War Diaries, 1939-1945

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

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.

This book details everything left out of earlier biographies. We learn his true attitudes about Winston Churchill, the good and the bad, and also about Eisenhower, Montgomery, Alexander, Roosevelt, George Marshall, and others. He had little use for most of the American officers' military skills, but Eisenhower rose in his esteem over time. This book is a necessity for scholars about World War II. For instance, Alanbrooke notes that FDR was urging an early date for the landing in North Africa in large part to help the Democratic Party in the election of November 1942, and it gives rise to the question how much that election had to do with the Allies choosing to invade North Africa. (It was planned to begin earlier than it did, but had to be postponed repeatly for lack of boats, or the weather, etc. It did not finally occur until a few days after the election, in which the Democrats lost dozens of House seats as FDR had feared)... There are not many places the scholar can learn all the facts that Alanbrooke knew, least of all in his 40-year earlier biography based on selected parts of the same diaries. This is vastly better.

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.

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 dia