Customer Reviews

War Diaries 1939 - 1945

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I really enjoyed reading Lord Alanbrooke's War Diaries -- six years of daily impressions from the fellow who managed World War II for Britain. I now have a much better understanding why the British and Americans were fighting the Germans in North Africa and why the first Allied invasion of Europe took place in Sicily and southern Italy. Although Britain was already at war and had broken the German military code, it seems unlikely its leaders had any advance warning of the Pearl Harbor attack. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, Britain sustained devastating defeats in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Burma leaving India and Australia vulnerable. Of course, Hilter's invasion of the Soviet Union was the turning point.

As Churchill's principal military advisor, Alanbrooke kept a daily account from September 1939 to August 1945. He describes the Dunkirk evacuation in May 1940; the nightly German bombings of London that continued for many months after September 1940; the defensive measures Britain took to guard against attack; the German defeat of France; and meetings with American allies to plan the invasion of Europe and the defeat of the Axis powers.

Alanbrooke dined with military and political leaders virtually every day and attended many meetings with Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Eisenhower, Marshall, Dill, and Montgomery. In a typical entry (January 24, 1944), he tells of Churchill

". . . discussing Stalin's latest iniquities in allowing Pravda to publish the bogus information that England was negotiating with Germany about a peace. He said: `Trying to maintain good relations with a communist is like wooing a crocodile, you do not know whether to tickle it under the chin or to beat it on the head. When it opens its mouth you cannot tell whether it is trying to smile, or preparing to eat you up.'"

Alanbrooke described the major role he played:

"The whole world has now become one large theatre of war, and the Chiefs of Staff represent the Supreme Commanders, running the war in all its many theatres, regulating the allocation of forces, shipping, munitions, relating plans to resources available, approving and rejecting plans, issuing directives to the various theatres. And most difficult of all handling the political aspect of this military action, and coordinating with our American allies."

He struggled to keep military strategy intact at Allied war conferences held in Washington, D.C., Casablanca, Teheran, Quebec, Moscow, Yalta, and Potsdam. Later, Alanbrooke inserted the following after one of his diary entries:

"According to [Eisenhower] when we stood on the bank of the Rhine on March 25th, I said to him: `Thank God, Ike, you stuck by your plan. You were completely right, and I am sorry if my fear of dispersed efforts added to your burdens. The German is now licked. It is merely a question of when he chooses to quit. Thank God you stuck by your guns.' I think that when this statement is considered in connection with what I wrote in my diary that evening, it will be clear that I was misquoted. To the best of my memory I congratulated him heartily on his success, and said that as matters turned out his policy was now the correct one, that with the German in his defeated condition no dangers now existed in a dispersal of effort. I am quite certain that I never said to him `You were completely right', as I am still convinced that he was `completely wrong', as proved by the temporary defeat inflicted on him by Rundstedt's counter stroke, which considerably retarded the defeat of Germany."

Alanbrooke also took time to ponder the meaning of war:

"The suffering and agony of war in my mind must exist to gradually educate us to the fundamental law of `loving our neighbor as ourselves'. When that lesson has been learned, then war will cease to exist."

His perceptive remarks ring true today. If you have the time, this book is definitely worth reading. The editors provide a useful introduction (including short descriptions of friends, comrades, politicians, and soldiers), a carefully prepared index, a handy list of abbreviations, and 8 pages of photographs.

"Running a war seems to consist in making plans and then ensuring that all those destined to carry it out don't quarrel with each other instead of the enemy." - Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke

WAR DIARIES is Alanbrooke's daily record of events, addressed to his beloved wife Benita, during the time that he was British II Corps commander in France, then head of (England's) Southern Command, then Commander-in-Chief of Home Forces, and finally Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS) from December 1941.

It isn't until page 205 of this monster 721 page narrative that Alanbrooke (AB) becomes CIGS. The reader would've been better served if this volume's editors had eliminated the first 204 pages, which are barely more than a series of entries with the flavor of that for 18 April 1941:

"Left 8:15 am for Dover where I met Bulgy Thorne and Charles Allfrey and went round with them defences 43rd Div round from Dover through Walmer, Deal, Ramsgate, Margate, Herne Bay and Whitstable. Finally returned at 6:45 pm and put in an hour in the office."

