Leading From Behind: George C. Marshall and Sir Alan Brooke

About the lecture: Obscured by their political masters -- Franklin D Roosevelt and Winston Churchill -- as well as their better-known military subordinates, the organizers of the Anglo-American victory in World War II deserve better of history.
About the speaker: Philip Terzian has been literary editor of The Weekly Standard since 2005, and is the author of Architects of Power: Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and the American Century. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, he has been a writer and editor at the New Republic, Reuters, the Providence Journal, and the Los Angeles Times, and was a foreign correspondent and syndicated columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service. He has been a contributor to Commentary, the Times Literary Supplement, the Wall Street Journal, the Spectator, the Daily Telegraph, and other publications, and was a Pulitzer finalist in commentary.

[@keitht2045]

Fantastic lecture, great research, beautifully delivered, I could listen to this guy for hours, totally agree with his conclusion. It is incredible that Alan Brooke had to move into the estate cottage and sell his beloved bird book collection through lack of funds after four years of unbelievable duty and stress as CIGS. He never intended to publish the diaries but financially had no choice he was severely let down by the British establishment.

[@fwqkaw]

Bit of a contrast with Blenheim Pally.

[@Ingens_Scherz]

It's a wonderful relief to me that this type of analysis still exists in this topsy turvy and forgetful world. I don't know much about General Marshal, but I know a fair amount about Viscount Alanbrooke. I have learnt quite a lot about the genius of the former, and am joyous to hear the latter remembered apropriately by a serious historian. This isn't the first lecture of its type I've seen over the years, but it's the best and the most timely.

[@Vgallo]

ive just discovered brooke, through reading niall ferguson, I've ordered his books turning the tide, where else can i look? to find more?

[@Ingens_Scherz]

@@Vgallo Just saw your comment, hence the delayed response. The very best place to start is the un-redacted War Diaries by Field Marshall (as he was then) Alan Brooke. I can't quite believe it, but you can buy the Kindle version for just £3.99 (not sure what the dollar price is) in 2020! When you've read the diaries, I guarantee that you'll want to know more about Churchill. So my suggestion is the most recent and informed biography of Alan Brooke's boss (the author had access to recently released papers no other historian has ever seen), "Churchill: Walking With Destiny" by Andrew Roberts. I'm actually reading that massive book right now. As for that titan of modern civilisation, George C. Marshall - who would have been styled "The Viscount Marshall of Washington and London" had we British had our way, so respected and loved as he was (and remains) - I am open to recommendations about the best biography to read on the subject of one of the very greatest of Americans.

[@brummagemjoe6111]

A brilliant little presentation on two of the most admirable and important figures in the first half of the 20th century.

[@JRobbySh]

Could not be done better, except I think Marshall was more ambitious than he let on. My guess is that he both regretted not being able to command Overlord and took satisfaction in being to FDR what Pershing had been to Wilson. In justice he ought to have got a sixth star.

[@daneershen4138]

Audio is WAY too low, but the speaker is superb. One of THE best sources, along with the George C. Marshall Foundation’s lectures for amateur WW2 historians, like myself.

[@johnjoyce8493]

This is so well written that a straight out reading of it is incredibly clear and powerful. That's rarely seen.

[@drmaybe7680]

A thoughtful and interesting talk. One theme I expected to hear about, given the title and subject of the talk, but was disappointed of, was the disdain repeatedly expressed by Alanbrooke towards Marshall's strategic ability. Indeed it almost seems at times, if you will believe Alanbrooke, that nobody knew much about strategy but him. Military strategy is a subject in which I have far more interest than understanding, so I am in no position to judge. I can accept Alanbrooke's argument that Monty's preference for a focussed thrust into the Ruhr held more promise of a quick defeat of Germany than Eisenhower's policy of always throwing in *all* the soldiers on *all* the fronts, but the point escapes me of the whole business of slowly fighting up the length of Italy, something repeatedly insisted on by Alanbrooke in the years before the British influence on Allied policy had waned too far towards insignificance. There are instances too in which Alanbrooke's negative assessment of persons and operations - I am thinking of Gort's leadership of the Dunkirk retreat, and of the organization and conduct of the rescue flotilla - has been shown to be not quite fair. Clearly one has to take his often acerbic views with a grain of salt. It really is a pity that Marshall recorded no memoirs of his own, because the other side of the story would have been really interesting.

[@markmaki4460]

I have always been proud to have attended George C. Marshall Elementary School for all of my primary school education. When i was younger, i took it for granted that all schools were named for such great persons. But alas this is not the case, and most (at least public) primary school attendees are the poorer for it.

[@laurencehirst7814]

Two superb General Officers!..Marshal having to deal with politically motivated, and glory seeking Generals, and politicians on three sides! And he did so with sheer ability and flair, although he was a little conned by Churchill!..But who was'nt?..Then Alanbrooke!..The only man who seemed able to keep some military control over Churchill! Churchill was a military bungler and totally incompetant and in 2 world wars..Was an utter disaster!..However, politically, as a national leader..Churchill was magnificent! He united Britain!.. Both Alanbrooke and Marshal were in the right place, at the right time! And neither ever got the credit they so richly deserved..Mind you, such were these men, they would never have expected it!

[@nogoodnameleft]

Marshall sucked. He, Ike, and Nimitz were REMFs who never saw a single day of combat in their whole careers unlike real heroic generals/admirals like MacArthur, Patton, and Halsey. Marshall's China mission was a disaster also. People whine about MacArthur for his supposed failures and "glory seeking"? Marshall coddled Mao Zedong and called him a 'peaceful agrarian reformer' while urging Truman to slap a terrible arms embargo on the Kuomintang Chinese from 1946 to 1947!!! The only good thing I credit Marshall for was to give the Medal of Honor to MacArthur. Other than that he wasn't that amazing in WWII. Ike or Nimitz could have done what Marshall did since they all were REMFs aka politicans in olive drab or navy blue. MacArthur was the only 5 star general or admiral who was actually under hostile fire in WWII (Mac was also under constant hostile fire during WW1 but Mac haters always have amnesia about his incredible combat record in WW1) like when he was under constant artillery fire and bomber raids on Corregidor for 3 months and he exposed himself to hostile fire by going outside and talking to the Corregidor troops during artillery shellings and bomber raids. "Dugout Doug" my ass. The Corregidor veterans all told the truth about Mac and said how heroic and brave he was. Mac almost died in an air raid on Corregidor, btw, which led to his staff urging him not to go to Bataan. on 12/29/41 Japanese bombers destroyed his home on Topside and one bomb exploded only 10 feet from Mac. Why do the REMFs like Ike/Marshall/Nimitz get called "brave and heroic" but MacArthur gets called "Dugout Doug"?

[@michaeltarrant4338]

First class in every respect and deeply relevant at this time.

[@terrysmith9362]

This presentation completely understates the role of Brooke in the strategic success of ww2. After all it was he who struck down the idiotic idea of Marshall for the premature invasion of France in 1942 and 1943.

[@bigwoody4704]

No he didn't they unwisely followed the fat drunk Winston we got stuck in Italy - where Monty did less than he did on sicily if one can imagine

[@Somersetman100]

yes that's right. Andrew Sangster wrote a good biography of Allen Brooke

[@thevillaaston7811]

'Leading From Behind: George C. Marshall and Sir Alan Brooke' Except that Alanbrooke also led from the Front.

[@bigwoody4704]

Unlike monty who was a rear admiral

[@ralphraffles1394]

@@bigwoody4704 I think you need to read a little more.

[@bigwoody4704]

@@ralphraffles1394 Try the Full Monty Britain had much better commanders

[@joemdee]

Alanbrooke was in Dunkirk almost to the end and then returned to France to try to evacuate the rest of the army.

[@moonrich3492]

@@bigwoody4704 For the good of the free world, Brooke declined leadership of the 8th Army (to remain CIGS), recommending Montgomery instead. That's enough of an endorsement for me.

[@henrivanbemmel]

Excellent and very well spoken

[@EndingSimple]

"...back when the Noble Peace Prize meant something.' Oh boy. The more I learn about the allied leaders of World War II, the more convinced I become that they were God's gifts to their respective societies, and for which we should all render thanks to God.

[@drmaybe7680]

Oops, 24:53: Alanbrooke still only commanded a Corps at Dunkirk. Gort was the OC.

[@yellowjackboots2624]

I really wouldn't describe Dunkirk as a disaster. The Russians being encircled at Kiev in 1942 was a disaster. The British extracting themselves after being out-manoeuvred displays effective improvisation at staff level and great discipline among the fighting troops even when they knew they had been beaten.

[@bloodgrss]

But, also hard to describe it as a victory...

[@Nounismisation]

Scholarly. Book this guy again but, with a lot more time.

[@philipm06]

Spot on sir.

[@royalirishranger1931]

Lord Alanbrooke a good old Ulster man and soldier (ScotsIrish to you Yanks) , I met his Grandson Viscount AlanBrooke at Colebrooke in Co Fermanagh we served in the same Regiment.

[@gerhardusvanrooyen6663]

Most interesting indeed.

[@davewolfy2906]

What did he say?

[@moonrich3492]

Terzian neglects to mention the dispute these two great men had over the U.S. position, espoused by Marshall, that a Normandy invasion was needed in 1942-43, well before proper preparations could be made. This kind of unrealistic strategic thinking would've made all the landing zones look like Omaha on steroids. Also, mention was made of the edits of Brooke's diary entries, perhaps implying that Brooke changed his stories. Given the Churchill crowds' furious reactions to the account, one may conclude the edits were for readability rather than substance.

[@brianjones3191]

23:30 "dour" is properly pronounced "do-er" (forgive the phonetic spelling attempt.)

[@georgeburns7251]

Don’t think so. You might want to Google it.

[@brianjones3191]

@@georgeburns7251 I checked just now. You are partially correct, as the mistaken, incorrect pronunciation has become acceptable, even in British English! Languages always evolve.

[@robertbarbour4245]

Tremeandous.

[@ukpips]

Marshall and Alanbrooke are the real heroes ww2, they put aside ambition and national interest for a noble cause

[@stevenwilliams2221]

That MacArthur slowed Marshall’s advancement had been disproven again and again. MacArthur believed him to be the best Colonel in the Army.

[@eddievangundy4510]

Also not sure that Marshall's little black book of generals actually existed.

[@georgeburns7251]

MacArthur felt he was the divine leader. But in reality, he was truly DougOut Doug. Hit behind his wife and chilled in the Philippine islands so that he could be ordered to leave. He wasted all the money the US gave him to train the Philippine defenses. More ego than anything.

[@georgeburns7251]

Steven Williams, site a source? I believe the lecture is indeed correct.

[@bretwahlberg1146]

You can’t lead from behind !!!!

[@goedelite]

We should not make national heroes of military. An example of the consequences was Dwight Eisenhower. He was so celebrated after WWII, that he became the Republican president after Truman. His presidency was a total disaster for our country. He installed a vicious tyrant in Iran. His CIA instigated the toppling of the legal, democratic presidency of Mossadegh. The Shah began a 23 year reign of terror and turned the Iranian people against the U.S. to this date. Under Eisenhower, the reformist government of Guatemala was toppled in favor of a military dictatorship. Eisenhower undermined the agreement reached in 1954 to unify Vietnam by means of an election in 1956. He thereby set the stage for the Vietnam War that took millions of lives. Eisenhower began the MIC that he later warned us against in his farewell address. Beware of military heroes! One could become President of the US.

[@gordonepema722]

Mossadegh was a communist who planned to nationalise British and American investments in Iran's oilfields. If he hadn't been overthrown, Khomeini would have had to try to take over the Iranian Soviet Shiite Republic. (He wouldn't have succeeded). So we'd have an entirely different set of problems now. Your (and my) strategising is just speculation. Things were different back then, political leaders regardless of background were willing to ACT (they'd experienced firsthand the folly of appeasment and inaction) - unlike the current generation of wusses.

[@TheDoctor1225]

We should not make sweeping generalizations based on the advantage we have of being able to look at history as it has happened some 50+ years after the fact and say what we should or shouldn't do as a general rule. Like the post below, your speculation on history and what we should or shouldn't do means little, given that you know how history turned out. It's like saying the Germans should have stopped Hitler without actually being there and knowing what happened, or knowing, now, what happened after they didn't. It's always easy to criticize the past when we didn't have to live through it (i.e. the constant hand wringing over the usage of the atomic bomb to stop Japan)

[@georgeburns7251]

@@TheDoctor1225 excellent rebuttal.