audiobook George Marshall: A Biography by Debi Unger; Irwin Unger; Stanley Hirshson in History

Review

95 of 98 people found the following review helpful. And the authors call Marshall indecisive?By Thomas E. SaltzmanThis work is largely quotes from other far more scholarly histories and biographies of Marshall and the other principal Western leaders during the 1920 - 1955 period; all strung together with snarky comments; immediately followed by "balancing" comments. They repeatedly laud Marshall for his integrity and care in gathering information and considering the positions of subordinates and allies; then sneer at him for not having made the "correct" decision more rapidly. Of course; it took the authors some six decades to reach their ambivalent views despite the extensive information available to them from myriad reliable resources. They demonstrate repeatedly that they have little real understanding of the organizational; training and logistical aspects of military forces; particularly in the US during the 20th century when; in response to the whims of media and political demagogues; the US military was repeatedly gutted then too rapidly expanded in reaction to foreign aggression promoted in part by our lack of preparedness.The authors' criticisms of Marshall focus mainly on his lack of prior troop leadership in combat (denied him during our relatively brief participation in WW I in France because of AEF Commander Pershing's need for a senior staff officer who actually knew what he was doing) and his foreign critics related dislike of his tactical and strategic views (that were inconsistent with the Europeans' objective of preserving their empires). They also find great fault with his repeated failures to advocate particular political positions or make decisions that were in no way his to make. As a Viet Nam vet I am all too aware of the absolute power of the civilian politicians over the military; hate it - particularly when abused by the incredibly corrupt and incompetent leaders we had during Viet Nam; but would have it no other way. One CANNOT be a competent officer at a high level with truly believing in this political/military wall. Unfortunately; too many recent senior officers and politicians of late; and; of course; these authors; appreciate the necessity for this Constitution based mandate nor for the consequences of its breach.This book only notes in passing the miracle of transforming the US economy into the arsenal of the West and the complete technological and organizational overhaul of US forces while simultaneously growing exponentially. But all the authors can say about this is that the troops needed more training and that we should have used a unit replacement system rather than the individual replacement system (which is still in use because it is the only one that works in combat). You can train forever and regroup for battle almost as long (see; e.g.; FM Montgomery); but sooner or later you must go anyway; whether totally ready or not.I was a staff logistics guy; and I know I was a good one. I have known for 50+ years that Marshall was one of the best ever; found lots of good subordinates to address the endless specific needs and problems. I bought this book hoping to see a few details of how he did it and who he thought were his key logistic; industrial; and personnel subordinates. No joy. This book has few details of any kind; and none on these topics.10 of 10 people found the following review helpful. 5 Star General - 2 Star BiographyBy Andrew D. SmithIts not clear how much of this book is the work of the Ungers and how much was written by the late Stanley Hirshson. The claimed exhaustive research is not apparent and the book is a litany of criticism. The authors repeatedly fail to separate keeping an open mind from dithering. Marshall is portrayed as a weak link and its astounding that with such alleged defects in his abilities he rose to the most powerful position in the US Army at a time when promotion was discouragingly difficult to attain. Marshall worked among strong and willful characters. Its a testament to his unique skills that he achieved so much; often through negotiating compromise. His lack of field experience is held against him as though it were his fault Its absurd to assume that a more forceful man would have achieved more and in fact its hard to see how an uncompromising man would have achieved anything at all having to fight for scarce resources in the opposite corner to Ernest King. To expect him to dominate some of the most powerful characters of the 20th century; Roosevelt; MacArthur; Churchill; Stalin; Allanbrook is patently absurd; and yet we know he was a strong enough character as a young officer to question Pershing in the field. After the war he selflessly took on insoluble problems which have still not been satisfactorily resolved seventy years later and yet according to the authors he must bear some of the responsibility for this failure. It's a nice looking book and on face value it seems a more accessible starting point than Forrest Pogue's four volumes. I'm off to read Pogue and I recommend the reader finds another biography of this great man because this one doesn't do him justice25 of 27 people found the following review helpful. Readers Digest level scholarshipBy John J. ToddHaving read extensively on Marshal this book represents the nadir of my research. The authors revisionist interpretations of Marshals achievements are inconsistent with the record. Read Pogue or Cray for more scholarly consideration of Marshals achievement.