What do you think?
Rate this book
Brothers, Rivals, Victors: Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley and the Partnership that Drove the Allied Conquest in Europe
NATIONAL BESTSELLER • The intimate true story of three of the greatest American generals of World War II, and how their intense blend of comradery and competition spurred Allied forces to victory. “One of the great stories of the American military.”—Thomas E. Ricks • “Full of fresh insight and compelling drama.”—John C. McManus • “This is an exceptional book… A must-have for any shelf of serious leadership texts.”—Naval War College Review • “A rollicking good read.”—Alex KershawDwight Eisenhower, George Patton and Omar Bradley shared bonds going back decades. All three were West Pointers who pursued their army careers with a remarkable zeal, even as their paths diverged. Bradley was a standout infantry instructor, while Eisenhower displayed an unusual ability for organization and diplomacy. Patton, who had chased Pancho Villa in Mexico and led troops in the First World War, seemed destined for high command and outranked his two friends for years. But with the arrival of World War II, it was Eisenhower who attained the role of Supreme Commander, with Patton and Bradley as his subordinates. Jonathan W. Jordan’s New York Times bestselling Brothers Rivals Victors explores this friendship that waxed and waned over three decades and two world wars, a union complicated by rank, ambition, jealousy, backbiting and the enormous stresses of command. In a story that unfolds across the deserts of North Africa to the beaches of Sicily, from D-Day to the Battle of the Bulge and beyond, readers are offered revealing new portraits of these iconic generals.
692 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 1, 2011
180 people are currently reading
984 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan W. Jordan
6 books33 followersA native of Savannah, Georgia, Jon grew up on Air Force bases, from which his father flew C-141 Starlifters for the Military Air Command during the Vietnam War. He lived in New Jersey, Ohio, and the Philippines until 1976, when his family moved to Selma, Alabama. Jon obtained an accounting degree from Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama and his law degree from Vanderbilt University. He practiced law in Texas for nine years before moving to Marietta, Georgia. He lives in Marietta with his wife, Kate, and their three children. He currently practices commercial litigation and corporate bankruptcy law at the Atlanta-based firm King & Spalding LLP.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews
October 21, 2018
This book along with Jordan's other book "American Warlords" are 2 books about WWII that I would highly recommend to anyone interested in the period. It doesn't give a battle by battle account but a lot of good background information.
December 24, 2011
Yes, 672 pages. I blew through this book in three sittings. Jordan has a lot of experience in writing about all three of the above men, and he brings his expertise to bear in this book. My only complaint about this text is the overuse of phrases like "cut to the bone" and "pot boiled over"; this is a minor quibble of style, The substance in the book is fascinating
Here are ten things I liked about the book.
1. The author's use of diaries and personal communication. Ike, Bradley and Patton all come across a little differently in private, most of all Bradley. Ike and Patton had by 1941 been friends for going on 25 years. Bradley and Patton knew each other somewhat, Ike and Bradley were classmates at West Point but had not been together much in years. It is remarkable to see how their opinions and views of each other change throughout the war, and how pre-conceptions can work to undermine relationships.
2. The pacing of the book is excellent. It is difficult to weave one story together let alone three, and Jordan does this quite well.
3. Ike is not handled with kid gloves in this book. For a lot of Americans, he was the Conformity loving, golfing, avuncular bald man who was president before the guy with the haircut and Boston accent. Ike served as the Supreme Commander of Allied forces in Europe, and it is a job that NO ONE in their right mind would want. Ike said many times "If some other sonofabitch wants my job, he sure as hell can have it."
4. My favorite lines from Patton's diary:
--"am amused at all the envy and hatred I wasted on him (General Mark Clark) and many others. Looking back, men seem less vile" June 1942 (158)
-- "He (Bradley) fails to see war as a struggle, and not an educational course" March 1945 (488)
5. The relationship between Eisenhower and General Sir Bernard L. Montgomery is sort of like watching two high school girls fighting over a boy. They snipe, one smacks the other down, apologies are given, and then one writes in his diary "Ike has no competency for war or anything else. He has all the popular cries but no skill." (422). I disliked Montgomery before I read this book, and am now convinced he is one of the more overrated commanders of World War II.
6. Hell, Patton and Bradley are just as bad. At least Bradley didn't travel around wearing a silver helmet with ivory-handled pistols (Patton) or a chauffeur who most likely doubled as a mistress and who arranged for room on a ship for his ping pong table while Patton's tanks needed gas (Eisenhower).
7. SHAEF stands for Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force. For many GI's it stood for "Should Have Army Experience First".
8. Ike and Patton's debate over de-Nazification is short, but well done. Patton did not have a lot of time for Jews, Communists, Gypsies or Eastern Europeans...in short, everyone who "was rolled over by the Germans". (522)
9. More on Montgomery: Ike smoked like 700 packs of cigarettes a day (if you worked with these arrogant pricks you would also) and at one point during a strategy meeting in North Africa he asked "Who is smoking? There is no smoking when I am speaking." Like I said, what a dick. In 1944, as his offensive in the Low Countries floundered, Monty railed against Ike, his commands, Patton, Bradley, the Moon and blamed the weather, shortages, the Pope and Marlene Deitrich for his failures. Ike patted his knee and replied "Steady, Monty. You can't speak to me like that. I'm your boss." (398)
10. Bradley and Patton both labeled Monty as an SOB in their diaries. If there is a lot of Monty bashing going on, he deserves it. Of course, no one is perfect. Bradley is petty and sometimes judgmental, Ike is short tempered and Patton is a flaming egotist with a big mouth. But they did their jobs well.
Extra Point:
11. I cannot believe the pressure that Eisenhower was under from both sides. It is a wonder that the alliance stayed in place; after reading this book, it is not out of the realm to argue that had anyone else been in charge, it would not have. This was an excellent read.
Here are ten things I liked about the book.
1. The author's use of diaries and personal communication. Ike, Bradley and Patton all come across a little differently in private, most of all Bradley. Ike and Patton had by 1941 been friends for going on 25 years. Bradley and Patton knew each other somewhat, Ike and Bradley were classmates at West Point but had not been together much in years. It is remarkable to see how their opinions and views of each other change throughout the war, and how pre-conceptions can work to undermine relationships.
2. The pacing of the book is excellent. It is difficult to weave one story together let alone three, and Jordan does this quite well.
3. Ike is not handled with kid gloves in this book. For a lot of Americans, he was the Conformity loving, golfing, avuncular bald man who was president before the guy with the haircut and Boston accent. Ike served as the Supreme Commander of Allied forces in Europe, and it is a job that NO ONE in their right mind would want. Ike said many times "If some other sonofabitch wants my job, he sure as hell can have it."
4. My favorite lines from Patton's diary:
--"am amused at all the envy and hatred I wasted on him (General Mark Clark) and many others. Looking back, men seem less vile" June 1942 (158)
-- "He (Bradley) fails to see war as a struggle, and not an educational course" March 1945 (488)
5. The relationship between Eisenhower and General Sir Bernard L. Montgomery is sort of like watching two high school girls fighting over a boy. They snipe, one smacks the other down, apologies are given, and then one writes in his diary "Ike has no competency for war or anything else. He has all the popular cries but no skill." (422). I disliked Montgomery before I read this book, and am now convinced he is one of the more overrated commanders of World War II.
6. Hell, Patton and Bradley are just as bad. At least Bradley didn't travel around wearing a silver helmet with ivory-handled pistols (Patton) or a chauffeur who most likely doubled as a mistress and who arranged for room on a ship for his ping pong table while Patton's tanks needed gas (Eisenhower).
7. SHAEF stands for Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force. For many GI's it stood for "Should Have Army Experience First".
