| Baltimore, Maryland,
Sunday, April 17, 1981 Monty vs. Patton
vs. Ike vs. de Gaulle .. .  The
War Between the Generals.
By David Irving. 446 pages. Congdon & Lattes
$17.95.
Churchill summed it up quite
well: "There is only one thing worse than
fighting with allies -- and that is fighting with
out them." Churchill knew what be was talking about. He had
his own generals to contend with, to be sure, but
he also had the American generals, who were a mixed
bag if ever there was one. Then, add to this, the
French, especially de Gaulle. Put these
generals together -- Americans British and a few
French -- and you find brilliance and stupidity,
modesty and egoism, immaturity and
near-childishness, all in varying amounts. You
wonder how they won war. David Irving, who has been called "one of
Britain's foremost historians" by The Times
of London, has written here a long, detailed and
fascinating account of the preparations for the
invasion of the Continent in 1944, the invasion
itself and the fight across France into Germany. He
has had available to him the diaries, journals and
official files of just about every important
American and British general who was involved In
the European conflict. and he has done a meticulous
piece of research, ferreting out many things
heretofore not generally known, primarily because
until recently some of these papers were kept
secret or were difficult to dig into. Among the
latter were the diaries of Gen. Everett S.
Hughes, assigned by Eisenhower to act as
his "eyes and ears," Their 900 pages contain some
of the most revealing stories to come out of the
war. Hughes was always close to Eisenhower, his
Boswell, and his candid accounts and observations
helped Irving immeasurably. The result is one of the most authentic and
important books on World War II, a book not only of
military history but of the social history of
command. And it is sure to bring forth cries of
outrage, especially from friends and relatives of
many of the generals whose foibles and frailties
are vividly described. For all that the author is
British, he is conspicuously unbiased; he pulls no
punches when discussing the character and
activities of the British generals, any more than
when discussing those of the Americans. The foibles and frailties were many. And they
were far from being inconsequential, leading to
much squabbling over preferences and perks, much
bard drink-ing and womanizing. sod far too much
lack of coordination between fighting units because
of jealousy over command. Because of this, there is
little doubt that the war was extended for months
and that tens of thousands of lives were needlessly
lost.  At
the center was Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander
(left). Sincere but indecisive. he was desperate to
bold the grand alliance together and anxious to
have his generals work in harmony as a
self-sacrificing, well-coordinated team. but In his
efforts to keep from alienating anyone, he often
added to his troubles. What was needed was a
knocking together of the heads of such as Sir
Bernard Montgomery, George Patton and
Charles de Gaulle, who continually acted
like a spoiled brat. Gen. George C.
Marshall, whom Churchill wanted as Supreme
Commander, would have knocked the heads together
and got on with the war. Marshall had the respect
of just about everyone, and he was strong-minded
enough not to let petty jealousies and ambitions
stand In the way. But Roosevelt needed Marshall at
his side in Washington, and that was that.
Churchill called de Gaulle "Joan of Arc." He was
every bit as troublesome to the English as the Maid
of Orleans had been, despite this time being on the
same side. He even refused to broadcast to the
French people on D-Day in support of the invasion.
and when Eisenhower proposed making the broadcast
himself, demanded that one passage be eliminated To
which Eisenhower said, "To hell with him. Say that
if he doesn't come through, we'll deal with someone
else." De Gaulle came through.  As
Eisenhower said, "I've played some poker myself."
Just the same, de Gaulle remained a heavy cross to
bear right up to the end of hostilities and
beyond. Montgomery was a cross, too, mainly because of
his overweening ambition (be would have joyfully
taken over the Supreme Command), but his
generalship was needed, and he was humored
constantly. So was Patton. Patton was a brilliant
field commander, who had little understanding of
strategy but who could win battles. His jealousy,
ambition and other traits made him difficult to
deal with, and Eisenhower, Bradley and Montgomery
had their hands full with him, especially
Montgomery, whom Patton despised. The author deals with Patton at some length. His
slapping of the two soldiers in a hospital in
Sicily, his countenancing the shooting down of
German and Italian prisoners of war and his
womanizing. He took his "girl friend" from England
to France and even into the forward theater of
operations. When Patton talked about "gittin' thar
fastest with the mostest," a good many WACs and Red
Cross girls knew that he was not always referring
to military logistics. But in all fairness Patton
was not alone among the generals in his
extra-military pursuits. The greatest scandal of them all, however, was
military. When Hitler launched his mighty
counter-offensive in the Ardennes in December,
1914, the Allied command was caught flatfooted --
"It was hardly on the agenda." Eisenhower and his
staff were attending a wedding, Montgomery was
playing golf and Bradley and Hodges were being
measured by a Belgian gunsmith for custom-made
shotguns. They all protested afterward that they
had known all along that a German offensive was
possible, but it was "Pearl Harbor" all over
again. While this book is concerned with such things as
grand strategy, battlefield tactics, the problems
of command and the personalities and idiosyncrasies
of the generals, the caption on a photograph
showing troops in a landing craft approaching the
beach on D-Day is pertinent. It says. "At the other
end of the chain of command, the ordinary soldiers
lived or died according to the wars between the
generals."
-- JOHN T. STARR 
Reviewed by Drew
Middleton in The New York Times
Please report
scanning errors to us. Copyright
The Baltimore Sun |
write
to David Irving