A new memoir of the Coast Guard in World War II was recently published: "Lucky 13: D-Days in the Pacific with the U.S. Coast Guard in World War II", by Ken Wiley, Casemate Press, Philadelphia.
Wiley was the coxswain of a LCVP landing craft on board the USS Arthur Middleton (APA-25) and took part in most of the major invasions from 1943 onwards.
The 334 page book is well written, fairly detailed, and with a lot of reconstructed dialog. It could have used a better editor...I'm sure Marines were quaking in fear of the dreaded Japanese "bonsai" attacks.
Now, I do have to say that I am a little suspicious about his claim to have carried ashore the Colonel of the unit which conducted "The Great Raid" as well as seeing McArthur come ashore the first time. I don't have any specific reason to doubt him, it just seems a bit much.
There are a few incidents he relates that the CG public affairs folks probably wouldn't be happy about and at least one seems a little bit too much like a Penthouse letter to be true.
In any case, I enjoyed the book and would recommend it.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: RiverAux,
Well, I think you can't use that 100% of the time. Short quotes here and there stick in everybody's memory and are probably mostly reliable. However, this book does have pretty extensive quoted conversations concerning relatively minor things that most people are not going to remember in that much detail. I suspect that he captured the gist of the conversation, but thats about it.
Usually, when you see large quoted conversations in a memoir there is some sort of statement by the author that the quotes are "as best I can remember" to sort of warn folks.
However, even in this case it wouldn't be appopriate to label it fiction.
If the author clearly identifies that he or she is recalling something to the best of their memory, that is one thing. To make up conversation because it seems to fit in is another thing. It depends what you want, an accurate book on what happened, or do you want sea stories. There are some fine books out there that are based upon sea stories, see, for example, William J. Leaderer's All the Ship's At Sea.
One of the problems of writing on WW II is there are very few good factual accounts of the war as seen by those in the enlisted force. (This also applies, to a lesser extent, to officers.) Historians must depend on memoirs, diaies, and papers. If, as an historian, you see someone has made up conversation, how do you know he or she has not made up other portions? As World War II continues to slip farther behind the veil of time and history, it is important to have accurate accounts of those who served.
In recent years there have been a few books dealing with the USCG that were marred by the authors making up conversations to spice up the account. My feeling has always been that if the historical account is a good one, you do not need to make up the material.
I am not saying do not read the book, just be careful. And I stand by what I said: always approach a book that claims to be true, but which uses made up material very carefully.
When it comes right down to it any personal account is going to have flaws of one type or another. Eyewitness accounts are never all that reliable, even those recorded immediately after the event. Memories of conversations usually are just at the bad end of the scale.
Unless these "conversations" are at the core of the book, including them doesn't automatically make the rest of the book fiction.
I do not want to seem to be saying you should not enjoy the book, which seems to be the case. I am only saying that if any part of it is made up, how is one to know the rest is not?
I have been accused of using oral histories too much, because, as you point out, memory is a tricky thing. I had to use a great deal of persuasion on one of the members of my dissertation committee to include the amount of oral histories in my work on the U.S. military in China. (He was an internationally known military historian.) There were at least two things the prof. did not like about oral histories--the bit about memory and the chance someone would make up a story. I managed to convince him my approach would screen out these things, so, perhaps, you can see I am not against memoirs or oral histories. But, when I see someone has obviously made up something, as a historian, I cringe and become distrustful.