8. Ike and Patton's debate over de-Nazification is short, but well done. Patton did not have a lot of time for Jews, Communists, Gypsies or Eastern Europeans...in short, everyone who "was rolled over by the Germans". (522)
9. More on Montgomery: Ike smoked like 700 packs of cigarettes a day (if you worked with these arrogant pricks you would also) and at one point during a strategy meeting in North Africa he asked "Who is smoking? There is no smoking when I am speaking." Like I said, what a dick. In 1944, as his offensive in the Low Countries floundered, Monty railed against Ike, his commands, Patton, Bradley, the Moon and blamed the weather, shortages, the Pope and Marlene Deitrich for his failures. Ike patted his knee and replied "Steady, Monty. You can't speak to me like that. I'm your boss." (398)
10. Bradley and Patton both labeled Monty as an SOB in their diaries. If there is a lot of Monty bashing going on, he deserves it. Of course, no one is perfect. Bradley is petty and sometimes judgmental, Ike is short tempered and Patton is a flaming egotist with a big mouth. But they did their jobs well.
Extra Point:
11. I cannot believe the pressure that Eisenhower was under from both sides. It is a wonder that the alliance stayed in place; after reading this book, it is not out of the realm to argue that had anyone else been in charge, it would not have. This was an excellent read.
April 7, 2012
I have just finished reading Brothers Rivals Victors and what a marvellous read it was. I finished the book having really enjoyed the travel through history with three of America’s greatest soldiers; Dwight D. Eisenhower, General George S. Patton, and General Omar N. Bradley.
The book does not provide an in-depth military account of the campaigns and battles that these three men fought during the Second World War. What the author does provide is an interesting, and at times funny account of the battles these men fought with each other, their British allies and the forces of the Axis nations. I really loved the author’s style of writing, the book was easy to read and at times I didn’t want to put it down and turn the light out for some much needed sleep.
The book tells the story of how Eisenhower, Patton, and Bradley developed into a war winning team, although their relationships were full of jealousy, insecurity, and ambition. I liked the author’s use of private diaries and letters to tell the story behind many of those famous incidents that occurred during the chequered career of Patton. I also enjoyed learning more about General Omar N. Bradley, a man that I had not read much about previously.
I think this book would interest anyone who enjoys a well written and fast paced book covering the lives of three great American soldiers. Overall a very decent account and well worth the time to pick up and read.
The book does not provide an in-depth military account of the campaigns and battles that these three men fought during the Second World War. What the author does provide is an interesting, and at times funny account of the battles these men fought with each other, their British allies and the forces of the Axis nations. I really loved the author’s style of writing, the book was easy to read and at times I didn’t want to put it down and turn the light out for some much needed sleep.
The book tells the story of how Eisenhower, Patton, and Bradley developed into a war winning team, although their relationships were full of jealousy, insecurity, and ambition. I liked the author’s use of private diaries and letters to tell the story behind many of those famous incidents that occurred during the chequered career of Patton. I also enjoyed learning more about General Omar N. Bradley, a man that I had not read much about previously.
I think this book would interest anyone who enjoys a well written and fast paced book covering the lives of three great American soldiers. Overall a very decent account and well worth the time to pick up and read.
February 16, 2017
Outstanding book focusing on the relationships between Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton. Each having a unique personality and drive that contributed to the success of the Allies. A definite must read!!
April 2, 2021
The best part of WW2 history is that whenever you get the feeling that you'd want to read book about something specific, you're guaranteed that someone has already written it. This book was just that. I had read enough about western front and enough about Eisenhower and Patton. After reading Walter Borneman's The Admirals: Nimitz, Halsey, Leahy, and King—the Five-Star Admirals Who Won the War at Sea I wanted to read similar from the ground forces perspective. This was somewhat similar and these two books could work as set since the latter is almost all about Pacific theater and this one is all about European theater.
The book's focus is in the relationship with these three generals. They were more than familiar with each other before the war and during the war they worked with each other from Tunis to Sicily and all the way to Elbe and beyond. A lot of the text is their commentary on each other and the touch is very personal including anecdotes from people around them and from the general's personal diaries. If you're looking for highly critical book about the performances of the three, look elsewhere, this is more about their personalities clashing when events happen around them. So you get to know the Ike, GI's General and Old Blood and Guts through the eyes of their friends and equals.
The book could've used a bit more fleshed out beginning in terms of their career's and origins and also somewhat more about what happened after war. The ending felt a bit rushed.
The book's focus is in the relationship with these three generals. They were more than familiar with each other before the war and during the war they worked with each other from Tunis to Sicily and all the way to Elbe and beyond. A lot of the text is their commentary on each other and the touch is very personal including anecdotes from people around them and from the general's personal diaries. If you're looking for highly critical book about the performances of the three, look elsewhere, this is more about their personalities clashing when events happen around them. So you get to know the Ike, GI's General and Old Blood and Guts through the eyes of their friends and equals.
The book could've used a bit more fleshed out beginning in terms of their career's and origins and also somewhat more about what happened after war. The ending felt a bit rushed.
January 13, 2014
These three generals (two of them made 5 stars, and one 4 stars), knew each other for decades, all of them graduating from West Point, all of them serving during WWI, and, interestingly, all of them at one point or another, swapping seniority amongst themselves. The book goes into great detail regarding the lives of Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton; where they came from, their modest (except for Patton...born with a silver spoon in his mouth) beginnings, through their many years of Army life, where promotions were scarce, serving together at times, and then ultimately thrown together to start the great crusade that freed Europe from the Nazis. Jordan discusses how they felt about each other, digging up information from diaries, letters, and official papers. Eisenhower, for instance, thought Bradley a weak leader, and Patton almost more trouble than he was worth, although, he also knew that Patton was not only just about the best tank commander in Europe, certainly he was a fighter. Bradley wanted no part of Patton, after Sicily, but Eisenhower saddled him with Patton and, as a result, started winning victory after victory. Bradley also felt that Eisenhower kissed the butts of the British too much, at the expense of the war effort. Patton, had no use for either Eisenhower (he also felt that Ike was "too British"), and referred to Bradley as "Omar the tent maker." Regardless of how they felt towards each other, all three of them had a deep hatred for the British General Montgomery, who they felt wanted nothing except resources, glory, and not to fight. If someone's a WW II affecionado, I highly recommend this book.
October 20, 2022
Brothers, Rivals, Victors is a well-crafted if conventional account of the relationship between the three top American soldiers in the European theater. Working from diaries and letters, Jordan reconstructs the emotional state of these three men as they liberated occupied Europe. The tone of the book is perhaps best brought out by the names used to address the generals, Ike, Brad, and George. This book is familiar and gossipy, Mean Girls in HQ instead of high school.
Mean Girls "On D-Day we wear khaki"
Patton is the protagonist of the book. Charismatic, immensely self-assured, vain, and a warrior to the bone, Patton saw his destiny to be one of the Great Captains of history. His military skills were rivaled by a lack of restraint and a mouth that got him in trouble repeatedly, most notoriously in the Sicily slapping incidents, where he struck two soldiers in the hospital for 'combat fatigue' and berated them as cowards. But again and again, the basic plot of this book is Patton saying something stupid, and Eisenhower saving the old warrior's career.
Jordan is aware of Patton's self-mythologizing and mastery of the press, but not aware enough to avoid participating. It's hard to blame him. Among other traits, Patton was an inveterate diarist and letter writer, and his "private" remarks have an acid candor about the personalities of the other commanders. I use private in quotes because Patton absolutely planned his memoirs. If he had not died in a car crash in 1945, they might have been more edited and considered, but I believe his remarks on Eisenhower's pro-British leanings and Bradley's caution were meant for history, not just venting spleen.
Eisenhower is the second great personality of the book. Ike and George were genuine friends, dating back to joint service in the nascent tank corps immediately after WW1. But where Patton was a showboat who saw the tank as a means to an industrial version of the classic cavalry pursuit, Ike became a well-rounded, strategic commander. Picked by Chief of Staff Marshall for the key job of overseeing the American contribution to North Africa, Ike's steady leadership and ability to balance the competing military and political priorities across the services and allies made his the central figure of the war. Despite the lofty title of 'Supreme Commander', Eisenhower had less direct power than it seemed. His orders always had to be filtered through subordinates, not all of whom were willing to listen, and political considerations complicated direct military strategy. One thing that comes through is the stress Eisenhower was under as the face of the Allied effort. He smoked up to four packs of cigarettes a day and basically imploded his health trying to keep the war together.
