What do you think?
Rate this book
Alanbrooke
'Alanbrooke,' wrote General MacArthur, 'is undoubtedly the greatest soldier that England has produced since Wellington.' He fought with the artillery in the First World War, had a brilliant career as a peacetime soldier, and conducted his Corps with exemplary calm and courage in the retreat to Dunkirk. In November 1941 Churchill selected him as Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and from that moment he became indispensable in Whitehall, the one man who could never be spared for the more spectacular feats of war on the battlefield which he longed to undertake.
Alanbrooke was the master strategist of the British military effort. His partnership with Churchill - the statesman's imagination and inspired energy perfectly complementing the soldier's clarity of mind and unflinching realism - was often turbulent, yet endlessly fruitful. Under his chairmanship the Chiefs of Staff became the most efficient machine for the conduct of war which Britain, perhaps the world, had ever seen. His influence in the shaping of global strategy was immeasurable.
Alanbrooke was the master strategist of the British military effort. His partnership with Churchill - the statesman's imagination and inspired energy perfectly complementing the soldier's clarity of mind and unflinching realism - was often turbulent, yet endlessly fruitful. Under his chairmanship the Chiefs of Staff became the most efficient machine for the conduct of war which Britain, perhaps the world, had ever seen. His influence in the shaping of global strategy was immeasurable.
604 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1982
13 people are currently reading
55 people want to read
About the author
David Fraser
90 books13 followersGeneral Sir David William Fraser was educated at Eton and Christ Church college in the University of Oxford. He left school to enlist at earliest opportunity after the Second World War begun, and joined the Grenadier Guards in 1940, serving for much of the Second World War with the Guards Armoured Division, later in North West Europe, ending the war in the rank of Major. He was intimately involved afterwards in the crises in Suez, and Cyprus, and saw service in the Malaya emergency.
He was also a prolific author, publishing over 20 books mostly focused on the history of the Second World War.
There is more than one David Fraser on Goodreads
He was also a prolific author, publishing over 20 books mostly focused on the history of the Second World War.
There is more than one David Fraser on Goodreads
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
April 26, 2016
An extremely well written hagiography.
Alan Brooke was the youngest son of minor Irish (Protestant) gentry. Although they had land in Ulster, Allen was born in In the Pyrenees region of south France, where his parents' summer home increasingly became a year-round local. Alan thus grew up knowing French before English, a fact that became obvious in his spelling (though not in his rapid-fire speaking).
Alan was a loner -- first acquiring his life-long love of animals and nature -- but unfocused; unlike every other well off Briton of his generation, he did not go to the fashionable British boarding schools of prefects, "fags" (first form slaves to 6th or 5th form boys), team sports, and group spirit. Though he received a decent education at the local French school -- including German, making him among the few tri-lingual senior Allied commanders -- Alan was considered dissolute. Family lore says his mother, to which the young Alan was devoted, repeatedly admonished him, saying, "I want one day to see a tablet on this house saying you were born here." Alan, though not his mother, lived to see that dream fulfilled, her son now a Peer.
Out of options, like many younger sons, Brooke joins the Army. Where he excels--not just because he beavers away at he books, but because he becomes more comfortable in the military's hierarchal social strata. Though Alan could ride and take tea with the best, he was not normally demonstrative.
Alan perseveres through a six year engagement (during which he was posted in India, Commissioned in Artillery), then the bad timing of an August 1914 marriage: the honeymoon lasted six days before Alan was called back into the uniform; war had been declared.
David's Fraser's biography of Field Marshall Viscount Alanbrooke is a good, conventional biography until about that point. He pauses for an interesting chapter on global strategy: the Navy-only faction vs, the combined arms approach, and how -- though the Admiralty seems not to have grasped it at the time -- the Entente with France doomed the first group: "Maritime power could have saved Britain. It would not have saved the Entente."
But the remainder of the book is based almost solely on Alanbrooke's diaries, first published scrubbed, later posthumously unedited. Alan pored his daily frustrations into these diaries: in WWI, chafing under high command incompetence (though not his immediate superior); in the inter-war years, the tragic car crash injuring Alan, but killing his wife; his subsequent remarriage. In the early days of WWII, in France TWICE: first to have the French and British sliced in half by Guderian Panzers racing through the one part of France's western border left unfortified (because it was thought impassible for tanks)--Brooke escapes via Dunkirk. Next ordered by Churchill to reform a SECOND British force in France, which Brooke manages to halt half-way and return his men through Calais.