It isn't until AB becomes CIGS, when his perspective on the war becomes global and he interacts on a daily basis with Prime Minister Winston Churchill and his generals, and attends periodic conferences with Roosevelt and Stalin and their military chiefs, that AB's nightly jottings become interesting in an historical and personal sense. It's then you realize the truth behind AB's observation that heads this review.

AB, rightly or wrongly, evidently considered himself to be the best war strategist available to the western Allies. His opinion of the strategic ability of Churchill and such military commanders as U.S. General Dwight Eisenhower, U.S. General George Marshall, U.S. Admiral Ernest King, and Louis Mountbatten (Supreme Commander, Southeast Asia) is positively scathing. Indeed, AB doesn't consistently say nice things about anybody except Field Marshal John Dill (his mentor and predecessor as CIGS), Joseph Stalin, and (briefly) U.S. General Douglas MacArthur (whom he never actually meets between these pages).

The first post-war publication of AB's diary caused a stir on both sides of The Pond for its excoriation of Eisenhower and Churchill. Indeed, though AB admired and loved Winston as the superman without whom England would've lost the war, the latter's inconsiderate treatment of those around him and his gadfly approach to war strategy caused AB to write in frustration on 10 September 1944:

"Never have I admired and despised a man simultaneously to the same extent."

What comes across in WAR DIARIES is that Alanbrooke was the consummate staff officer - competent, dedicated, meticulous, organized, hard working to a fault, intelligent, honest, honorable, and persistent - upon whom Winston relied upon (without giving public credit) to haul the Empire back from the brink of defeat. Outside of his duties, however, AB was an oddly mild and unprepossessing man. His chief hobby was birdwatching; he liked to show bird films to friends who came to dine with him and Benita. Also, he seems a rather dour individual who took himself too seriously. There's no evidence in his writing of any humor, self-deprecating or otherwise.

WAR DIARIES contains a small section of sixteen photographs that's inadequate when considering those individuals often mentioned, but who don't appear: Roosevelt, King George VI, Stalin, de Gaulle, Eisenhower, AB's elder son Tom, Polish Lt. General Wladyslaw Anders, British generals "Jumbo" Wilson, Claude Auchinleck, and Ronald Adam, South African Prime Minister Smuts, and Canadian generals Andrew McNaughton and Henry Crerar.

Despite the first 200 pages, which are virtually useless except that they introduce one to AB's way of thinking and writing style, I'm awarding four stars because the remainder of WAR DIARIES is a fascinating worldview rarely encountered by Yanks, a perspective in which the American icons of WWII mythology - Marshall, Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, and Churchill - aren't painted as the heroes we're familiar with. And, because honor is due Alanbrooke's Herculean but largely ignored and unappreciated service to his King, country and the Allies.

Alanbrooke is just so damn unique. If you read this, you will get to know him. Many people will have trouble liking him. I liked him. He was bright and clear and driven. He saw the men around him and pronounced his judgments without much fear or favour. His difficulty in getting Churchill and Marshall to think deeply or thoroughly about anything is amazing and exasperating. At one point when the American army is clamouring for a landing in France in 1943 Alanbrooke asks Marshall to consider that the Germans have three excellent railroad lines into France and Belgium--once you land, how are you going to win the race to reinforce the new front while the Germans pour in their reserves? Marshall had no answer! He just wanted to land, go toe-to-toe with the Germans, and then assume victory. When the Allies did land, it was only after gaining air supremacy, training more divisions, smashing the French rail net, and getting their logistical ducks in order. Alanbrooke was one of the key irritants in the Allied war machine, one of those annoying fellows who demand to know what you mean when you say you are going to do something. He pushed the Allies towards greater clarity and precision, and for this we all owe him alot.

If ever a diary was written in the right place at the right time it was this one. Alanbrooke was the CIGS, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and a right hand to Churchill throughout the war. He wrote his diary every day - even when exhausted or travelling and gives a unique first hand account of the top level WWII British and American military at work. This is the story before the arrival of the post war romantic myths, films and gloss.
Essentially the Americans were more interested in the Pacific (exclusively in the case of Admiral King)and as their manpower and production outpaced the British they became the dominant decision makers. Marshall and Eisenhower are strategically clueless but are saved by the severely weakened state of the Germans in 1944/45. Churchill is a political showman like his father, building up British morale wonderfully at the start of the war but becoming a real military liability, pushing one madcap scheme after another in rambling alcoholic late night meetings. He was also very mean spirited, giving no credit whatsoever to his long suffering staff in his self serving histories. Typically, after the long awaited victory at El Alamein, it was of great concern that Montgomery should not receive a heroes welcome in London that could steal his (Churchill's) limelight.
How many people know this side of Churchill? I certainly didn't.

Lord Alanbrooke, as other reviewers have mentioned, was CIGS, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, during a large part of World War II, which means head of British and Imperial forces, commanding Naval, Land, and Air resources across multiple fronts during the war. This book (his own diary) paints a picture of an alarmingly self-focused and self-absorbed man, a friend to few, a military administrator (in wartime) obsessed with his own view of the universe, and a military strategist focused on his own narrow objectives -- to which he brooked no criticism by his Prime Minister, his War Cabinet, or his American fellows in arms.

Brooke was a man apart. You will discover him leaving his office (during the Blitz) for an appointment with the artist painting his portrait. You will audit his reviews of British and Empire officers, Generals and below, who receive his esteem or his prejudice. You will seem him declining a combat assignment in North Africa in order (as he says) to 'manage' Churchill and Churchill's strategic extravagances. You will come away admiring, perhaps loving Alan Brooke for his amazing candor. But you will not admire a great many things about him, including his obsessive focus on himself and his own ideas, his failure and his pathological inability to participate in constructive dialog, particularly with American commanders, and his extraordinary impatience with many British officers, many of whom actually helped to win the war, notably the brilliant General Freyberg of the Second New Zealand Division, probably the best fighting General in World War II (according to Montgomery) and, in addition, his loyal Prime Minister Fraser of New Zealand, whom Brooke said 'wasted' 20 minutes of his time (!). Amazingly, New Zealand sent more men per head of population to WWII than any other nation, including Britain. But this didn't matter -- or register -- with Brooke. Not much that didn't have a Brooke tag registered with Brooke.

However, the big event in Brooke's book is Churchill. Churchill doesn't appear in the title, but you this is the best WWII book written about Churchill -- he appears on virtually every page. Brooke's war revolved around Churchill and what he thought, what he said, what he wrote, what he did, how he engaged with leaders political and military, and how he and Brooke worked together. To Brooke, Churchill was an amazing and inspired leader, a giant among men. He was also a strategic lunatic, who needed to be in a straight jacket of Brooke's design.

The truth is, both won the war.

Churchill channeled America into the war, which saved everything. Brooke appointed Montgomery in North Africa, which ultimately assured Brooke's reputation, elevated General Alexander, and saved North Africa. Once American power was massed and focused in Italy, and later France, the war was over. This is a very long book, with excellent footnotes, that belongs in every library of military history. Churchill fans must read it for its unique portrait of WLSC. At the end of the book, you don't have to love Brooke to respect him. But respecting him is one thing. Loving him is another. This man doesn't need your affection. He has enough of his own to keep him warm, even in death.

An amazing portrait, written by himself.

A great story by a person who was at the head of many critical military events of WW2. Written from an Engliah point of view. Some of His insights on Major events and heads of state make for a great read. I Highly recommend this book!

Field Marshall Lord Alanbrooke (Brooke) was the Chief of the Imperial Staff (CIGS) of Winston Spencer Churchill (WSC) in the Second World War. The book presents the diary with unvarnished notes Brooke kept during the war. Brooke was by far the closest and most influential individual reporting the WSC. He was the chairman of the Committee of the Chiefs of Staff (COS), land, air, and sea. This committee was responsible for proposing and after approval by the War Cabinet directing all military action. WSC as "Chairman" of the cabinet and Brooke as Chairman of the COS were the kingpins. Nothing could be acted upon without their support. WSC and Brooke as personalities were poles apart. WSC was emotional, creative, enthusiastic, a visionary, with vast political-military and political experience and a superb communicator. Brooke was coldly analytical, with the ability of an executive view or even better helicopter view that allowed him to analyze the interactions over time of military actions, short term, medium tem and long term, an ability WSC lacked. Brooke also had vast military experience and was very highly regarded by his military colleagues. The different traits of these two men led to many conflicts that are described in great detail.
The greatness of Churchill about these conflicts was that WSC almost never made a final decision relative to war action or even in communications with Roosevelt or Stalin without reviewing the message with Brooke. Brooke often disagreed and WSC might use every conceivable ways, even unpleasant ones, to convince Brooke that he was right, but in the end would accept Brooke's advice.
You get a very vivid and real picture of what it is like to lead a war; what is overall strategy, what is a theatre of war, what is a battle, the importance of logistics and coping with and being dependent allies like Roosevelt, Stalin and to a lesser extent de Gaulle. On this last point WSC said, "Having to deal with allies is terrible". "There is only one thing worse and that is not having any".
Brooke writes in considerable detail how difficult and exhausting it was to work with WSC, about the many wrong ideas he had and how hard it was to convince him to accept his ideas. Brooke was often at the point of despair doubting if he could handle the job and WSC. Brooke frequently refers to WSC as a "great leader" and that working for him was the greatest experience and honor in his life. He does however not explain very much about what this greatness was, which is a pity. The same applies to his many lengthy critical comments on General Marshall and General Eisenhower.
An interesting question is who was right in the many disputes. Brooke, I think, is totally honest in what he writes. But that not mean he was always right. I have found some discrepancies with his opinions and what others have written, including WSC. It goes also the other way WSC has written things that are different from Brooke, WSC was not happy with the publication of the book.
Britain and as a consequence the USA probably would have lost the war against Nazi Germany were it not for the intense collaboration between these two very different, competent and remarkable men.

... as I read this work. (1) It would profit from expository material that would round out or explain or just establish the context of the comments. Blumenson did this, for example, with the Patton Papers quite successfully. (2) I am staggered by Alanbrooke's self-confidence regarding strategic thought. I would think when everybody that he came in contact with professionally over a 4-5 year period (except for Dill) was (totally) inept that he would think "Hmm... Maybe it's me..'. Sheer statistics would have at least a few people who were right occasionally, or who did well in their own area. It shifts from declamation to bragging after a while.

It's an important work, and it is what it is: one's man emotional release in a tremendously stressful position. It does nothing, however, to improve his historical standing.

I think one has to read this narrative in the manner that it was written. It is a diary, and not a post-war history when all the secrets, gossip, deeds, and excuses are published for the benefit a public starved of hard facts while having surfeiting on propaganda and the legendry tales of daring do, that had won the war. A cynic might suggest that a biography might be a case of getting the writer's side of the story out first, and earning some royalties in the process. Here then, we have immediate accounts of events taking place. The working relationships between such famous people in their own times who have become historical figures of some very great importance in our times, but to the diarist were working colleagues, no more, no less. Here we witness strategy being formulated: pen portraits of all the leading players, through the eyes of an experienced professional soldier at the top of his game. He disparages politicians. He is disdainful of most of the American top brass who plainly lack military experience, and have only a limited perception of military matters. Nevertheless, he gives encouragement where it's due. Does not suffer fools gladly. Could be amazingly rude and tactless, but courtly and diplomatic when necessary. Altogether, he comes across as a bit of a cold fish. All these personal flaws from a chap who liked to photograph bird-life in the wilds. A student of Winston Churchill's wartime leadership would find these diaries of Lord Alanbrooke essential reading. In fact these diaries should be required reading for any student of military strategy where the professional general staff have to work with, and take orders from know-nothing politicians preoccupied with being re-elected. Was it ever thus... All in all, this is the wartime diary of one of the most important generals, of either side during WW2, that nobody has ever heard of.

An interesting book.An interesting man.Alanbrooke comes across as a first class strategist and a courageous military leader.His fearlessness in standing up to his political masters is an example that needs to be followed today.The civilian-military relationship works best when the courage of the civilian leaders is matched by that of military leaders, particularly if the military leadership disagrees. Alanbrooke did this, and well.Together, Alanbrooke and Churchill brought Britain through those difficult years. Churchill's name is well known around the world, but not Alanbrooke.The publishing of his diaries seems to be the continuation of his standing up to his former political masters in the interests of truth.