Bradley is the forgotten member of the trio, lacking Eisenhower's presidential legacy and Patton's gift of showmanship. It's an unfortunate oversight, as Bradley was Eisenhower's trusted right hand, and in the first ranks of American combat commanders along with General Grant and General Sherman. Bradley's steadiness in combat and reputation as the 'GI's general' was balanced by an explosive temper and a merciless attitude towards subordinates who he deemed incompetent. Patton was a sentimentalist, and Ike was willing to bestow second chances. Bradley would cashier an officer who made a single mistake.
If there's an antagonist to this book, it's British general Bernard Montgomery. Monty used his reputation as the hero of El Alamein and his position as the senior British ground commander to demand the lion's share of supplies and key terrain features, claiming priority for his immaculately planned set-piece attacks which often came to naught (Market Garden), or were superseded by events.
Overall, I'd describe this book as 'Dadly'. It's not that far from the movie version of Patton with extra footnotes. As a conventional Greatest Generation hagiography, it's not particularly challenging, but it's well done.
Mean Girls "On D-Day we wear khaki"
Patton is the protagonist of the book. Charismatic, immensely self-assured, vain, and a warrior to the bone, Patton saw his destiny to be one of the Great Captains of history. His military skills were rivaled by a lack of restraint and a mouth that got him in trouble repeatedly, most notoriously in the Sicily slapping incidents, where he struck two soldiers in the hospital for 'combat fatigue' and berated them as cowards. But again and again, the basic plot of this book is Patton saying something stupid, and Eisenhower saving the old warrior's career.
Jordan is aware of Patton's self-mythologizing and mastery of the press, but not aware enough to avoid participating. It's hard to blame him. Among other traits, Patton was an inveterate diarist and letter writer, and his "private" remarks have an acid candor about the personalities of the other commanders. I use private in quotes because Patton absolutely planned his memoirs. If he had not died in a car crash in 1945, they might have been more edited and considered, but I believe his remarks on Eisenhower's pro-British leanings and Bradley's caution were meant for history, not just venting spleen.
Eisenhower is the second great personality of the book. Ike and George were genuine friends, dating back to joint service in the nascent tank corps immediately after WW1. But where Patton was a showboat who saw the tank as a means to an industrial version of the classic cavalry pursuit, Ike became a well-rounded, strategic commander. Picked by Chief of Staff Marshall for the key job of overseeing the American contribution to North Africa, Ike's steady leadership and ability to balance the competing military and political priorities across the services and allies made his the central figure of the war. Despite the lofty title of 'Supreme Commander', Eisenhower had less direct power than it seemed. His orders always had to be filtered through subordinates, not all of whom were willing to listen, and political considerations complicated direct military strategy. One thing that comes through is the stress Eisenhower was under as the face of the Allied effort. He smoked up to four packs of cigarettes a day and basically imploded his health trying to keep the war together.
Bradley is the forgotten member of the trio, lacking Eisenhower's presidential legacy and Patton's gift of showmanship. It's an unfortunate oversight, as Bradley was Eisenhower's trusted right hand, and in the first ranks of American combat commanders along with General Grant and General Sherman. Bradley's steadiness in combat and reputation as the 'GI's general' was balanced by an explosive temper and a merciless attitude towards subordinates who he deemed incompetent. Patton was a sentimentalist, and Ike was willing to bestow second chances. Bradley would cashier an officer who made a single mistake.
If there's an antagonist to this book, it's British general Bernard Montgomery. Monty used his reputation as the hero of El Alamein and his position as the senior British ground commander to demand the lion's share of supplies and key terrain features, claiming priority for his immaculately planned set-piece attacks which often came to naught (Market Garden), or were superseded by events.
Overall, I'd describe this book as 'Dadly'. It's not that far from the movie version of Patton with extra footnotes. As a conventional Greatest Generation hagiography, it's not particularly challenging, but it's well done.
February 24, 2017
Wow! 5 stars just like Eisenhower. A few points 1] Ike might not have known it but he was emulating A. Lincoln when he created a team of quarreling allies as Lincoln did and Goodwin described in "Team of Rivals". Perhaps an aspect of leadership that is often absent these days is the ability to partner with/hire someone who is going to disagree with you, 2] Men viewed as heroes to these soldiers were Grant, Sherman, Longstreet, Stonewall Jackson, James Longstreet ("Hit hard when you start, but don't start until you have everything ready."). What these men knew, and what they learned from prior wars was reflected in Longstreet's quote. If you're going to fight, then fight. War is about killing, like it or not. If you're getting in, get in to win. 3] Montgomery was a jerk, reminded me of the ineffectual McClellan in the Civil War, wait, ask for more troops, wait some more . . . sheesh! 4] We need warriors like Patton, even with all his faults. He died a tragic death.
August 16, 2012
You have to love that these larger than life people chose to keep journals and save all of their letters...what a great batch of materials for the author to analyze. You come away realizing that these guys were pushed to the edge by their ambition and egos, but even more by the task in front of them.
May 23, 2012
For history, this was really good! I don't consider myself a history buff, and if this wasn't a lucky draw, I don't know what is! I have to say of anything I could have read about World War II this book was most definitely the perfect choice.
June 8, 2011
extremely readable and fast paced history of the three leading military leaders during ww2 in europe.
April 8, 2014
The Best one volume study of the Generals that won the war in Fortress Europe and points south.
August 10, 2018
If you are familiar with the history of WW II, you won’t find much new information here. However, the author comes at the history from the angle of the relationships between these three central figures. He explores how these relationships shaped some of the most momentous decisions of the war. What is striking about this narrative is how the strengths and weaknesses of each leader played off those of the others - in some cases, the result was incredible success. In others, increased tension and misunderstanding were the outcomes. The great attributes and deep imperfections of each general are on display for all to see.
A very interesting thought is to consider this three-way dynamic from the perspective of professional legacy. How have the influences of these three towering figures lived on in the military profession? In some ways, it is arguable that the worst attributes of each man persist more strongly than their best: Self-promotion and a tendency to boot-lick, intense conservatism that results in a sharp preference for by-the-book methods and a distrust of anything outside the comfortable confines of dogmatic orthodoxy, and an almost pathological need for consensus even in the face of the most difficult and divisive questions. Today, many argue that our most senior leaders have formed an exclusive club where only the most conformist of “company men” are allowed to enter and rabid self-serving and bureaucratic maneuvering hide under a thin veil of meekness and professions of teamwork.
Another interesting thing that this book inspires is reflection on the role of loyalty in leadership, especially the question of loyalty to individuals versus loyalty to one’s professional duty. Of all three individuals, it seems that Eisenhower managed this best, although both Bradley and Patton also did well. Patton’s loyalty was, not surprisingly, much more personal in nature.
Overall, I rate this book very high. For someone new to the study of WW II and these generals, it is an excellent place to begin. Just the right depth to have strong substance but not going so far that it would overwhelm the reader with monotonous tactical detail. For experienced students of these topics, this book will give you reason to think about them from different perspectives.
A very interesting thought is to consider this three-way dynamic from the perspective of professional legacy. How have the influences of these three towering figures lived on in the military profession? In some ways, it is arguable that the worst attributes of each man persist more strongly than their best: Self-promotion and a tendency to boot-lick, intense conservatism that results in a sharp preference for by-the-book methods and a distrust of anything outside the comfortable confines of dogmatic orthodoxy, and an almost pathological need for consensus even in the face of the most difficult and divisive questions. Today, many argue that our most senior leaders have formed an exclusive club where only the most conformist of “company men” are allowed to enter and rabid self-serving and bureaucratic maneuvering hide under a thin veil of meekness and professions of teamwork.
Another interesting thing that this book inspires is reflection on the role of loyalty in leadership, especially the question of loyalty to individuals versus loyalty to one’s professional duty. Of all three individuals, it seems that Eisenhower managed this best, although both Bradley and Patton also did well. Patton’s loyalty was, not surprisingly, much more personal in nature.
Overall, I rate this book very high. For someone new to the study of WW II and these generals, it is an excellent place to begin. Just the right depth to have strong substance but not going so far that it would overwhelm the reader with monotonous tactical detail. For experienced students of these topics, this book will give you reason to think about them from different perspectives.