History has judged harshly France's failures, though Churchill's misapprehension was more understandable -- he still remembered the French army as it was in WWI, and (though inventor of the tank) never dreamed it could devour territory without infantry protecting its flanks. Never mind: Brooke rips everyone and everything in his diary.
Becoming Chief of the Imperial General Staff -- Britain's highest ranking soldier; there is and was no American equivalent -- Brooke is working 20 hour days, seeing his wife -- if lucky -- once a week. His diary, and letters to his wife probably preserved his sanity during the war. All this is well known; as is the fact that Churchill without Brooke might have lost the war and visa versa. What I didn't know was that Brooke was so determined not to interfere with a commander's judgement in the field -- except by firing him -- that he had no part in the decision to invade at Normandy rather than the closer, more obvious, Pas de Calais.
But it is inexcusable for a biographer to rely almost exclusively on his subject's diary for views on the sagacity of his advice. Fraser writes as if he's balancing the truth in an outcome determinative fashion, but fails to discuss any contrary opinion. It's not like there weren't still-living witnesses, much less scholarly history to which Fraser could have turned.
Brooke is particularly disdainful about Eisenhower--who got the job Alan was promised--but omits the dozens of texts addressing Ike's Generalship (in addition to his unmatched political skills). The slant especially is evident whenever Montgomery arrives in the frame. Fraser adds one supporter to Alan's diaries--Monty's Memoirs, a collection of BS, braggadocio, and innuendo hardly fit for the bottom of a bird cage. By war's end, neither Brooke, Monty nor Churchill much liked the Americans, so it was easy to blame any setback on the U.S., while praising untried plans that might have won the war YEARS earlier. But compare fortuitously Operation Market Garden. And twice Fraser quotes Brooke praising Macarthur as the foremost strategic genius among American military commanders--quite a "tell."
Yet, with those abundant and unforgivable flaws, Fraser is a good writer with some useful insights:
"Brooke, as a strategist, was the exact reverse of the opportunist or the gambler. He was a calculator, and he played only to win. He was not a great originator. His two great strengths were his realism . . . and his firmness of purpose."
This trait made him the best possible restraint on Churchill, but ensured four and 1/2 years of acrimonious arguments between minds so differently constructed. Churchill, after 50 years in Parliament, considered fierce debate the sole crucible for discerning truth. Brooke was a practical man; one-step-at-a-time, measured, grounded on facts, not (as he saw it) Churchill's romantic view of war. It led to an extraordinary moment:
"'Brooke must go!' Churchill said [to Ismay]. 'I cannot work with him. He hates me. I can see hatred looking from his eyes.' Ismay sought Brooke.
'The Prime Minister says he can't work with you and that you hate him.'
'Hate him?' said Brooke. 'I don't hate him. I LOVE him. But the first time I tell him I agree with him when I don't will be the time to get rid of me, for then I will be of no use to him.'
Ismay received permission discretely to quote this reaction and did so.
'The CIGS says he doesn't hate you. He loves you. But if he ever tells you he agrees when he doesn't you must get rid of him as no more use.'
Churchill's eyes filled with tears, and he gently murmured:
'DEAR Brooke!'"
Information like that, and some of Fraser's prose makes this a great read. But hardly a fair or balanced one.
Alan Brooke was the youngest son of minor Irish (Protestant) gentry. Although they had land in Ulster, Allen was born in In the Pyrenees region of south France, where his parents' summer home increasingly became a year-round local. Alan thus grew up knowing French before English, a fact that became obvious in his spelling (though not in his rapid-fire speaking).
Alan was a loner -- first acquiring his life-long love of animals and nature -- but unfocused; unlike every other well off Briton of his generation, he did not go to the fashionable British boarding schools of prefects, "fags" (first form slaves to 6th or 5th form boys), team sports, and group spirit. Though he received a decent education at the local French school -- including German, making him among the few tri-lingual senior Allied commanders -- Alan was considered dissolute. Family lore says his mother, to which the young Alan was devoted, repeatedly admonished him, saying, "I want one day to see a tablet on this house saying you were born here." Alan, though not his mother, lived to see that dream fulfilled, her son now a Peer.
Out of options, like many younger sons, Brooke joins the Army. Where he excels--not just because he beavers away at he books, but because he becomes more comfortable in the military's hierarchal social strata. Though Alan could ride and take tea with the best, he was not normally demonstrative.
Alan perseveres through a six year engagement (during which he was posted in India, Commissioned in Artillery), then the bad timing of an August 1914 marriage: the honeymoon lasted six days before Alan was called back into the uniform; war had been declared.
David's Fraser's biography of Field Marshall Viscount Alanbrooke is a good, conventional biography until about that point. He pauses for an interesting chapter on global strategy: the Navy-only faction vs, the combined arms approach, and how -- though the Admiralty seems not to have grasped it at the time -- the Entente with France doomed the first group: "Maritime power could have saved Britain. It would not have saved the Entente."
But the remainder of the book is based almost solely on Alanbrooke's diaries, first published scrubbed, later posthumously unedited. Alan pored his daily frustrations into these diaries: in WWI, chafing under high command incompetence (though not his immediate superior); in the inter-war years, the tragic car crash injuring Alan, but killing his wife; his subsequent remarriage. In the early days of WWII, in France TWICE: first to have the French and British sliced in half by Guderian Panzers racing through the one part of France's western border left unfortified (because it was thought impassible for tanks)--Brooke escapes via Dunkirk. Next ordered by Churchill to reform a SECOND British force in France, which Brooke manages to halt half-way and return his men through Calais.
History has judged harshly France's failures, though Churchill's misapprehension was more understandable -- he still remembered the French army as it was in WWI, and (though inventor of the tank) never dreamed it could devour territory without infantry protecting its flanks. Never mind: Brooke rips everyone and everything in his diary.
Becoming Chief of the Imperial General Staff -- Britain's highest ranking soldier; there is and was no American equivalent -- Brooke is working 20 hour days, seeing his wife -- if lucky -- once a week. His diary, and letters to his wife probably preserved his sanity during the war. All this is well known; as is the fact that Churchill without Brooke might have lost the war and visa versa. What I didn't know was that Brooke was so determined not to interfere with a commander's judgement in the field -- except by firing him -- that he had no part in the decision to invade at Normandy rather than the closer, more obvious, Pas de Calais.
But it is inexcusable for a biographer to rely almost exclusively on his subject's diary for views on the sagacity of his advice. Fraser writes as if he's balancing the truth in an outcome determinative fashion, but fails to discuss any contrary opinion. It's not like there weren't still-living witnesses, much less scholarly history to which Fraser could have turned.
Brooke is particularly disdainful about Eisenhower--who got the job Alan was promised--but omits the dozens of texts addressing Ike's Generalship (in addition to his unmatched political skills). The slant especially is evident whenever Montgomery arrives in the frame. Fraser adds one supporter to Alan's diaries--Monty's Memoirs, a collection of BS, braggadocio, and innuendo hardly fit for the bottom of a bird cage. By war's end, neither Brooke, Monty nor Churchill much liked the Americans, so it was easy to blame any setback on the U.S., while praising untried plans that might have won the war YEARS earlier. But compare fortuitously Operation Market Garden. And twice Fraser quotes Brooke praising Macarthur as the foremost strategic genius among American military commanders--quite a "tell."
Yet, with those abundant and unforgivable flaws, Fraser is a good writer with some useful insights:
"Brooke, as a strategist, was the exact reverse of the opportunist or the gambler. He was a calculator, and he played only to win. He was not a great originator. His two great strengths were his realism . . . and his firmness of purpose."
This trait made him the best possible restraint on Churchill, but ensured four and 1/2 years of acrimonious arguments between minds so differently constructed. Churchill, after 50 years in Parliament, considered fierce debate the sole crucible for discerning truth. Brooke was a practical man; one-step-at-a-time, measured, grounded on facts, not (as he saw it) Churchill's romantic view of war. It led to an extraordinary moment:
"'Brooke must go!' Churchill said [to Ismay]. 'I cannot work with him. He hates me. I can see hatred looking from his eyes.' Ismay sought Brooke.
'The Prime Minister says he can't work with you and that you hate him.'
'Hate him?' said Brooke. 'I don't hate him. I LOVE him. But the first time I tell him I agree with him when I don't will be the time to get rid of me, for then I will be of no use to him.'
Ismay received permission discretely to quote this reaction and did so.
'The CIGS says he doesn't hate you. He loves you. But if he ever tells you he agrees when he doesn't you must get rid of him as no more use.'
Churchill's eyes filled with tears, and he gently murmured:
'DEAR Brooke!'"
Information like that, and some of Fraser's prose makes this a great read. But hardly a fair or balanced one.
March 17, 2021
This has the drawback of being written as an admiring biography, perhaps a consequence of Brooke being a general's general and the author having occupied a similar role as (vice) CIGS in a later era.
There is understandable professional admiration for someone who successfully mastered the daunting task of helming the British armed forces to victory in WW2, as a junior partner in an uneasy alliance and dogged by Churchill's domineering and intrusive interventions.
(Churchill: a man so consistently wrong in his strategic instincts over two world wars and with absolutely no sense of logistical constraints, it was amusing to find out about his repeated enthusiastic pushing of another North Norway invasion in '42 to relive pressure on the Soviets - really was one Narvik not enough for him to learn by).
What it does really well is give a view of the strategic considerations that went into decisions as to what theatres to commit to.
But there is at least one major lacuna and one minor one:
On the minor side - almost all American interactions with Brooke picture him in a negative light - abrasive, highly strung of fixed outlook. Whether deserved or not, this gets downplayed here and means we lack a full picture of the man.
On the major side: Brooke - a scion of the Ulster unionist ascendancy who as a junior officer served (abroad presumably) through rebellion and bitter partition in 1921 - and there is practically nothing in this book about his attitudes and how this affected him.
The Curragh Mutiny of 1914 - his good friend Wavell was in the minority of junior Army officers that called it for what it was and deplored it - doesn't get a mention, despite the cabal of senior Ulster Protestant officers involved (Wilson, French, Gough etc).
This is pretty incredible and very disappointing.
There is understandable professional admiration for someone who successfully mastered the daunting task of helming the British armed forces to victory in WW2, as a junior partner in an uneasy alliance and dogged by Churchill's domineering and intrusive interventions.
(Churchill: a man so consistently wrong in his strategic instincts over two world wars and with absolutely no sense of logistical constraints, it was amusing to find out about his repeated enthusiastic pushing of another North Norway invasion in '42 to relive pressure on the Soviets - really was one Narvik not enough for him to learn by).
What it does really well is give a view of the strategic considerations that went into decisions as to what theatres to commit to.
But there is at least one major lacuna and one minor one:
On the minor side - almost all American interactions with Brooke picture him in a negative light - abrasive, highly strung of fixed outlook. Whether deserved or not, this gets downplayed here and means we lack a full picture of the man.
On the major side: Brooke - a scion of the Ulster unionist ascendancy who as a junior officer served (abroad presumably) through rebellion and bitter partition in 1921 - and there is practically nothing in this book about his attitudes and how this affected him.
The Curragh Mutiny of 1914 - his good friend Wavell was in the minority of junior Army officers that called it for what it was and deplored it - doesn't get a mention, despite the cabal of senior Ulster Protestant officers involved (Wilson, French, Gough etc).
This is pretty incredible and very disappointing.
July 25, 2023
This book promised much but was riven by some deep flaws. It does give detailed picture of Alanbrooke’s professional life and the immense demands placed on him by directing Britain’s armed forces through some of the darkest days of World War 2. But we never really get to engage fully with Alanbrooke the man. There are some fascinating pictures of what his upbringing in France meant to him, but there is nothing of how he regarded the end of British rule in the island of Ireland. There is also little on the death of his daughter in a riding accident, which must surely have deeply affected him. Fraser’s book also has detailed passages on the events of World War 2, which at times almost overwhelms the narrative.
There are valuable aspects of this biography of the man who was Britain’s outstanding general of World WR 2, but ‘Brookie’ still awaits the biographer his achievements merits.
There are valuable aspects of this biography of the man who was Britain’s outstanding general of World WR 2, but ‘Brookie’ still awaits the biographer his achievements merits.
March 9, 2020
It started off extremely well and I loved the authors narrative and language. But then the book transforms into a military history of World War II. it becomes less of Alanbrooke and more of a military strategy lesson. I understand that to learn about the life of Alanbrooke you must discuss the War. However, the level of military detail David Fraser dives into is a bit much. If that is your interest, read this immediately. If you want to learn solely about the great man, I would stick to his diaries.
February 27, 2022
I had been given this a few years ago, and picked it up by chance. It was good background to read as the current Ukraine conflict unfolds. This is very dense with detail about the decision making around WW2 strategy, not necessarily enjoyable to read but the author makes it as palatable as it could be. Good lessons here I would have found helpful in business decision making.
April 1, 2015
What triggered me to read this book was the comment in the advertisement quoting General MacArthur that “Alanbrooke was the greatest soldier that England has produced since Wellington.” This book was published in 1982. The book is 786 pages long and the audio book is 23 hours long.
Field Marshal Alan Francis Brooke, 1st Viscount Alanbrooke (1883-1963) fought with the artillery in WWI. This book gives an excellent report of artillery use in WWI. Alanbrooke served in the Army during the peace, and was in command of his Corp during the retreat at Dunkirk. In November, 1941, Churchill selected him as Chief of the Imperial General Staff.
General Fraser used the Alanbrooke diaries as well as other archival documents as research material for this biography. As a senior British Officers, General Fraser was able to present the “dimensions” of Alanbrooke’s wartime role, Alanbrooke’s simultaneous involvement with long-range allied strategy, with current operations, with superiors, colleagues, and subordinates. I enjoyed the accounts of Alanbrooke’s battles with Churchill and George Marshall. I found their disagreements and negotiations most enlightening. Alanbrooke was most frustrated having to deal with all the politics of the War.
The author covered Alanbrooke‘s early life, his graduation from the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich in 1902. Fraser tells of Alanbrooke role in WWI serving in the battles of the Somme and on to Dunkirk in WWII. Fraser tells of Alanbrooke’s support for mechanization of the military and the 1930s debates.
The author is also a very interesting person. He is Lieutenant General Sir David William Fraser (1920-2012); he is the son of Brigadier General, William Fraser (1890-1964). General William Fraser was the military attaché in Paris, France 1938 to 1939 when WWII started. General David Fraser joined his father’s regiment, The Grenadier Guards in 1940, and served in the armored division in WWII. David Fraser served as Vice Chief of the General Staff in 1972-1974. His military nickname was “Razor Fraser”. With his background, Fraser was the ideal person to write the biography of Alanbrooke.
If you are interested in WWI and WWII history this is an ideal book for you to read. I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. James Adams was the narrator of the book.
Field Marshal Alan Francis Brooke, 1st Viscount Alanbrooke (1883-1963) fought with the artillery in WWI. This book gives an excellent report of artillery use in WWI. Alanbrooke served in the Army during the peace, and was in command of his Corp during the retreat at Dunkirk. In November, 1941, Churchill selected him as Chief of the Imperial General Staff.
General Fraser used the Alanbrooke diaries as well as other archival documents as research material for this biography. As a senior British Officers, General Fraser was able to present the “dimensions” of Alanbrooke’s wartime role, Alanbrooke’s simultaneous involvement with long-range allied strategy, with current operations, with superiors, colleagues, and subordinates. I enjoyed the accounts of Alanbrooke’s battles with Churchill and George Marshall. I found their disagreements and negotiations most enlightening. Alanbrooke was most frustrated having to deal with all the politics of the War.
The author covered Alanbrooke‘s early life, his graduation from the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich in 1902. Fraser tells of Alanbrooke role in WWI serving in the battles of the Somme and on to Dunkirk in WWII. Fraser tells of Alanbrooke’s support for mechanization of the military and the 1930s debates.
The author is also a very interesting person. He is Lieutenant General Sir David William Fraser (1920-2012); he is the son of Brigadier General, William Fraser (1890-1964). General William Fraser was the military attaché in Paris, France 1938 to 1939 when WWII started. General David Fraser joined his father’s regiment, The Grenadier Guards in 1940, and served in the armored division in WWII. David Fraser served as Vice Chief of the General Staff in 1972-1974. His military nickname was “Razor Fraser”. With his background, Fraser was the ideal person to write the biography of Alanbrooke.
If you are interested in WWI and WWII history this is an ideal book for you to read. I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. James Adams was the narrator of the book.
February 21, 2014
Considering the excellent sources available, the qualifications of the author and especially the immensely interesting subject this book does not realize its full potential.
It is noteworthy that the most interesting chapters are the ones not covered by the Alanbrooke wartime diaries. Instead of faithfully and narrow repeating the story as a related in the diaries, why not expand the story and provide the perspectives of colleagues and adversaries, tell about ' a day in the life of a CIGS', address the more mundane and crucial matters on his desk etc.?
All said an only partly satisfactory account.
It is noteworthy that the most interesting chapters are the ones not covered by the Alanbrooke wartime diaries. Instead of faithfully and narrow repeating the story as a related in the diaries, why not expand the story and provide the perspectives of colleagues and adversaries, tell about ' a day in the life of a CIGS', address the more mundane and crucial matters on his desk etc.?
All said an only partly satisfactory account.
December 11, 2016
Alan Brooke was the chief of the imperial general staff (CIGS) through most of the 2nd world war - so his perspective on it is interesting, not least because he kept a daily diary of his experiences and interactions with Churchill. But, I found this book a little dull and wasn't able to get through it. The thing is that the great historian Arthur Bryant wrote a two volume account of Brooke's war: The Turn Of The Tide & Triumph In The West. Those volumes make extensive use of Brooke's diary and are fascinating. Anyway can't say a lot more about Fraser's effort, since it didn't make much of an impression.
May 15, 2016
Superb biography about a very great man. Extensive and detailed; may be a bit much for someone unfamiliar with the history of World War II
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews