What do you think?
Rate this book
American Warlords: How Roosevelt's High Command Led America to Victory in World War II
American Warlords is the story of the greatest “team of rivals” since the days of Lincoln.
In a lifetime shaped by politics, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proved himself a master manipulator of Congress, the press, and the public. But when war in Europe and Asia threatened America’s shores, FDR found himself in a world turned upside down, where his friends became his foes, his enemies his allies. To help wage democracy’s first “total war,” he turned to one of history’s most remarkable triumvirates.
Henry Stimson, an old-money Republican from Long Island, rallied to FDR’s banner to lead the Army as Secretary of War, and championed innovative weapons that shape our world today. General George C. Marshall argued with Roosevelt over grand strategy, but he built the world’s greatest war machine and willingly sacrificed his dream of leading the invasion of Europe that made his protégé, Dwight Eisenhower, a legend. Admiral Ernest J. King, a hard-drinking, irascible fighter who “destroyed” Pearl Harbor in a prewar naval exercise, understood how to fight Japan, but he also battled the Army, the Air Force, Douglas MacArthur, and his British allies as they moved armies and fleets across the globe.
These commanders threw off sparks whenever they Generals against politicians, Army versus Navy. But those sparks lit the fire of victory. During four years of bitter warfare, FDR’s lieutenants learned to set aside deep personal, political, and professional differences and pull a nation through the twentieth century's darkest days.
Encircling Roosevelt’s warlords—and sometimes bitterly at odds with them—was a colorful cast of the Second World War’s Winston Churchill, MacArthur, Josef Stalin, Eisenhower, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Charles de Gaulle. These and other larger-than-life figures enrich a sweeping story of an era brimming with steel, fire, and blood.
Drawing upon a wealth of primary sources, American Warlords goes behind closed doors to give readers an intimate, often surprising view of titans who led America from isolation to the summit of global power. Written in a robust, engaging style, author Jonathan W. Jordan offers a vivid portrait of four extraordinary Americans in the eye of war’s hurricane.
In a lifetime shaped by politics, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proved himself a master manipulator of Congress, the press, and the public. But when war in Europe and Asia threatened America’s shores, FDR found himself in a world turned upside down, where his friends became his foes, his enemies his allies. To help wage democracy’s first “total war,” he turned to one of history’s most remarkable triumvirates.
Henry Stimson, an old-money Republican from Long Island, rallied to FDR’s banner to lead the Army as Secretary of War, and championed innovative weapons that shape our world today. General George C. Marshall argued with Roosevelt over grand strategy, but he built the world’s greatest war machine and willingly sacrificed his dream of leading the invasion of Europe that made his protégé, Dwight Eisenhower, a legend. Admiral Ernest J. King, a hard-drinking, irascible fighter who “destroyed” Pearl Harbor in a prewar naval exercise, understood how to fight Japan, but he also battled the Army, the Air Force, Douglas MacArthur, and his British allies as they moved armies and fleets across the globe.
These commanders threw off sparks whenever they Generals against politicians, Army versus Navy. But those sparks lit the fire of victory. During four years of bitter warfare, FDR’s lieutenants learned to set aside deep personal, political, and professional differences and pull a nation through the twentieth century's darkest days.
Encircling Roosevelt’s warlords—and sometimes bitterly at odds with them—was a colorful cast of the Second World War’s Winston Churchill, MacArthur, Josef Stalin, Eisenhower, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Charles de Gaulle. These and other larger-than-life figures enrich a sweeping story of an era brimming with steel, fire, and blood.
Drawing upon a wealth of primary sources, American Warlords goes behind closed doors to give readers an intimate, often surprising view of titans who led America from isolation to the summit of global power. Written in a robust, engaging style, author Jonathan W. Jordan offers a vivid portrait of four extraordinary Americans in the eye of war’s hurricane.
614 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 5, 2015
151 people are currently reading
817 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 48 reviews
December 17, 2022
American Warlords by Jonathan Jordan examines four personalities and how they interacted during World War II. These personalities are President Franklin Roosevelt, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, and the military leaders of the Army and Navy, George Marshall and Ernest King. Despite differences within this team and conflicts with their British Allies Jordan explains how the war was brought to a successful conclusion.
This was a well-researched history with plenty of anecdotes and diary entries of these men plus of other actors in this war drama. We especially read plenty from the British about the problems they had with the Americans. Much of the book plows familiar ground from other World War II books that I have read, but what was new to me was the very interesting personality of Ernest King and the admirable qualities of Henry Stimson. I admire the work put in by author Jordan in this comprehensive history of American participation in World War II.
This was a well-researched history with plenty of anecdotes and diary entries of these men plus of other actors in this war drama. We especially read plenty from the British about the problems they had with the Americans. Much of the book plows familiar ground from other World War II books that I have read, but what was new to me was the very interesting personality of Ernest King and the admirable qualities of Henry Stimson. I admire the work put in by author Jordan in this comprehensive history of American participation in World War II.
March 11, 2017
In this look at the four men who led the US war effort in World War II, Mr. Jordon has produced an excellent look at the personalities and events that drove that effort. Starting in 1939 as George Marshall took over as Chief of Staff (CoS) of the Army, the author introduces the other men who ran the war. They include Henry Stimson as the Secretary of War, Ernest King, who became the Commander of Navy and Chief of Naval Operation, and finally the man who directed in all – Franklin Roosevelt.
In discussing the personalities of the 4 men, the author illustrates their differences. King was to put it mildly is irascible and difficult for anyone to get along with. When Frank Knox becomes Secretary of the Navy, King basically throws him out of his office and tells him to stay out his way and he’ll run the Navy. Marshall on the other hand was a consensus builder and a team player. He worked well with others and was totally apolitical. That is not to say he wouldn’t stand up for what he believed in. He had epic battles with both King and the British Imperial General Staff along with Churchill about strategic vision, esp in the Mediterranean, which he saw as a sideshow.
In writing about the difference in the US and British strategic vision in the Mediterranean, the author illustrates the frustration of both the Americans and the British had with each other. The Americans had a one track mind - the invasion of Northern France. Britain on-the-other-hand, kept pushing for operations in the Eastern Med. To say the war time image of a partnership in complete agreement on goals and methods was an exaggeration is an major understatement. The author uses the British Chief of the Imperial General Staff’s, Lord Allenbrookes, diaries to show just how heated and frustrated the both sides were in some of major conferences held during the war.
While on the face of it, Adm King accepted the President’s Europe First policy, he was always looking to increase the US effort in the Pacific and Navy influence on strategic decisions. This led to serious disagreements with Marshall. It got so bad that Marshall went to see King and said basically, “We’ve got to find a way to work together.” While they really never saw eye to eye on what needed to be done, Marshall did impress King with his attempts to work with the Navy and the cooperation between the services did get better.
The author also explores FDR’s Machiavellian leadership style. He had a gift in making people think he agreed with them, without actually saying so. While he did set strategic goals – ie the Europe first policy, he did not as a rule interfere with the planning and carrying out of those policies. He did set time table however. One notable example of this is the US invasion of North Africa in November of 1942. FDR felt that he had to get troops fighting the Germans to keep the US population behind the Europe First policy, preferably before the midterm elections. In stating this need he overrode Marshall who was pushing of a cross channel invasion of France. While FDR did get US troops in action, he didn’t push Marshall to advance the timetable for the invasion to before the election.
The author also does a good job of looking at how Marshall was able to monumental egos to work together. This is illustrated with his handling of MacArthur in the Pacific. Marshall’s handling of Thomas Dewey in the 1944 election also illustrates his ability to get people to see his point.
All in all this is a very well researched and written look at the personalities that determined what, where an how the US was going to fight the Second World War. This is definitely a 4+ star read.
In discussing the personalities of the 4 men, the author illustrates their differences. King was to put it mildly is irascible and difficult for anyone to get along with. When Frank Knox becomes Secretary of the Navy, King basically throws him out of his office and tells him to stay out his way and he’ll run the Navy. Marshall on the other hand was a consensus builder and a team player. He worked well with others and was totally apolitical. That is not to say he wouldn’t stand up for what he believed in. He had epic battles with both King and the British Imperial General Staff along with Churchill about strategic vision, esp in the Mediterranean, which he saw as a sideshow.
In writing about the difference in the US and British strategic vision in the Mediterranean, the author illustrates the frustration of both the Americans and the British had with each other. The Americans had a one track mind - the invasion of Northern France. Britain on-the-other-hand, kept pushing for operations in the Eastern Med. To say the war time image of a partnership in complete agreement on goals and methods was an exaggeration is an major understatement. The author uses the British Chief of the Imperial General Staff’s, Lord Allenbrookes, diaries to show just how heated and frustrated the both sides were in some of major conferences held during the war.
While on the face of it, Adm King accepted the President’s Europe First policy, he was always looking to increase the US effort in the Pacific and Navy influence on strategic decisions. This led to serious disagreements with Marshall. It got so bad that Marshall went to see King and said basically, “We’ve got to find a way to work together.” While they really never saw eye to eye on what needed to be done, Marshall did impress King with his attempts to work with the Navy and the cooperation between the services did get better.
The author also explores FDR’s Machiavellian leadership style. He had a gift in making people think he agreed with them, without actually saying so. While he did set strategic goals – ie the Europe first policy, he did not as a rule interfere with the planning and carrying out of those policies. He did set time table however. One notable example of this is the US invasion of North Africa in November of 1942. FDR felt that he had to get troops fighting the Germans to keep the US population behind the Europe First policy, preferably before the midterm elections. In stating this need he overrode Marshall who was pushing of a cross channel invasion of France. While FDR did get US troops in action, he didn’t push Marshall to advance the timetable for the invasion to before the election.
The author also does a good job of looking at how Marshall was able to monumental egos to work together. This is illustrated with his handling of MacArthur in the Pacific. Marshall’s handling of Thomas Dewey in the 1944 election also illustrates his ability to get people to see his point.
All in all this is a very well researched and written look at the personalities that determined what, where an how the US was going to fight the Second World War. This is definitely a 4+ star read.
July 31, 2023
The winding road to victory
Jonathan W. Jordan delves into the inner workings of the Washington DC establishment during World War II. The book highlights the key figures, or "warlords," who surrounded President Franklin D. Roosevelt and played pivotal roles in shaping America's path to victory. Jordan sheds light on the complexities of the era, making the events engaging and accessible to readers. For me, as a non-American reader the explanations of the inner workings of Washington DC were helpfull in gaining a deeper understanding of the dynamics and decision-making processes during that time. Jordan quotes from letters, journals, and diaries, adding a layer of insight into the personalities, motivations, and political maneuverings of the influential figures discussed in the book.
Throughout the narrative, Jordan also examines the differences in policy between FDR and Winston Churchill. For me it was revealing to read how Churchill, unlike Roosevelt, was actively involved in strategic matters, which sometimes caused frustration among both American and British officials. He demonstrates how the "warlords" emerged as capable leaders, able to effectively work with FDR and influence the war's direction. This evolution allowed them to successfully navigate the differences in policy between the American and British leadership which led to a more balanced and collaborative approach between the two allies, with the Americans gaining a stronger voice in decision-making.
This is a story about the "warlords," the small group of men surrounding FDR but for me, the main character was Roosevelt himself. From his oval office desk FDR could pull many levers of power but most of those levers wouldn't change events for months sometimes years. He could replace the men in charge, shift production or approve a new bomber program but those ships and bombers would not appear for many months and it would be even more months before they could be taken into battle by experienced men. As a president, FDR had to fix his sights to frontlines that were 1-3 years distant while the wars effect on the nation would last much longer. The genious in Roosevelt's approach was finding a group of fighters, meddling when he needed to meddle and letting them do their jobs when he didn't. All of them were stubborn and headstrong, and the ability of Roosevelt to navigate through these dangerous waters by persuasing and compromise, building personal relationships and behind-the-scenes negotiations made Roosevelt the righ man for the job. Losses in lives were mounting every day and those who survived would one day return to their daily life expect to be able to live a productive life. This was perhaps the greatest accomplishment of FDR: a new and vibrant America was awakening: fifteen millions Americans had left their homes to work in the war industry, 12 million more had served in the Army, Navy and Air Force, America's GNP had more than doubled and the GI bill had thrown open the doors to the middle class that served America. A world of opportunities and dangers that awaited her.