May 18, 2022
This is the story of three American generals, their on-again, off-again friendship, and the military operations they led from 1942 to 1945 to win the war against Nazi Germany. For those old enough to remember the history, two of their names live on in memory, the third, much less often. But all three played pivotal roles in World War II, and military historians credit them with a large share of responsibility for the Allies’ success in Europe. But when the United States entered the war in December 1941, few at the time would have expected such exalted achievements from any of the three. Dwight D. (Ike) Eisenhower, Omar N. (Brad) Bradley, and George S. Patton rose through the ranks of American officers at a meteoric pace. Historian Jonathan W. Jordan tells their astonishing story in Brothers, Rivals, Victors, and he tells it exceedingly well.
TYPICAL AMERICANS, RICH, POOR, MIDDLE-CLASS
In his introduction, Jordan explains that the book “is a story of a rich man from southern California [Patton], a poor man from the Missouri backwoods [Bradley], and a middle-class man from middle-class Kansas [Eisenhower].” And in telling the tale he makes clear how the values each absorbed in his upbringing expressed themselves in the way these three extraordinary soldiers conducted themselves in the war.
THEY REFLECTED THE VALUES OF THEIR TIME AND PLACE
All three of Jordan’s subjects were born in the closing years of the Gilded Age. Patton, 1885. Eisenhower, 1890. Bradley, 1893. All three were products of West Point and graduated early enough to participate as junior officers in World War I (although only Patton saw combat then). They reflected not just the values of the communities where they were raised but those of their time. Like others in the US military, they were all strongly influenced by the American experience in the Great War, Patton most strongly of all. As junior officers, they languished within the shrinking military establishment throughout the 1920s and 30s, hungering for the combat experience that would enable them to rise in the officer corps.
ONE DOMINANT THEME THROUGHOUT
If there is a single overarching theme of this book, it’s the ebb and flow of the relationships among these three outstanding men. Jordan quotes extensively from their private diaries and those of others who served with them as well as the official reports, Pentagon histories, and accounts in the press. It is astonishing, even these many decades later, to read how raw and visceral at times was the anger they held for one another in the course of the war. Even more amazing still to think that, despite how much they seemed to hate each other from time to time, they managed to prosecute the war together to a successful conclusion. As Jordan notes, “They could be brilliant and selfless, and they could be shortsighted and petty.”
From 1919 until 1939, Ike and George were close, personal friends. George, who was five years older and outranked Ike, was a mentor of sorts. Brad and Ike had known each other since 1911 but didn’t achieve anything like that level of intimacy until well into the war, when Ike steadily promoted him to a major role in leading American forces on the ground in Europe.
Both men’s friendship with George steadily soured as Patton repeatedly shot off his mouth and alienated his troops with his flamboyant behavior. (The “slapping incident” in Sicily was only the best-known of a great many events that convinced Ike he was a loose cannon. Incidentally, the portrayal of that incident in the film Patton whitewashed the reality, which was immeasurably worse than depicted.) While Ike and George made headlines, Brad was “the tall, quiet man no one would think to take notice of.” Throughout most of the war, he shunned the press.
THEIR UNIQUE SKILLS EQUIPPED THEM WELL
IKE HAD THE CHOPS TO LEAD IN COALITION WARFARE
Jordan skillfully illustrates how the unique skills each of these three men contributed to the Allied victory. Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall effectively chose Ike as European Theater commander because he had the political and administrative chops to handle the immense pressures of the job. His title was “Supreme Commander,” but that was “criminally misleading.” Ike had to answer to the towering egos of more than a dozen men on the Combined Chiefs of Staff of the US and Great Britain as well as to Roosevelt and Churchill, any of whom could make his life miserable. And he was effectively prohibited from firing several of the key British officers assigned as his subordinates, most notably the vainglorious and stubbornly anti-American Bernard Montgomery.
GEORGE WAS A “FIGHTING GENERAL” BUT NO STRATEGIST
“Eisenhower was a man whose horizons enveloped politics, industrial policy, planning, and diplomacy, fields as foreign to George as they were immaterial,” Jordan writes. George Patton knew one thing, and he knew it well: how to drive an army at full speed over open territory, destroying every enemy obstacle in his way. He was a tanker, a horse soldier, steeped in the tradition of the cavalry—”by far, the best tank man in the Army,” in Ike’s estimation. George was “one of the most extraordinary fighting generals the Army had ever produced,” his superiors believed. But he was also “the best thespian this side of MacArthur,” with his antics and his loud mouth grabbing headlines and exasperating his superiors.
BRAD UNDERSTOOD IKE’S STRENGTHS BUT CHAFED UNDER HIM
As circumstances made clear, George disdained such essentials of modern, coalition-driven war as logistics, supply, and diplomacy. (As Churchill famously asserted, “The only thing worse than fighting a war with allies is fighting a war without them.”) By contrast, Omar Bradley understood such things perfectly well, and that understanding equipped him to serve as George’s superior on the Continent. He was frequently required to rein in the overeager older man to permit other forces under his command to move ahead in tandem, lest George’s troops be encircled by the enemy or he would outrun his supply lines. But, when Ike was forced to defer to Montgomery and shift troops from Brad’s command to the British, Brad could become as vituperative about him as George ever was.
AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW
Some historians question the military strategy pursued by Eisenhower and Bradley and insist that Montgomery and Patton would have won the war more quickly had they been in charge. For Ike and Brad, modern war required the movement of immense numbers of men forward on a broad front to avoid encirclement and eliminate any enemy forces in their way. Montgomery and Patton both emphasized the need for concentrated forces to speed ahead, spearheaded by armor and paratroops, to break through enemy lines.
It certainly is true that Patton demonstrated the wisdom of this approach when he led the American breakout across northern France and, later, into the heart of Germany. But his approach was ineffective in closing up the huge salient created by Nazi troops in the Battle of the Bulge, as it had been in North Africa. And Montgomery’s repeated efforts to concentrate his forces on the Continent proved ineffectual. First, when he was trapped on the coast following the Normandy Invasion, and again when he massed huge armies north of the American lines to drive through the Low Countries into Germany. The latter led only to the disastrous Operation Market Garden. All of which is why I find Jordan’s view of the matter to be persuasive.
WHEN THE US ENTERED THE WAR, FEW EXPECTED MUCH OF THEM
When Germany declared war on the US on December 11, 1941, Eisenhower had recently been promoted to brigadier general. He was primarily a staff officer and had never held an active command above a battalion. (He served on Douglas MacArthur‘s staff in the Philippines for much of the 1930s. The two men detested each other.) Months earlier, Ike had held the rank of lieutenant colonel, as he had for many years in the peacetime army.
Both Bradley and Patton had sewn twin stars on their shoulders when the US entered the war—reflecting their promotion to the rank of major general. In the wartime US, generals were, to cadge an expression of the era, “a dime a dozen.” Nearly 1,100 generals served in the United States armed forces during World War II, and more than 7,000 colonels. Ike, Brad, and George were not marked for glory as the country entered the conflict.
THE TRIO’S ASTONISHING RISE
Then things changed, as things do in wartime. Eisenhower’s brilliant performance on the staff of the War Department in Washington led to his promotion, first, to major general and then lieutenant general and Commanding General, European Theater of Operations, based in London. In that capacity, he became Patton’s boss, turning the tables on his long-time friend and mentor of two decades. As the war unfolded, Eisenhower received first his fourth star and, in December 1944, his fifth as General of the Army. In “three years, three months, and sixteen days,” Ike rose six levels from lieutenant colonel to five-star general. When the war in Europe drew to a close in May 1945, Brad and George had each gained their fourth star. (Brad would receive his fifth only in 1950.)
MILITARY OPERATIONS ON AN IMMENSE SCALE
Many Americans view the Normandy Landings of June 1944 as the biggest event of World War II. It was nothing of the sort. True, the amphibious invasion of France’s northern coast represents to this day the largest such operation in world history. It was, indeed, massive, involving some 6,900 ships, 3,200 aircraft, and 156,000 soldiers from Great Britain, the US, and Canada. But the five divisions that landed on French soil that day paled in comparison to the forces engaged in innumerable other operations conducted throughout the war by both the Allies and the Axis powers.
The biggest military gambit of the Second World War was Operation Barbarossa, Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. Some 3.8 million Axis military personnel took part in that ill-conceived adventure, along with 3,500 tanks, more than 3,000 aircraft, 10,000 artillery pieces, and over 600,000 horses. But there were several other operations involving more than one million soldiers. For example, in the Soviet Operation Bagration, nearly 1.7 million personnel killed as many as 450,000 Nazi troops and captured more than 150,000 others, wiping out 28 of 34 divisions of the Germans’ Army Group Centre. Similarly, the 1.3 million American soldiers in the 12th Army Group under Gen. Bradley “bagged 1.86 million enemy troops” in their drive across northern France and deep into the heart of Germany.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
According to his author website, “Jonathan Jordan is a military historian and an award-winning author of three books, including the New York Times bestseller Brothers, Rivals, Victors.” He co-authored a fourth book with his daughter, Emily. Jordan is a regular book critic for The Wall Street Journal, editor of the Library of Texas edition of To the People of Texas, a contributing author to The Amazing Book of World History and The Amazing Book of World War II, and the author of nearly two dozen articles appearing in MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History, World War II Magazine, Military History, and World War II History magazines. Jonathan lives with his family in Marietta, Georgia.
TYPICAL AMERICANS, RICH, POOR, MIDDLE-CLASS
In his introduction, Jordan explains that the book “is a story of a rich man from southern California [Patton], a poor man from the Missouri backwoods [Bradley], and a middle-class man from middle-class Kansas [Eisenhower].” And in telling the tale he makes clear how the values each absorbed in his upbringing expressed themselves in the way these three extraordinary soldiers conducted themselves in the war.
THEY REFLECTED THE VALUES OF THEIR TIME AND PLACE
All three of Jordan’s subjects were born in the closing years of the Gilded Age. Patton, 1885. Eisenhower, 1890. Bradley, 1893. All three were products of West Point and graduated early enough to participate as junior officers in World War I (although only Patton saw combat then). They reflected not just the values of the communities where they were raised but those of their time. Like others in the US military, they were all strongly influenced by the American experience in the Great War, Patton most strongly of all. As junior officers, they languished within the shrinking military establishment throughout the 1920s and 30s, hungering for the combat experience that would enable them to rise in the officer corps.
ONE DOMINANT THEME THROUGHOUT
If there is a single overarching theme of this book, it’s the ebb and flow of the relationships among these three outstanding men. Jordan quotes extensively from their private diaries and those of others who served with them as well as the official reports, Pentagon histories, and accounts in the press. It is astonishing, even these many decades later, to read how raw and visceral at times was the anger they held for one another in the course of the war. Even more amazing still to think that, despite how much they seemed to hate each other from time to time, they managed to prosecute the war together to a successful conclusion. As Jordan notes, “They could be brilliant and selfless, and they could be shortsighted and petty.”
From 1919 until 1939, Ike and George were close, personal friends. George, who was five years older and outranked Ike, was a mentor of sorts. Brad and Ike had known each other since 1911 but didn’t achieve anything like that level of intimacy until well into the war, when Ike steadily promoted him to a major role in leading American forces on the ground in Europe.
Both men’s friendship with George steadily soured as Patton repeatedly shot off his mouth and alienated his troops with his flamboyant behavior. (The “slapping incident” in Sicily was only the best-known of a great many events that convinced Ike he was a loose cannon. Incidentally, the portrayal of that incident in the film Patton whitewashed the reality, which was immeasurably worse than depicted.) While Ike and George made headlines, Brad was “the tall, quiet man no one would think to take notice of.” Throughout most of the war, he shunned the press.
THEIR UNIQUE SKILLS EQUIPPED THEM WELL
IKE HAD THE CHOPS TO LEAD IN COALITION WARFARE
Jordan skillfully illustrates how the unique skills each of these three men contributed to the Allied victory. Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall effectively chose Ike as European Theater commander because he had the political and administrative chops to handle the immense pressures of the job. His title was “Supreme Commander,” but that was “criminally misleading.” Ike had to answer to the towering egos of more than a dozen men on the Combined Chiefs of Staff of the US and Great Britain as well as to Roosevelt and Churchill, any of whom could make his life miserable. And he was effectively prohibited from firing several of the key British officers assigned as his subordinates, most notably the vainglorious and stubbornly anti-American Bernard Montgomery.
GEORGE WAS A “FIGHTING GENERAL” BUT NO STRATEGIST
“Eisenhower was a man whose horizons enveloped politics, industrial policy, planning, and diplomacy, fields as foreign to George as they were immaterial,” Jordan writes. George Patton knew one thing, and he knew it well: how to drive an army at full speed over open territory, destroying every enemy obstacle in his way. He was a tanker, a horse soldier, steeped in the tradition of the cavalry—”by far, the best tank man in the Army,” in Ike’s estimation. George was “one of the most extraordinary fighting generals the Army had ever produced,” his superiors believed. But he was also “the best thespian this side of MacArthur,” with his antics and his loud mouth grabbing headlines and exasperating his superiors.
BRAD UNDERSTOOD IKE’S STRENGTHS BUT CHAFED UNDER HIM
As circumstances made clear, George disdained such essentials of modern, coalition-driven war as logistics, supply, and diplomacy. (As Churchill famously asserted, “The only thing worse than fighting a war with allies is fighting a war without them.”) By contrast, Omar Bradley understood such things perfectly well, and that understanding equipped him to serve as George’s superior on the Continent. He was frequently required to rein in the overeager older man to permit other forces under his command to move ahead in tandem, lest George’s troops be encircled by the enemy or he would outrun his supply lines. But, when Ike was forced to defer to Montgomery and shift troops from Brad’s command to the British, Brad could become as vituperative about him as George ever was.
AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW
Some historians question the military strategy pursued by Eisenhower and Bradley and insist that Montgomery and Patton would have won the war more quickly had they been in charge. For Ike and Brad, modern war required the movement of immense numbers of men forward on a broad front to avoid encirclement and eliminate any enemy forces in their way. Montgomery and Patton both emphasized the need for concentrated forces to speed ahead, spearheaded by armor and paratroops, to break through enemy lines.
It certainly is true that Patton demonstrated the wisdom of this approach when he led the American breakout across northern France and, later, into the heart of Germany. But his approach was ineffective in closing up the huge salient created by Nazi troops in the Battle of the Bulge, as it had been in North Africa. And Montgomery’s repeated efforts to concentrate his forces on the Continent proved ineffectual. First, when he was trapped on the coast following the Normandy Invasion, and again when he massed huge armies north of the American lines to drive through the Low Countries into Germany. The latter led only to the disastrous Operation Market Garden. All of which is why I find Jordan’s view of the matter to be persuasive.
WHEN THE US ENTERED THE WAR, FEW EXPECTED MUCH OF THEM
When Germany declared war on the US on December 11, 1941, Eisenhower had recently been promoted to brigadier general. He was primarily a staff officer and had never held an active command above a battalion. (He served on Douglas MacArthur‘s staff in the Philippines for much of the 1930s. The two men detested each other.) Months earlier, Ike had held the rank of lieutenant colonel, as he had for many years in the peacetime army.
Both Bradley and Patton had sewn twin stars on their shoulders when the US entered the war—reflecting their promotion to the rank of major general. In the wartime US, generals were, to cadge an expression of the era, “a dime a dozen.” Nearly 1,100 generals served in the United States armed forces during World War II, and more than 7,000 colonels. Ike, Brad, and George were not marked for glory as the country entered the conflict.
THE TRIO’S ASTONISHING RISE
Then things changed, as things do in wartime. Eisenhower’s brilliant performance on the staff of the War Department in Washington led to his promotion, first, to major general and then lieutenant general and Commanding General, European Theater of Operations, based in London. In that capacity, he became Patton’s boss, turning the tables on his long-time friend and mentor of two decades. As the war unfolded, Eisenhower received first his fourth star and, in December 1944, his fifth as General of the Army. In “three years, three months, and sixteen days,” Ike rose six levels from lieutenant colonel to five-star general. When the war in Europe drew to a close in May 1945, Brad and George had each gained their fourth star. (Brad would receive his fifth only in 1950.)
MILITARY OPERATIONS ON AN IMMENSE SCALE
Many Americans view the Normandy Landings of June 1944 as the biggest event of World War II. It was nothing of the sort. True, the amphibious invasion of France’s northern coast represents to this day the largest such operation in world history. It was, indeed, massive, involving some 6,900 ships, 3,200 aircraft, and 156,000 soldiers from Great Britain, the US, and Canada. But the five divisions that landed on French soil that day paled in comparison to the forces engaged in innumerable other operations conducted throughout the war by both the Allies and the Axis powers.
The biggest military gambit of the Second World War was Operation Barbarossa, Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. Some 3.8 million Axis military personnel took part in that ill-conceived adventure, along with 3,500 tanks, more than 3,000 aircraft, 10,000 artillery pieces, and over 600,000 horses. But there were several other operations involving more than one million soldiers. For example, in the Soviet Operation Bagration, nearly 1.7 million personnel killed as many as 450,000 Nazi troops and captured more than 150,000 others, wiping out 28 of 34 divisions of the Germans’ Army Group Centre. Similarly, the 1.3 million American soldiers in the 12th Army Group under Gen. Bradley “bagged 1.86 million enemy troops” in their drive across northern France and deep into the heart of Germany.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
According to his author website, “Jonathan Jordan is a military historian and an award-winning author of three books, including the New York Times bestseller Brothers, Rivals, Victors.” He co-authored a fourth book with his daughter, Emily. Jordan is a regular book critic for The Wall Street Journal, editor of the Library of Texas edition of To the People of Texas, a contributing author to The Amazing Book of World History and The Amazing Book of World War II, and the author of nearly two dozen articles appearing in MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History, World War II Magazine, Military History, and World War II History magazines. Jonathan lives with his family in Marietta, Georgia.
January 26, 2018
Complicated relationship of Eisenhower, Patton and Bradley
August 15, 2012
Here is my latest review from the Kenosha News - Off the Shelf reviews page published on 8/5/12.
Award-winning author Jonathan Jordan has conducted meticulous research and goes into incredible detail to bring together the intertwining lives of three of World War II’s most interesting and storied commanders; Dwight Eisenhower, Omar Bradley and George Patton.
Using their personal correspondence and diaries as well as observations of those who worked with each of them, for the first time we see in vivid detail the relationships between these three legendary fighting men and the intricate web of their relationships going back decades. We are brought into the complicated shifting allegiances, jealousy, insecurity, and ambition each of them shared, showcasing the personal side of life at the summit of raw, violent power during World War II from which the outcome was so uncertain.
We know through history that Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower, General George S. Patton, and General Omar N. Bradley engineered the Allied conquest that shattered Hitler's hold over Europe. Individually we have heard recounts the battle for Europe through the eyes of these three legendary generals who fought to liberate two continents. What this book explores is the behind the scenes never before explored history of their relationships.
Brothers Rivals,Victors draws from the candid accounts of its main characters, and strips away much of their public image to reveal the men lurking beneath the legends. Adding to this insider's story are the words and observations of a supporting cast of generals, staff officers, secretaries, aides, politicians, and wives, whose close proximity to Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton in times of stress and tranquility are brought together to produce a uniquely intimate account of a relationship that influenced a war. We are treated to a rare insider's view of life at the highest level of power in warfare. Throughout three years, we see Eisenhower as the Alliance's great mediator. A man who sought victory in the fighting qualities and tactical genius of his most trusted subordinates. We see in their past the contrast between the three men; the poor, low-key Bradley, the rich arrogant Patton and the young dreamer and consummate diplomat Eisenhower who in spite of their differences where brought together by the things they had in common; West Point alumni, ambition to succeed as officers in the U.S. Army and their frustration at the post-WWI military. We see how Bradley and Patton owed their careers to Eisenhower and how he ultimately protected them from the slings and arrows of politicians, rival generals and their allies. The pillars of their working relationships were duty and trust. Yet their genuine friendship before the war would be put to the ultimate test as life-and-death decisions were thrust upon them, when honor and duty conflicted with personal loyalty.
The story of how these three great strategists pulled together to wage the deadliest conflict in history, despite their differences and rivalries, is marvelously told in this eye-opening narrative, sure to become a classic of military history.
Here are some companion books available at the Kenosha Public Library that explores the men as individuals.
A great deal has been written about Gen. George S Patton but two of the more interesting books have been written by his grandsons. The Patton's: A Personal History of an American Family by noted author Robert H. Patton explores the generals childhood, family and genealogy and how it shaped his leadership qualities. Growing Up Patton: Reflections on Heroes, History and Family Wisdom by documentary film maker Benjamin Patton looks into the legacy he left behind and the son who met, and in his own toned-down way, even surpassed the legend of his father.
In sharp contrast very little has been written about one of the most beloved and low-key Generals of WWII. However, a recent book Bradley by Alan Axelrod, of course focuses on Bradley’s WW II command, but also the little know areas he had such an impact on such as; his creation of the Officer Candidate School system, as a five-star general head of the what was, up until his arrival, a corrupt and mismanaged Veterans Administration, his post as U.S. Army chief of staff and the first ever Joint Chief of Staff and head of NATO.
Eisenhower: In War and Peace by Jean Edward Smith is a reveling and highly detailed look at the former president from all aspects and changes in his life from his childhood in Kansas, as a West Point cadet, into his role as Supreme Commander in WWII and into his campaign and subsequent presidency.
For anyone interested in World War II history and the men who commanded those brave men into battle, these books are a must read.
Award-winning author Jonathan Jordan has conducted meticulous research and goes into incredible detail to bring together the intertwining lives of three of World War II’s most interesting and storied commanders; Dwight Eisenhower, Omar Bradley and George Patton.
Using their personal correspondence and diaries as well as observations of those who worked with each of them, for the first time we see in vivid detail the relationships between these three legendary fighting men and the intricate web of their relationships going back decades. We are brought into the complicated shifting allegiances, jealousy, insecurity, and ambition each of them shared, showcasing the personal side of life at the summit of raw, violent power during World War II from which the outcome was so uncertain.
We know through history that Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower, General George S. Patton, and General Omar N. Bradley engineered the Allied conquest that shattered Hitler's hold over Europe. Individually we have heard recounts the battle for Europe through the eyes of these three legendary generals who fought to liberate two continents. What this book explores is the behind the scenes never before explored history of their relationships.
Brothers Rivals,Victors draws from the candid accounts of its main characters, and strips away much of their public image to reveal the men lurking beneath the legends. Adding to this insider's story are the words and observations of a supporting cast of generals, staff officers, secretaries, aides, politicians, and wives, whose close proximity to Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton in times of stress and tranquility are brought together to produce a uniquely intimate account of a relationship that influenced a war. We are treated to a rare insider's view of life at the highest level of power in warfare. Throughout three years, we see Eisenhower as the Alliance's great mediator. A man who sought victory in the fighting qualities and tactical genius of his most trusted subordinates. We see in their past the contrast between the three men; the poor, low-key Bradley, the rich arrogant Patton and the young dreamer and consummate diplomat Eisenhower who in spite of their differences where brought together by the things they had in common; West Point alumni, ambition to succeed as officers in the U.S. Army and their frustration at the post-WWI military. We see how Bradley and Patton owed their careers to Eisenhower and how he ultimately protected them from the slings and arrows of politicians, rival generals and their allies. The pillars of their working relationships were duty and trust. Yet their genuine friendship before the war would be put to the ultimate test as life-and-death decisions were thrust upon them, when honor and duty conflicted with personal loyalty.
The story of how these three great strategists pulled together to wage the deadliest conflict in history, despite their differences and rivalries, is marvelously told in this eye-opening narrative, sure to become a classic of military history.
Here are some companion books available at the Kenosha Public Library that explores the men as individuals.
