Most helpful critical review
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful
on February 1, 2013
Jim DeFelice's bio on Omar Bradley fails on several levels. The first is his reliance on secondary sources. To me, I think he read a dozen or so other books, formulated an opinion and wrote this. He admits in the author's notes his almost complete reliance on Bradley's autobiography. He also used many internet sites, the bibliography is tellingly short. The maps are at the end of the book rather than the in the text, a minor annoyance.
Another failure on his part is that rather than state what was said or felt, based on accurate records, he supposes - example Bradley probably felt, or could have said or may have thought. DeFelice criticizes author John Toland for lack of reference notes, but has no problem creating dialogue that General Bradley may have said? I guess that's ok because that text is italicized for the reader?
In the end, Defelice tries to show that there was more to Bradley than history gives him credit. According the author, Bradley saved the US soldiers in North Africa, Sicily, perfected the invasion of Normandy, and created the concept of ground air support and many other ideas that either were directed to him or already existed. Despite DeFelice attempts to show Bradley as more than a quiet, humble, competent general and leave it at that, he fails; leaving the reader to conclude that other historians got it right. Omar Bradley was a quiet, competent general. Not the best, but not the worst. I finished the book only so I could write this review and say I read the whole book. Otherwise, I would have stopped ½ way through.