the book, instead of an omniscient-type of viewpoint from a historian who may or may not have an unknown or unconscious ax to grind. For a good example of ways to pinpoint books like this, take "Up Front", by Bill Mauldin. This author was a trying one for the US Army, who did not like his writing and cartoons because they wre too forthright. That tells me that Bill Mauldin knew what he was talking about and got a good sense of what the real average foot soldier was facing. When other authors were demonizing German fighting men in 1944, Mauldin lumped them in with Allied soldiers as guys just trying to get this war over with and get back home ("Up Front" page 20). But I have to admit, I really enjoyed reading the Time Life Series on WW2.