A great deal has been written about Gen. George S Patton but two of the more interesting books have been written by his grandsons. The Patton's: A Personal History of an American Family by noted author Robert H. Patton explores the generals childhood, family and genealogy and how it shaped his leadership qualities. Growing Up Patton: Reflections on Heroes, History and Family Wisdom by documentary film maker Benjamin Patton looks into the legacy he left behind and the son who met, and in his own toned-down way, even surpassed the legend of his father.
In sharp contrast very little has been written about one of the most beloved and low-key Generals of WWII. However, a recent book Bradley by Alan Axelrod, of course focuses on Bradley’s WW II command, but also the little know areas he had such an impact on such as; his creation of the Officer Candidate School system, as a five-star general head of the what was, up until his arrival, a corrupt and mismanaged Veterans Administration, his post as U.S. Army chief of staff and the first ever Joint Chief of Staff and head of NATO.
Eisenhower: In War and Peace by Jean Edward Smith is a reveling and highly detailed look at the former president from all aspects and changes in his life from his childhood in Kansas, as a West Point cadet, into his role as Supreme Commander in WWII and into his campaign and subsequent presidency.
For anyone interested in World War II history and the men who commanded those brave men into battle, these books are a must read.
October 9, 2012
9/26/12 [update - continued] Brad knew that his profession asked him to put men in harms way but he never liked doing it. He was good in any job to which he was assigned, training, administration, whatever.
The first opportunity for all of them to work together was in the Tunisian operation in North Africa. Ike had difficulty in restraining conflicts between allied units. Patton had barely managed to restrain himself from taking the bit in his teeth and teaching the British what they aught to be doing. Brad... just always did a great job even if he didn't like it...like delivering bad news to a friend.
Patton experienced personal loss when his personal aid Dick Jensen was killed in a Nazi air raid, and despite a period of serious strain in British-US relations, it did work out to better air cover from British planes for US troops....more to follow.
9/28/12 [update - continued] Palermo. Patton sometimes ignored orders from British General Alexander but made such great progress that his disobedience was overlooked. Brad wasn't getting much action but it was beginning to improve as he was given an objective up near Messina. Anything was better than the painful hemoroids with which he had begun the campaign.
9/30/12 No one knew but the Brits's assignment of Gold - Sword beaches was a cream puff whereas the American Beaches of Utah and Omaha would become a blood bath. Patton was finally invited to lead an invasion army under Brad. Brad wasn't happy to have the loudmouthed General in his command.
10/02/12 [update - continued] After all landings had been completed the allies still had operations on the beach for weeks or months as they unloaded supplies for moving inland and stacked them for later distribution. It was weeks before Bradley succeeded in getting out of the hedgerows and in the meantime called for Patton to activate Third Army and head east. Montgomery didn't want Patton there because he knew Patton would do a better job than Monty would do and thus get more media coverage, which he did, but he had better sense than to make any statements to the press. In getting out of the bocage (sp?) the allies had encompassed and captured several thousand German troops even though some escaped.
10/06/12 [update - continued]action being conducted by other armies such as Bradley's and Patton's. Eisenhower at times had to all-but-fire Monty, and probably would have but he was trying to use him as much as possible to keep the British happy. The 3rd army was advancing fast toward the east when the Germans hit Bradley's army with 17 armored divisions (pardon me if my military jargon is wrong) so Patton had to turn around and stop the Germans from doing any more damage. George was just happy to be 'killing krauts'. Once the bulge counteroffensive had been stopped (and Montgomery had been put in his place) Bradley and George set about crossing the Rhine River and pacifying central and southern Germany since Eisenhower had told them to let the Russians take Berlin. Eisenhower never got over seeing the true nature of Nazi brutality that he saw in the concentration camps and insisted on TOTAL DENAZIFICATION in their postwar administration of conquered territories.
Patton's death from injuries in a minor traffic accident that paralyzed him for months may have been the kindest end for a man that would not have been happy in a world of compromises and kissing asses required for peace.
The first opportunity for all of them to work together was in the Tunisian operation in North Africa. Ike had difficulty in restraining conflicts between allied units. Patton had barely managed to restrain himself from taking the bit in his teeth and teaching the British what they aught to be doing. Brad... just always did a great job even if he didn't like it...like delivering bad news to a friend.
Patton experienced personal loss when his personal aid Dick Jensen was killed in a Nazi air raid, and despite a period of serious strain in British-US relations, it did work out to better air cover from British planes for US troops....more to follow.
9/28/12 [update - continued] Palermo. Patton sometimes ignored orders from British General Alexander but made such great progress that his disobedience was overlooked. Brad wasn't getting much action but it was beginning to improve as he was given an objective up near Messina. Anything was better than the painful hemoroids with which he had begun the campaign.
9/30/12 No one knew but the Brits's assignment of Gold - Sword beaches was a cream puff whereas the American Beaches of Utah and Omaha would become a blood bath. Patton was finally invited to lead an invasion army under Brad. Brad wasn't happy to have the loudmouthed General in his command.
10/02/12 [update - continued] After all landings had been completed the allies still had operations on the beach for weeks or months as they unloaded supplies for moving inland and stacked them for later distribution. It was weeks before Bradley succeeded in getting out of the hedgerows and in the meantime called for Patton to activate Third Army and head east. Montgomery didn't want Patton there because he knew Patton would do a better job than Monty would do and thus get more media coverage, which he did, but he had better sense than to make any statements to the press. In getting out of the bocage (sp?) the allies had encompassed and captured several thousand German troops even though some escaped.
10/06/12 [update - continued]action being conducted by other armies such as Bradley's and Patton's. Eisenhower at times had to all-but-fire Monty, and probably would have but he was trying to use him as much as possible to keep the British happy. The 3rd army was advancing fast toward the east when the Germans hit Bradley's army with 17 armored divisions (pardon me if my military jargon is wrong) so Patton had to turn around and stop the Germans from doing any more damage. George was just happy to be 'killing krauts'. Once the bulge counteroffensive had been stopped (and Montgomery had been put in his place) Bradley and George set about crossing the Rhine River and pacifying central and southern Germany since Eisenhower had told them to let the Russians take Berlin. Eisenhower never got over seeing the true nature of Nazi brutality that he saw in the concentration camps and insisted on TOTAL DENAZIFICATION in their postwar administration of conquered territories.
Patton's death from injuries in a minor traffic accident that paralyzed him for months may have been the kindest end for a man that would not have been happy in a world of compromises and kissing asses required for peace.
January 22, 2014
A gripping biography (triography?). A well written and extensive characterization, with as main story line the most important military events in the West. The events influence the characters, but the characters influence the events more.
Patton: colorful, outspoken. Brilliant and fast in hunting the enemy and making the best of a tactical advantage. Known for his profanity ("'Nuts' was about the only swear word I did *not* use,") but really the most friendly of the three. More a loner, writing lots in his diary. Showman. A quiet, boring period means he will get himself and his superiors in trouble because of his big mouth and foolish actions. Thinks he is the best general: the others are too careful and scared, and Ike listens too much to the English. I would have liked to see what would have happened if Patton had been the supreme commander. Probably the Americans would have been in Berlin in October 1944, but it would have been without the scandalized English, and they would have been fighting the Soviets.
Bradley: quiet, calm figure. Does not pull attention to himself. On Sicily he is frustrated with his direct boss, the unguided missile Patton. In France, with the loyal Patton serving under him, it is better. There they form one front against their biggest enemies: Montgomery and his lackey Ike, who constantly steal troops. Brilliant strategist and leader of an army group, whom Ike could trust blindly.
Eisenhower: forced into a more political role in the background as supreme commander. Most alive when at the front among soldiers. Hard worker, short sleeper. Constantly waiting for the next Patton stupidity. Constantly defending the unfathomable but almost indispensable Patton and championing the shortchanged Bradley who he thought was better, more all-round general than Patton.
