Hello. I was wondering, was the book Unbroken historically accurate?
Connor
? ? ?
Dear Connor,
The facts are as intact as they can be, given author Laura Hillenbrand’s ability to consult with her subject. Louis Zamperini himself, however, wrote an autobiography with essentially the same events in 1956, when things were fresher in his mind—a mind that may well have been selective about what it remembered. Hillenbrand did nothing to verify what had already been said, perhaps not wanting to find any contradictions. This makes her book little different from Zamperini’s own, which was republished in 2004. You might want to peruse the attached reviews in the New York Times and our own World War II magazine, and decide for yourself.
http://www.historynet.com/unbroken-by-laura-hillenbrand.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/books/review/Margolick-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Sincerely,
Jon Guttman
Research Director
World History Group
More Questions at Ask Mr. History
Don’t miss the next Ask Mr. History question! To receive notification whenever any new item is published on HistoryNet, just scroll down the column on the right and sign up for our RSS feed.
