<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Useful for Personality Gossip, But Not Serious Students
Review: Although I found some of the personality intrigue interesting, the writing was so off-putting at times that it made skimming a virtue. Unfortunately, I cannot take Larrabee seriously as a scholar because of some notable and clearly refutable statements that his admirers are either unaware of, or simply unwilling to acknowledge. A visit to page 83 of the hardcover edition provides ample evidence of sloppiness, untruthfulness, and even vanity -- which of course gets Larrabee into trouble as you will see. When addressing the topic of FDR's foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Larrabee claims "that there is no substantiating evidence whatever." A quick perusal of the reams of interviews with high-level British military and diplomatic sources, agreements between Japan and Germany, intercepted coded messages, and most recently the work of Stinnett (which came after Larrabee's book was published, but which only puts the final dunce cap on Larrabee) make Larrabee's claim absurd. A key objection raised by Larrabee is that Roosevelt, who really would have preferred war with Germany according to Larrabee, would not have provoked Japan into war because there would be no guarantee that Germany would declare war against the U.S. Unfortunately for this argument, Roosevelt was aware of an intercepted diplomatic message between the Japanese ambassador and Von Ribbentrop in which the German foreign minister stated that Germany would join Japan immediately if Japan went to war with the U.S. Furthermore, FDR's cabinet member, Harold Ickes had stated, "For a long time I've believed our best entrance into the war would be [via] Japan...which will inevitably lead to war against Germany." Too many of FDR's defenders raise this same argument -- as if like garlic to a vampire it somehow wards off all questioning of FDR's character or knowledge by means of its devestating effect, which of course is devestating only to those who try to wield it.
Even worse than Larrabee's ignorance is his lack of education -- which, combined with his academic's vanity, deals a serious question mark to his accuracy and perhaps his personal honesty. He resorts to the invalid "argument from authority" or "appealing to the gallery" (choose the fallacy you wish as he seems to rely upon them rather heavily). Again on page 83, after claiming an absolute absense of evidence (and I direct readers to a raft of books on the subject all with plenty of evidence, including Toland, Morgenstern, Beach, and John Denson in addition to Stinnett), he claims that those who claim FDR had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor are reduced to "arguing that its nonexistence proves the existence of a conspiracy to suppress it. Credo quia absurdum." Not only is this stretching the truth (the part in English), but Larrabee's misquoted and re-constructed Latin phrase is a telling reminder of both his vanity and desperation to impress us with what he wishes were his vast compendium of learning. First of all, the early Christian theologian, Tertullian actually wrote, "Certum est quia impossible est." What I believe happened here is that Larrabee, wishing to pepper his text with something learned beyond the usual phrases such as "modus vivendi," pulled out of his imperfect memory a misquote or else relied upon an inferior source of quotations that was published in English. He then found the phrase, "I believe because it is absurd." This is a commonly encountered mis-translation of Tertullian. But providing the English quote was apparently not sufficient for Larrabee. Wishing to stun us with his vast learning, he attempted to rely upon his (probable) high-school Latin -- which turned out to be a very weak reed indeed -- and made a sorry attempt to do some clumsy Latin composition of his own so that he could use italics lettering in his text. Uh-oh. Mistake. Latin composition requires knowledge, not an amateur or diletante such as Mr. Larrabee. The result? A perceptive reader notices such things and realizes he is dealing with an intellectual lightweight, not a scholar. I wonder if the education institutions with which he was affiliated were ever aware of this streak. If he taught at a university, he must have been insufferable. He certainly isn't among the cognoscenti. Needless to say, things like this cast a pall over the remainder of his book. Ciao!
Rating: 
Summary: Required at Military Academies...should be in schools!
Review: Eric Larrabee not only gives the facts about these men and what made them tick, he backs it up with real OFFICIAL memoranda from the time, often from more than just 2 or 3 sources. His study of Douglas MacArthur is outstanding. What MacArthur apologists won't tell you is that this book is required reading at all US military academies. It should be required in all high schools as well. Well written, well done!
Rating:
Summary: Superlative
Review: I purchased this book many years ago when it was first published, but only recently got around to reading much of it. I was extremely impressed at the author's critical analysis of the major players. In terms of detailed biographical sketches and rigorous organization, it lapses from time to time and often spends several pages in diversions about subordinates. What was particularly strong about Commander in Chief, however, was the perspectival discussions on the talents and importance of individual flag officers. I was particularly impressed with the discussion of Eisenhower which was the best I've seen. Larrabee actually gives him more praise and regard than his own son did in the recent Ike: the Soldier. For once, Eisenhower comes across as a powerful and commanding figure in his own right, rather than as a fortunate protege of General Marshall. Indeed, Larrabee explains in a perfectly plausible fashion why Eisenhower was a better choice for overall European command in 1944 and beyond. Although it does tend to wander at times, Commander in Chief is finely written and makes for enjoyable, informative reading. I recommend it highly.
Rating:
Summary: Well Researched and Highly Regarded
Review: If you want a good read on the overall strategy and leadership qualities that these men brought to our country in its finest hour, then take off your shoes and settle into your favorite armchair. The referencing that went into the book is impressive. The facts are stunning. The leadership was impressive.
Rating:
Summary: First Rate Sketches of WWII Military Leaders
Review: This is an excellent, highly readable overview of the American involvement in World War II. The author himself served as a staff officer in the US Seventh Army fighting Germany and has a strong grasp of air, naval and ground force strategies. Roosevelt is convincingly shown as a leader with a strong understanding of strategy and geo-political factors. The principal commanders of US forces are profiled candidly and fairly. Recommended as a good overall view of the most seminal event of this century.
Rating:
Summary: Commander in Chief
Review: This is one of the most useful and well written books that I have read on World War II. Larrabee discusses in depth some of the leading American commanders, including: Nimitz, Eisenhower, Lemay, MacArthur, King, Marshall, and Stilwell. His discussion of Vandegrift included a lengthy discussion of Chesty Puller and his exploits on Guadalcanal. Obviously, any discussion of Chesty Puller can be extremely humorous, but Larrabee's anecdotes left me in stitches. I have also read a review on this site alleging that Franklin Roosevelt was aware of the pending attack on Pearl Harbor. The reviewer alleges that based upon the correspondence between the German foreign minister and the Japanese government should have made Roosevelt aware of the attack. My only response is that if German participation was a foregone conclusion, then why did Germany wait until December 11th to declare war? This is an extemely useful overview of the American leaders and the strategy that they employed in World War II. It should be required reading by any American history class studying the 20th century.
Rating:
Summary: Well Researched and Highly Regarded
Review: This masterpiece book provides an excellent introduction to the top American military commanders, including the commander in chief, and the great work they did during World War Two. As a military enthusiast I found this to be one of the most well researched and informative books on America's involvement in World War Two. It won awards for historical scholarship, both for military history and regular history, such as the Francis Parkman Prize given by the American Historican Society for the most outstanding work of history in a given year. This book is required reading for officers, ,military historians and casual readers interested in the war. You will not find a better one-volume book on the American commanders. Roosevelt and the American commanders emerged as the most important leaders for the Allies, which is not to suggest that other players were not important and excellent; they were. At first Churchill was the most important player for the Allies - a fine job he did - and the British military leaders were the veterans, while the Americans were still inexperienced and ill-prepared. However, Roosevelt and the American commanders soon earned the command of the Allied war strategy and execution. What is so remarkable about Roosevelt is that he was magnificent at picking the right people for the right positions. Read the book and you will know what I mean. A great example is admiral Ernest King, a tough, demanding and resourceful leader. Roosevelt elevated him to commander of the United States Navy shortly after the Pearl Harbor attack, and King proved to be the ideal man at the right time. King was, afterall, the first aviator to obtain command of the navy, and carrier warfare would emerge as the key to naval warfare during the conflict. King was a great hero and should receive more recognition for his work. Another great leader, well known in the military community but less known to the general public, is George Marshall. He was essentially the commander of the United States military leading up to the war, and he maintained his position as chief of staff during the war (and later Truman's Secretary of State). His work was superb and, no doubt, ranks him among the greatest American leaders ever - maybe of the war. Read about it in the book. Many expected that Marshall would be given command of the D-Day invasion (and all it's glory), but when Roosevelt leaned towards Eisenhower (the ideal choice) and asked Marshall for his advice, leaving the door open for Marshall to lobby FDR, Marshall dutifully told Roosevelt that he should do only what he thought was best for the country. Roosevelt then moved immediately to appoint Eisenhower. The information on Eisenhower is even better. Read about it in the book. One last thought. Roosevelt was simply superb as commander in chief. He played a very important role in setting the correct war strategy and balanced the political forces. For example, he ordered the invasion of North Africa over initial objections from his commanders who wanted to concentrate only on an invasion of occupied France. Attacking North Africa turned out to be a brilliant move. For the first time the American people feel like they were actively involved in the war. Roosevelt was correct to assert that it would be a bad decision to wait years to fight the Germans. The invasion also gave the military invaluable experience managing a military invasion and essential combat experience - they previously had none. Overall, Roosevelt made all the right moves and surprisingly few mistakes; far fewer than any other world power. Despite being an active leader, Roosevelt's other strength was that he delegated to his excellent commanders and let them do their work freely. Here is a quote from Admiral King: "Churchill, fancying himself as a great strategist, and being so powerful personally, ruled his Chiefs of Staff with an iron hand, forcing them at all times to compliance with the policy as he and the War Cabinet laid it down... Roosevelt, on the other hand, trusted his Chiefs of Staff and thus gave them much more personal authority and immeasurably more freedom of action and of speech than was enjoyed by their British opposite numbers." We all know about the enormous blunders that Hitler made as the dictator general, overruling his generals. He caused Germany to lose the war. Roosevelt, on the other hand, was sublime. My last thought is directed towards the reviewer who clearly is trying to slander Roosevelt by denouncing this excellent, scholarly and highly regarded book. To say that this exceptional book is bad history to attack Roosevelt is simply outrageous. For the record, nobody with any serious military education believes the charge that Roosevelt knew about the Pearl Harbor attack. He did not. A book came out a few years ago completely lying about several key pieces of evidence, after most of the people originally involved and could speak out were dead. The book blatently misrepresented the MAGIC projects, such as stating that certain messages were encoded by the Japanese in the diplomatic code when they were in fact CLEARLY coded in the naval code, which had not been broken yet. The Pearl Harbor commission concluded years ago that nobody knew about he Pearl Harbor attack, and EVERY reputable World War Two historian and book agrees. I know. I've almost read them all!
<< 1 >>
|