Patton: colorful, outspoken. Brilliant and fast in hunting the enemy and making the best of a tactical advantage. Known for his profanity ("'Nuts' was about the only swear word I did *not* use,") but really the most friendly of the three. More a loner, writing lots in his diary. Showman. A quiet, boring period means he will get himself and his superiors in trouble because of his big mouth and foolish actions. Thinks he is the best general: the others are too careful and scared, and Ike listens too much to the English. I would have liked to see what would have happened if Patton had been the supreme commander. Probably the Americans would have been in Berlin in October 1944, but it would have been without the scandalized English, and they would have been fighting the Soviets.
Bradley: quiet, calm figure. Does not pull attention to himself. On Sicily he is frustrated with his direct boss, the unguided missile Patton. In France, with the loyal Patton serving under him, it is better. There they form one front against their biggest enemies: Montgomery and his lackey Ike, who constantly steal troops. Brilliant strategist and leader of an army group, whom Ike could trust blindly.
Eisenhower: forced into a more political role in the background as supreme commander. Most alive when at the front among soldiers. Hard worker, short sleeper. Constantly waiting for the next Patton stupidity. Constantly defending the unfathomable but almost indispensable Patton and championing the shortchanged Bradley who he thought was better, more all-round general than Patton.
May 15, 2013
An excellent book, tying three of our most well-known World War II European theater commanders together and showing how they related to each other and worked together.
Dwight Eisenhower and Omar Bradley were West Point classmates in 1915 ("the class the stars fell on") and Eisenhower and Patton became close friends right after World War I, in 1919. Then, Patton outranked Eisenhower and was mentor to the younger officer. Twenty-four years later, Eisenhower was Patton's senior and pulled him out of several messes of Patton's creation because he needed his old friend in the hard fighting ahead.
Many may think that Allied commanders worked easily together toward the common goal of victory, but that is not the case and author Jonathan Jordan shows us what these senior generals thought of each other and other generals. Their private thoughts were not always flattering towards one another.
Jordan also points out how close Ike came to quitting as Supreme Allied Commander over his disagreements with British Gen. Bernard Montgomery and his referee duties with the squabbles of other generals.
Dwight Eisenhower and Omar Bradley were West Point classmates in 1915 ("the class the stars fell on") and Eisenhower and Patton became close friends right after World War I, in 1919. Then, Patton outranked Eisenhower and was mentor to the younger officer. Twenty-four years later, Eisenhower was Patton's senior and pulled him out of several messes of Patton's creation because he needed his old friend in the hard fighting ahead.
Many may think that Allied commanders worked easily together toward the common goal of victory, but that is not the case and author Jonathan Jordan shows us what these senior generals thought of each other and other generals. Their private thoughts were not always flattering towards one another.
Jordan also points out how close Ike came to quitting as Supreme Allied Commander over his disagreements with British Gen. Bernard Montgomery and his referee duties with the squabbles of other generals.
February 13, 2014
Excellent insight to these three heroes of World War II --Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton. Explains the relationship and history of the three. Begins with a history and bio of each then follows a detailed cross section of each career and their relationship throughout WW II. The author has extensive account of notes, memos and letters surrounding the battles and incidents of the War. I gained an appreciation for some of their challenges and their interactions. At times they admired each other, at other times held each other in disdain. The politics of the Army and the war are something I never had a feel for until now. This book also highlights the major campaigns of the War in Europe and how each general dealt with the planning, the execution and the immediate aftermath of the war. The book had a good mix of details, general war plans and maps and provided a very good history lesson on how the war in Europe was won. And it explained their individual and collective roles. Great book and one worth reading.
May 1, 2012
I really enjoyed this book. Using journal entries, official military records, correspondence, and interviews with people close to the protagonists, the author really brought to life three of the greatest generals of the 20th century: Eisenhower, Patton, and Bradley. This book almost reads like a novel. It is long, but I couldn't put it down. It details the relationship between the three men from the very beginnings of their entry into military schools through the end of WWII. It really made the men who we have all studied and revered in history classes seem like real people. The discrepancy between the great Patton that I've studied and the Patton known to those close to him was especially fascinating. Overall, a fantastic read for any 20th century history fan, and even for someone who doesn't know a whole lot about the war in Europe during WWII - this book really describes in great detail the who, why, and how of the entire European campaign. I would definitely read it again.
June 22, 2022
Patton, Bradley, and Eisenhower are revealed in this book as exceptional men, but men who also had significant personality “issues.” The author makes extensive use of diaries, letters, and interviews to explore the relationships among the three men. The generals’ various backgrounds made it inevitable that they would have conflicting personalities and have differing ideas as to how the war in Europe should be fought. However, even with all that separated them, they pulled together at critical times. The book also explores the men's relationship with the British general Montgomery, and how the very different American and British cultures and philosophies ended up costing thousands of more lives than should have been lost. Jordan’s book is a must read for anyone interested in WWII, American History, or war craft in general.
September 4, 2015
Great insight into three of the most important US commanders of WWII. More than just a simple historical account, it extensively utilizes personal correspondence, diaries and accounts from close associates to paint a more complete/nuanced portrait of the "real" personalities behind the figures (to include interactions among themselves, as well as others). I was very impressed by Jordan's writing style, as he was able to make this work entertaining and educational (even for someone who knows a significant amount about WWII). Highly recommend!
July 21, 2016
This is a unique approach to biography - examining the interactions of three people who were key to the Allied victory in Europe in WWII. The author does an excellent job of providing insight to complex relationships.
Patton clearly comes across as misunderstood and unjustly treated by Eisenhower and Bradley, a victim of the political correctness of the times. The author thoroughly documents this.
I have given the book my highest rating. It is a well-written story that I could hardly put down. I really appreciated the recommendation from my friend, Ed Franks.
Patton clearly comes across as misunderstood and unjustly treated by Eisenhower and Bradley, a victim of the political correctness of the times. The author thoroughly documents this.
I have given the book my highest rating. It is a well-written story that I could hardly put down. I really appreciated the recommendation from my friend, Ed Franks.
August 3, 2011
Excellent book. Meticulously researched and well written.
The Best I have read on this matter so far.
I never thought the personal relationship of these 3 strong minded, testosterone driven alpha animals went so deep. Some decisions taken over a latent "mine is bigger than yours" atmosphere might be disputable, but they sure had a life changing impact on all of us in Western Europe.
Jonathan W. Jordan has done a 5*, class A job on this unparalleled book.
The Best I have read on this matter so far.
I never thought the personal relationship of these 3 strong minded, testosterone driven alpha animals went so deep. Some decisions taken over a latent "mine is bigger than yours" atmosphere might be disputable, but they sure had a life changing impact on all of us in Western Europe.
Jonathan W. Jordan has done a 5*, class A job on this unparalleled book.
March 14, 2013
I found this book highly interesting and illuminating...we tend to read books on each of these persons as individuals, or the war effort they were part of as a whole...but this book meshed all of that together with insight into the interpersonal relationships they shared, intimately and in context with their duties and performance as officers / leaders during the war. Enjoyed it...worthy of a future re-read I believe.
July 8, 2013
Very good book, details much of WWII, through the eyes of key leaders. The book does a good job of explaining the men and their interactions with each other, but more importantly provides a historical, strategic, and operational context to the interactions. If I find any fault with the book it is that it skips the campaigns in Italy almost entirely and it covers Patton much more than Bradley and Eisenhower; I presume because of available source material.
March 12, 2012
Very good book. Displays the humanity, both good and ill, of the principals as opposed to a treatment as heroes only. While they are still heroic figures, we also see the role of ambition, jealousy, and also intense loyalty -- and with liberal use of their own words from diaries and letters. Well worth the read.
April 16, 2013
A very good look at the individuals involved. Some of the sources it relies on could be a tad suspect, but it is that way with any book of this type.
The author takes great pains to make it so that there is little use of other works other than the diaries and papers of people who were contemporary. With a great deal of success.
Good enough that I am going to look for other works by the author.
The author takes great pains to make it so that there is little use of other works other than the diaries and papers of people who were contemporary. With a great deal of success.
Good enough that I am going to look for other works by the author.
May 12, 2014
Great book. The author took the known history of WWII and added each man's journal writings to paint a full picture of their relationship during these events. The struggles, triumphs and the politics of being in a war against Germany and teaming with Britain to bring it down. I heard the audio book and the reader was also very good.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews