George C. Marshall: Soldier-Statesman of the American Century

Marshall was the architect of both the Allied World War II victory and key U.S. Cold War policies, most notably the European Recovery Program, known as “the Marshall Plan,” for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize. He is generally considered our greatest soldier-statesman since George Washington. By assessing his extraordinary accomplishments, character, and leadership abilities, this lecture by Mark A. Stoler attempts to explain why.
More about our Annual Fall Conference: bit.ly/vhc-afc

[@nomaanazeez4187]

WOW! George Marshall was really an incredible man

[@davidcunico1673]

Yes, he is held in high esteem, his accomplishments in the interests of freedom and rebuilding after WW2 is unprecedented

[@gsilcoful]

Great talk. I wonder if we will have get another Marshall. We could use one.

[@robertgabuna355]

Comprehensive lecture. This must be the standard form and content of every lecture...

[@peace-now]

Marshall is the best general of WW1 and WW2 by far. Greetings from New Zealand.

[@johnmcmanus4379]

SugarTomAppleRoger I saw an interesting tape of an interview of Orson Wells, in which he declared that George Marshall was the greatest human being he had ever met. Go on the internet and look for it.

[@PrismRisen]

Well, George Marshall was arguably the most brilliant staff officer in Gen. Pershing's AEF, but was certainly not a general in WWI. He was a Capt. at that time.

[@peace-now]

@@PrismRisenI am comparing the generals of WW1 and WW2. As you said, Marshall was not a general during WW1.

[@MrOliverwoods]

Marshall’s WWI job was to figure out how to prevent mor e deaths. It was his squad tactics work that kept the Army from dying at the rate of the Marines

[@peace-now]

@@MrOliverwoods Yes. He was certainly the best general in WW2. Other notables include Eisenhower, Spruance, the genius of Midway, and Chuikov, the defender of Stalingrad.

[@mcfontaine]

Thank you for a fascinating lecture.

[@VermontHumanities]

Our pleasure. Thanks for watching!

[@marciandjohn6320]

Watching this wonderful presentation several years after. Will you please tell me where one can purchase these 6-7 volumes?

[@PathfinderHistoryTravel]

Marshall and Eisenhower are two of my heroes because they exemplify American competence, culture and mortality.

[@peace-now]

They represent what is unusual for Americans - they had some humility.

[@davidparks6089]

Good presentation.

[@tcarroll3954]

Admiral Leahy was FDR's Chief of Staff and was more influential after 1943 than General Marshall.

[@shooter7a]

Leahy was a great figure as well. His influence had much to do with the personal friendship between FDR and Leahy, which went back going back to Roosevelt’s early job as the assistant secretary of the Navy. He also contributed great perspective, and was not always in agreement with Marshall.

[@TechnikMeister2]

This was the George C. Marshall who in April 1945, went to Truman and said he wanted to keep going straight through Germany and invade Poland and then Russia. At a meeting with the Joints Chiefs, Truman listened and said, "are you insane?" By the time the Russians took Berlin, the US had only two divisions in reserve, such was the slaughter as they fought the Germans every inch of the way. Montgomery heard about the altercation and through back channels, said that the British and Canadians would not sanction it for a second. When Patton heard about it he was heard to say that "George was crazier than me." Americans tend to idolise their leaders and ignore their serious faults. MacArthur was another deeply flawed man. Truman saw through him too and when it got intolerable, he had to sack him. In the Anglo allies of Britain and Canada they had their own version with Montgomery, who was forced to pull his head in after Operation Market Garden nearly was a disaster. Who would have thought that the British public would toss out Churchill at the next election.

[@peace-now]

This has to be a lie, and I believe it is. Marshall would never have said this, and it is totally out of character for him. He would NEVER have said that to Truman, who was committed to peace, a left winger, and commanded men himself in WW1. I did some research, and cannot come up with anything that remotely backs up what you say. You say the US had two divisions in reserve. I quote "As an army group commander from August 1, 1944, to V-E Day in May 1945, Bradley commanded more troops than any general in American history: four armies, twelve corps, forty-eight divisions-in all, over 1.3 million troops.". Web site: www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/omar-bradley On that basis, your essay is complete tosh.

[@shooter7a]

This is NOT consistent with virtually every bit of documented history of the time. Marshall's over riding concern during this time period was in securing Soviet commitment to open a front with Japan. For example, at Potsdam, in May 1945 it is well documented that while the Big 3 (Truman, Churchill, Stalin) were having politically focused meetings, Marshall and the other joint chiefs were feverishly working with their counterparts in the Red Army on their entry into the war in Manchuria against Japan. The bomb had not yet been tested when Potsdam was started, and no one knew that we had this option at our disposal. Marshall's efforts at Potsdam were an extension of negotiations at Yalta, the result of which was the Soviet commitment to open a front in Manchuria within 90 days of German surrender. But we are supposed to believe that Marshall went off the reservations arguing we should torpedo the alliance and commitments he had worked so hard for? And if he was so keen for this, why did he almost immediately resign after Japan surrendered? Then there is the strategic / logistical genius of Marshall. The US at that point was in no position to be successful in such a campaign. So you are saying that the greatest war planner of the 20th Century, perhaps ever, suddenly became an idiot at war planning? Finally, there is the character and integrity issue. Marshall NEVER contradicted civilian command. He argued his position in private, and if POTUS decided to go another way, George Marshall always fell in behind the Commander in Chief. This is a man who was so committed to civilian authority over the military that he refused to even vote. He felt that would taint a military leader. But you say he was making such outrageous statements contrary to Truman, and contrary to FDR's intentions? LOL. Provide credible sources.....

[@rixar139]

Irish Bunny & Irish Honey Badger -> Great Man...!

[@PrismRisen]

Why does Admiral/Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, who was FDR's Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief, not get ANY mention in lectures like these? Surely ADM. Leahy was far more that a poker playing pal for FDR. If Leahy took no notes nor issued any (found) memos, nor was mentioned by recipients of his communications, while carrying out the duties of that MOST senior U.S. military position, then that should be at least mentioned by historians such as Prof. Stoler. Yet, we now have "The Second Most Powerful Man in the World: The Life of Admiral William D. Leahy, Roosevelt's Chief of Staff," by Phillips Payson O'Brien, published in May, 2019. O'Brien argues that Leahy was closer to Roosevelt, than Harry Hopkins, "and not even the legendary George Marshall," was closer to FDR than Leahy. It is no small matter, that when the promotions to 5-star rank were made, Leahy's came first, by effective date, 15 DEC 44, then Marshall (16 DEC), King (17 DEC), MacArthur, (18 DEC) Nimitz (19 DEC), Eisenhower (20 DEC), and Arnold (Army Air Corps, 21 DEC 44, then General of the Air Force 17 MAY 49). Halsey (11 DEC 45) and Bradley (20 SEP 50), complete the list.

[@mattd6086]

Good question. Leahy appears with FDR in many of the famous photos taken at the Allied Conferences.

[@tcarroll3954]

I agree. This man should have known better.

[@shooter7a]

I think the reason is that FDR and Leahy were great personal friends. Their relationship when back to the 1920s. Leahy's influence is perhaps discounted because he is not seen as having "earned it", fair or not. Marshall is known for refusing to let his relationship with his civilian superiors become personal. It was a principle he lived by.

[@PrismRisen]

Thanks for the 3 replies posted. Returning to this topic after nearly a year's absence, check out this excerpt from a book review, found on Amazon: “In the story of how allied strategy was determined in World War II, there has long been a major gap. What made the relationship between Roosevelt and his Joint Chiefs actually tick? In this readable and revisionist biography of William D. Leahy, Phillips Payson O'Brien provides an answer that transforms our understanding of America's wartime decision-making. Leahy has been hiding in plain sight. Now that he has found his spotlight, we shall need to rethink some of our most cherished assumptions.”-Hew Strachan, Emeritus Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford and author of The Direction of War// So, we must read this book!

[@iTube22100]

... only one had a pale idea of who G. Marshall was. So in USA you don't study history at school.

[@charlestuma2336]

Comparing Marshall to WASHINGTON is a stretch

[@shooter7a]

Not really, they both lived with similar ideals. Compare them men, not the circumstances they lived in.

[@robertgabuna355]

When I was a young kid, I thought Gen McArthur is the best General. I was miseducated he was the "liberator" of the Philippines. But with the massive destruction of Manila when two Atomic Bombs is suffice to bring Japan on their knees, and the fighter planes were bombed out in the hangar a day after the attack of Hawaii, my view of him radically changed. Gen Ike Eisenhower is the better war General, Gen Marshall outshines him (McArthur)

[@gsilcoful]

Atomic bombs alone didn't bring Japan to surrender. Russia had defeated the Japanese in Manchuria and had even taken some of the norther islands of Japan. Japan didn't want the Russian communists to occupy their country. The Russian defeat of the Japanese armies is not taught in the US, only the dropping of the bombs.

[@robertgabuna355]

@@gsilcoful War do not conclude war. It is the negotiation around the table. Vietnam was bombed when it did no wrong against America. The carpet bombing of Vietnam stopped when Kissinger agreed to sit down with Ho Chi Minh and sign a peace agreement. My point, is: The "liberation" of the Philippines need not be in the manner of Gen McArthur's view of liberation -- aerial and naval bombing, street to street skirmishes. Why bomb the Philippines? Japan deserved to be bombed by American bombs; not the Philippines. Except for a few traitors, the Filipino Troops fought side by side with American Soldiers against the invading forces of Japan. Japan, Germany, Italy fought against America. But the enemies were rehabilated massively, the Marshall Plan. The Philippines was not. Filipino Trooos were not even compensated neither with backpay nor pension.

[@gsilcoful]

I see.

[@MichaelWilson-xc1uk]

God please heal all humans and other beings on Earth and in this Solar System past present and future using all tools at your disposal and ask all beings in the light (1 trillion+) to assist and where necessary target and heal the deep subconcious of each person referencing the akashic records where needed performing this healing in perpetuity and ask General Marshall when alive and in the light to be involved if he so desires.

[@goedelite]

Gen Marshall, like almost all generals, was a US imperialist. [Gen Smedley Butler was, in thought, an anti-imperialist, but, in action, a tool of US imperialism.] Marshall carried out the imperialist goals formulated during the FDR presidency and WW2: the US would takeover from the bankrupted British Empire as the world's hegemon. The chief resistance after WW2 was the USSR, and thus an enemy. Russia's concern, after one invasion from the south by Britain and France (Crimean War), one from the east by Britain, France, Japan and the US (1921), and two invasions from the west by Germany (WW1 & 2), was to buffer its borders for the future. The west, in having allowed Germany to rise from WW1 to threaten bolshevik Russia, treated Russia's control of eastern Europe as an effort to spread Communism globally and rival the US in hegemonic ambitions. The Marshall Plan was designed to keep Communism from spreading westward in Europe and instead to make the US the hegemon. The US and the UK overturned governments in postwar Italy, Greece and Turkey, where it feared Communism might take hold. This began the transformation of the US from being a highly flawed democracy to a highly murderous and destructive plutocracy governing an empire and itself through militarism, propaganda, and in its later development, destruction of its own Constitution.

[@ppumpkin3282]

Rapid fire mechanical history. The lecturer has no real personality. Might has well have a computer read me a script.

[@goedelite]

Gen Marshall, like almost all generals, was a US imperialist. [Gen Smedley Butler was, in thought, an anti-imperialist, but, in action, a tool of US imperialism.] Marshall carried out the imperialist goals formulated during the FDR presidency and WW2: the US would takeover from the bankrupted British Empire as the world's hegemon. The chief resistance after WW2 was the USSR, and thus an enemy. Russia's concern, after one invasion from the south by Britain and France (Crimean War), one from the east by Britain, France, Japan and the US (1921), and two invasions from the west by Germany (WW1 & 2), was to buffer its borders for the future. The west, in having allowed Germany to rise from WW1 to threaten bolshevik Russia, treated Russia's control of eastern Europe as an effort to spread Communism globally and rival the US in hegemonic ambitions. The Marshall Plan was designed to keep Communism from spreading westward in Europe and instead to make the US the hegemon. The US and the UK overturned governments in postwar Italy, Greece and Turkey, where they feared Communism might take hold. This began the transformation of the US from being a highly flawed democracy to a highly murderous and destructive plutocracy governing an empire and itself through militarism, propaganda, and in its later development, with euphemistically titled "Patriot Act" and "National Defense Authorization Act", the destruction of our own Constitution.

[@domus2065]

Why don’t we ask the Europeans if they are happy with the political outcome post WW2 as democratic nations or they would have preferred a communist alternative under Stalin!!! That’s the real truth, not the nonsense you write.