These men weathered storms of defeat, recremenation, professional bias, personality differences and political division. They came together to defeat two of history's murderous empiresand changed the face of their world. And they did it without suspending the system that has characterized American democracy since the founding of the republic.
"American Warlords" provides a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the strategic leadership during World War II. It highlights how the combined efforts of the "warlords" and their increasing experience contributed to the ultimate Allied victory and the successful direction of the war effort.
Jonathan W. Jordan delves into the inner workings of the Washington DC establishment during World War II. The book highlights the key figures, or "warlords," who surrounded President Franklin D. Roosevelt and played pivotal roles in shaping America's path to victory. Jordan sheds light on the complexities of the era, making the events engaging and accessible to readers. For me, as a non-American reader the explanations of the inner workings of Washington DC were helpfull in gaining a deeper understanding of the dynamics and decision-making processes during that time. Jordan quotes from letters, journals, and diaries, adding a layer of insight into the personalities, motivations, and political maneuverings of the influential figures discussed in the book.
Throughout the narrative, Jordan also examines the differences in policy between FDR and Winston Churchill. For me it was revealing to read how Churchill, unlike Roosevelt, was actively involved in strategic matters, which sometimes caused frustration among both American and British officials. He demonstrates how the "warlords" emerged as capable leaders, able to effectively work with FDR and influence the war's direction. This evolution allowed them to successfully navigate the differences in policy between the American and British leadership which led to a more balanced and collaborative approach between the two allies, with the Americans gaining a stronger voice in decision-making.
This is a story about the "warlords," the small group of men surrounding FDR but for me, the main character was Roosevelt himself. From his oval office desk FDR could pull many levers of power but most of those levers wouldn't change events for months sometimes years. He could replace the men in charge, shift production or approve a new bomber program but those ships and bombers would not appear for many months and it would be even more months before they could be taken into battle by experienced men. As a president, FDR had to fix his sights to frontlines that were 1-3 years distant while the wars effect on the nation would last much longer. The genious in Roosevelt's approach was finding a group of fighters, meddling when he needed to meddle and letting them do their jobs when he didn't. All of them were stubborn and headstrong, and the ability of Roosevelt to navigate through these dangerous waters by persuasing and compromise, building personal relationships and behind-the-scenes negotiations made Roosevelt the righ man for the job. Losses in lives were mounting every day and those who survived would one day return to their daily life expect to be able to live a productive life. This was perhaps the greatest accomplishment of FDR: a new and vibrant America was awakening: fifteen millions Americans had left their homes to work in the war industry, 12 million more had served in the Army, Navy and Air Force, America's GNP had more than doubled and the GI bill had thrown open the doors to the middle class that served America. A world of opportunities and dangers that awaited her.
These men weathered storms of defeat, recremenation, professional bias, personality differences and political division. They came together to defeat two of history's murderous empiresand changed the face of their world. And they did it without suspending the system that has characterized American democracy since the founding of the republic.
"American Warlords" provides a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the strategic leadership during World War II. It highlights how the combined efforts of the "warlords" and their increasing experience contributed to the ultimate Allied victory and the successful direction of the war effort.
November 7, 2017
The title is very misleading. The tone throughout the book paints a picture that essentially says that America won WWII in spite of the high command instead of because of the high command. Mr. Jordan loved highlighting the infighting and incompetencies of the officials rather than showing their resolve and their gambles that they took during the war.
Mr. Jordan seemed to believe the British were better equipped to lead the war and defeat the Axis powers because it seemed that the British had one single thought process rather then the erratic personalities and dominating egos.
Mr. Jordan also wrote the book believing that many of the planers could see into the future and know the outcome of each battle, which also added to the tone of saying that these men were very lucky that their plans worked out. There was a little bit of luck, sure, but to think that these men did not know what they were doing is wrong.
Mr. Jordan also had a lot of hot takes against what FDR did to guide the country through the war, giving him almost no credit and crediting everything to Truman.
Would not recommend this for any teacher or professor who is studying WWII.
Mr. Jordan seemed to believe the British were better equipped to lead the war and defeat the Axis powers because it seemed that the British had one single thought process rather then the erratic personalities and dominating egos.
Mr. Jordan also wrote the book believing that many of the planers could see into the future and know the outcome of each battle, which also added to the tone of saying that these men were very lucky that their plans worked out. There was a little bit of luck, sure, but to think that these men did not know what they were doing is wrong.
Mr. Jordan also had a lot of hot takes against what FDR did to guide the country through the war, giving him almost no credit and crediting everything to Truman.
Would not recommend this for any teacher or professor who is studying WWII.
July 12, 2015
Detailed and carefully researched, Jordan has an opus magnus here for anyone who wants to study leadership in war. Obviously an admirer of Roosevelt's brilliant - if untraditional and always mercurial - strategy and intuitive understanding of personal issues, Jordan still in a fair and unsparing commentator. You'll admire George Marshall, wonder how Ernest King kept his command of the navy and meet the other men who helped FDR win the war. A good study.
May 16, 2015
A lively account of WWII's key American planners that is interesting and well written. Don't miss this one.
January 24, 2016
A superbly researched and written book. Many history book are dry and are not captivating to non-history buffs. This is a book anyone can read. It has a lot of interesting insights and shows FDR, while a brilliant politician, to be a disorganized buffoon sometimes. I always admired Gen Marshall and Adm King. This books gives me many more reasons to do so. If you are interested in WW2 or in how the US became a superpower this is a great read. It also shows the genesis of how the modern US military Command and control structure comes into being- from the Pentagon to the creation of bodies like the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A great book and one I can't help but recommend to anyone thinking of reading it.
June 3, 2017
What an incredible book on military history and history of military leadership. This work is a look at the important men during World War Two that played a pivotal role in Franklin Roosevelt’s War Department towards winning World War Two. This is a book that is a gold mine of information, a well-researched that surprisingly is also very readable for general readers.
Given how big the scale of the US military was in World War Two obviously not everyone’s contribution towards the war effort would be discussed in this book. The characters that the author Jonathan Jordan focuses a lot about include Roosevelt’s Secretary of War Stimson, Chief of Staff of the United States Army General George Marshall, and Admiral Ernest King who fulfilled the two role of Commander in Chief, United States Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations. Of course in talking about these important men we also see their relations to others such as the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Navy, the Generals and Admirals under these men such as General Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley and MacArthur. It isn’t just only the relations with the department of war the book describes; equally as intriguing is the relations the Presidents of the United States and the military had with their counterparts in allying countries notably Great Britain. Since some of these figures were overseeing the entire war effort the ability of the author to write about both theatre of conflicts is nothing short of amazing since writing about one theatre of operation is quite a vast area to write about already. But I appreciated that Jordan discussed about both theatre since we sometimes can miss the bigger picture that how the war is pursued or how the war is going in one theatre would affect the other. This book gives us a view of the forest and not just the trees or a limited area of the forest so to speak.
What I found most fascinating with this work is just how much politics is involved at the high level of the Department of War during World War Two. The politics masterfully described in the book was multidimensional. The book explores not politics between peer-to-peer such as the relationship between Navy Admiral King and Army General Marshall, or superior to subordinate such as General Marshall with General MacArthur or the politics between civilian leadership and the military such as Admiral King’s uneasy relationship to the Secretary of the Navy, which in some sense I think that is expected; but I love how the book explores politics and uneasy relations between those we don’t often think deeply of or see books focusing on as much such as President Roosevelt interaction and relationship with generals lower on the food chain such as General MacArthur who even entertained other people’s desire for him to run for Presidential office. I also enjoyed the book’s discussion of the various factions in the politics between Great Britain and the United States of how discussion sometimes pit different branch of the military with each other in these meetings, nation military against another nation military and politicians on both sides being opposed by the military from both sides who found themselves in agreement. The combination is endless. Then you throw in some wildcards such as discussions with Russia and to a lesser degree China and the Free French force represented by Charles de Gaulle you see just how complicated thing were and that’s not even the full picture.
If there’s one thing I learned through this book is that leadership is not easy. Sometimes good leaders disagree and argue very sincerely and passionately about strategies. You don’t always get things your way even if you are an important and famous figure. Yet people had to work together. I thought General Marshall’s relationship to General Eisenhower in Europe served as a great foil with Marshall’s relationship to General MacArthur in the Pacific. The former was a great working relationship while the latter can be a headache for higher ups back home. Still no matter how difficult some of the “warlords” were I appreciated very much nearly all of the figures in the book. What an incredible time that was; and yet that
With a book this book and with so much well-researched facts and anecdotes one cannot possibly share everything in a brief book review. I found it intriguing the spectrum of personalities among the leadership. For instance on the one hand you have George Marshall who is quite fair and excellent in managing personnel and keeping the big picture in mind. Yet on the other hand Admiral King with his big personality and temper is the opposite of Marshall. The contrasts is vast, where Marshall was often a team player with Admiral King he’s one who often want to insist on his way even though it wasn’t always for the best for everyone. Marshall is rather disciplined, professional, faithful to his wife and slept early while King was a lady’s man who was not faithful to his wife, a big drinker and talker. I also thought the book’s discussion of the relations with the Army Air Force and the Marines with the other two bigger branches was also interesting. The Army Air Force has to fight to have a place for themselves while the Marine Corps and Army had issues with how to wage Pacific Island Campaigns that eventually led to the decision that the Marines would not command Army units again into combat.
I highly recommend this book.
Given how big the scale of the US military was in World War Two obviously not everyone’s contribution towards the war effort would be discussed in this book. The characters that the author Jonathan Jordan focuses a lot about include Roosevelt’s Secretary of War Stimson, Chief of Staff of the United States Army General George Marshall, and Admiral Ernest King who fulfilled the two role of Commander in Chief, United States Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations. Of course in talking about these important men we also see their relations to others such as the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Navy, the Generals and Admirals under these men such as General Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley and MacArthur. It isn’t just only the relations with the department of war the book describes; equally as intriguing is the relations the Presidents of the United States and the military had with their counterparts in allying countries notably Great Britain. Since some of these figures were overseeing the entire war effort the ability of the author to write about both theatre of conflicts is nothing short of amazing since writing about one theatre of operation is quite a vast area to write about already. But I appreciated that Jordan discussed about both theatre since we sometimes can miss the bigger picture that how the war is pursued or how the war is going in one theatre would affect the other. This book gives us a view of the forest and not just the trees or a limited area of the forest so to speak.
What I found most fascinating with this work is just how much politics is involved at the high level of the Department of War during World War Two. The politics masterfully described in the book was multidimensional. The book explores not politics between peer-to-peer such as the relationship between Navy Admiral King and Army General Marshall, or superior to subordinate such as General Marshall with General MacArthur or the politics between civilian leadership and the military such as Admiral King’s uneasy relationship to the Secretary of the Navy, which in some sense I think that is expected; but I love how the book explores politics and uneasy relations between those we don’t often think deeply of or see books focusing on as much such as President Roosevelt interaction and relationship with generals lower on the food chain such as General MacArthur who even entertained other people’s desire for him to run for Presidential office. I also enjoyed the book’s discussion of the various factions in the politics between Great Britain and the United States of how discussion sometimes pit different branch of the military with each other in these meetings, nation military against another nation military and politicians on both sides being opposed by the military from both sides who found themselves in agreement. The combination is endless. Then you throw in some wildcards such as discussions with Russia and to a lesser degree China and the Free French force represented by Charles de Gaulle you see just how complicated thing were and that’s not even the full picture.
If there’s one thing I learned through this book is that leadership is not easy. Sometimes good leaders disagree and argue very sincerely and passionately about strategies. You don’t always get things your way even if you are an important and famous figure. Yet people had to work together. I thought General Marshall’s relationship to General Eisenhower in Europe served as a great foil with Marshall’s relationship to General MacArthur in the Pacific. The former was a great working relationship while the latter can be a headache for higher ups back home. Still no matter how difficult some of the “warlords” were I appreciated very much nearly all of the figures in the book. What an incredible time that was; and yet that
With a book this book and with so much well-researched facts and anecdotes one cannot possibly share everything in a brief book review. I found it intriguing the spectrum of personalities among the leadership. For instance on the one hand you have George Marshall who is quite fair and excellent in managing personnel and keeping the big picture in mind. Yet on the other hand Admiral King with his big personality and temper is the opposite of Marshall. The contrasts is vast, where Marshall was often a team player with Admiral King he’s one who often want to insist on his way even though it wasn’t always for the best for everyone. Marshall is rather disciplined, professional, faithful to his wife and slept early while King was a lady’s man who was not faithful to his wife, a big drinker and talker. I also thought the book’s discussion of the relations with the Army Air Force and the Marines with the other two bigger branches was also interesting. The Army Air Force has to fight to have a place for themselves while the Marine Corps and Army had issues with how to wage Pacific Island Campaigns that eventually led to the decision that the Marines would not command Army units again into combat.
I highly recommend this book.
April 11, 2021
Politics and more politics
Having read about WW2, but not anywhere that the politics were so well explained. This was information that led to my understanding how decisions were finalized. Personalities and accommodations were well explained.
Having read about WW2, but not anywhere that the politics were so well explained. This was information that led to my understanding how decisions were finalized. Personalities and accommodations were well explained.
July 19, 2023
This is an individual level analysis on the American leadership who led the country through WWII. It’s a serious historical account, but written in a narrative way that is easy to read and understand. Fascinating look into FDR and military leaders. I learned a lot of new things about WWII!
December 10, 2015
"American Warlords" is the story of the US military high command during World War II, from 1940 to 1945. The four main characters are FDR, George Marshall, Ernest King, and Henry Stimson. Various other cabinet members and a few other top generals and admirals have some secondary significance. The book does continue after FDR's death with Truman's presidency through the end of the war.
This is a pretty tightly focused book. It doesn't delve into the details of battles or the biography of second characters that show up frequently. It is about personalities, leadership, teamwork, and decision-making. The main characters wrangle with the press, political opponents, the British and other allies, and their subordinates (including perpetual headaches like McArthur and Patton). The presidential elections of 1940 and 1944 are probably the farthest the book deviates from its focus and even then they are covered within the context of the subject. This book does a good job covering military-related events in 1940-1941 even though the US was technically not at war yet.
I'm don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion on whether the author is breaking any new ground. The book certainly seems well-researched. The main text is 473 pages with a bibliography, endnotes, and index running more than 100 pages.
Jordan is a lawyer, not an academic, and his prose is far from dry. Although a serious subject, this is one of the most genuinely entertaining non-fiction books I have ever read and I found myself chuckling on many occasions while reading this book.
One review I saw for "American Warlords" compared it to Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln and I think this comparison is pretty accurate. However, I think Doris Kearns Goodwin's book is very Lincoln-centric in the second half and I felt Lincoln's cabinet, especially beyond Seward, got skimmed over too much. "American Warlords provides a more balanced view, although Stimson sometimes still feels more like a secondary character. "Rivals" also deals with domestic issues as well as military ones whereas "Warlords" is almost purely military.
I really got a strong sense of FDR and Marshall from this book. I don't know very much about George Marshall, but the author clearly thinks VERY highly of him. FDR comes across as a very interesting and complex person. He was in some ways a great leader and very savvy, but some of his management style seems maddening and he was very much a politician.
I feel like the only real shortcoming of this book is that Harry Truman deserved more coverage. Granted, he was only president for the last few months of the war and had a very different way of doing things than Roosevelt. The subtitle does say "Roosevelt's High Command" so this may be an intentional choice. Maybe the author hopes to write about "Truman's High Command" in a future book?
This is one of the best books I have read this year so it gets my highest recommendation. It also will appeal to a fairly broad audience, whether you have a strong interest in military history or political history, or just an interest in Franklin Roosevelt, or you like books in the style of "Team of Rivals".
This is a pretty tightly focused book. It doesn't delve into the details of battles or the biography of second characters that show up frequently. It is about personalities, leadership, teamwork, and decision-making. The main characters wrangle with the press, political opponents, the British and other allies, and their subordinates (including perpetual headaches like McArthur and Patton). The presidential elections of 1940 and 1944 are probably the farthest the book deviates from its focus and even then they are covered within the context of the subject. This book does a good job covering military-related events in 1940-1941 even though the US was technically not at war yet.
I'm don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion on whether the author is breaking any new ground. The book certainly seems well-researched. The main text is 473 pages with a bibliography, endnotes, and index running more than 100 pages.
Jordan is a lawyer, not an academic, and his prose is far from dry. Although a serious subject, this is one of the most genuinely entertaining non-fiction books I have ever read and I found myself chuckling on many occasions while reading this book.
One review I saw for "American Warlords" compared it to Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln and I think this comparison is pretty accurate. However, I think Doris Kearns Goodwin's book is very Lincoln-centric in the second half and I felt Lincoln's cabinet, especially beyond Seward, got skimmed over too much. "American Warlords provides a more balanced view, although Stimson sometimes still feels more like a secondary character. "Rivals" also deals with domestic issues as well as military ones whereas "Warlords" is almost purely military.
I really got a strong sense of FDR and Marshall from this book. I don't know very much about George Marshall, but the author clearly thinks VERY highly of him. FDR comes across as a very interesting and complex person. He was in some ways a great leader and very savvy, but some of his management style seems maddening and he was very much a politician.
I feel like the only real shortcoming of this book is that Harry Truman deserved more coverage. Granted, he was only president for the last few months of the war and had a very different way of doing things than Roosevelt. The subtitle does say "Roosevelt's High Command" so this may be an intentional choice. Maybe the author hopes to write about "Truman's High Command" in a future book?
This is one of the best books I have read this year so it gets my highest recommendation. It also will appeal to a fairly broad audience, whether you have a strong interest in military history or political history, or just an interest in Franklin Roosevelt, or you like books in the style of "Team of Rivals".
October 29, 2019
American Warlords is an attempt at a World War II version of the classic Team of Rivals, focusing on the work of FDR, Secretary of War Stimson, Army Chief of Staff Marshall, and Chief of Naval Operations King. It's an engaging enough story, but Jordan gets caught in the details and fails to come to a truly important understanding of American strategy.
B-24's under construction at Willow Run
By far the most important person was President Roosevelt. Roosevelt was the consummate politician, a man adept at finding consensus among the most ardent foes. This skill would be sorely tested, balancing the interests of Churchill and Stalin, the American homefront, and his senior commanders. Roosevelt gets a lot of pages, but we don't much insight into his thinking. It's somewhat counter-intuitive that a man allergic to clear lines of command and Clausewitzian concentration would preside over the greatest American victory.
Of the other three men, King is drawn the most clearly. A staunch naval chauvinist, and advocate of offensives against Japan when the stated policy was 'Germany first', he fought for his vision of the war. Some wag (elsewhere, not in this book), said that "Admiral King was the most even-tempered man in high command. He was always furious." Marshall is a self-effacing, trying to reign in Churchillian sideshows, while letting Eisenhower serve as the liberator of Europe. Stimson disappears almost entirely.
The focus on strategy and personalities is reasonable enough, but what I find most interesting about America in World War II was that it fought a New Deal War. America in 1940, as the clouds of war loomed, was at best a second rate power. Even before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt and Marshall turned millions of civilians into soldiers, sailors, and airmen. They set factories churning out weapons, a tide of material warfare that buried the Axis power under tens of thousands of warplanes per year, M1 rifles, carbines, and tanks, dozens of aircraft carriers, and 2710 Liberty ships to bring the war to Europe and Japan. They harnessed science and technology to create advanced wonder weapons, including the B-29, the proximity fuse, the ULTRA codebreaking program, and above all else, the atomic bomb. This transformation of America into the arsenal of democracy was the real battle of the war, and Jordan only discusses it in passing.
B-24's under construction at Willow Run
By far the most important person was President Roosevelt. Roosevelt was the consummate politician, a man adept at finding consensus among the most ardent foes. This skill would be sorely tested, balancing the interests of Churchill and Stalin, the American homefront, and his senior commanders. Roosevelt gets a lot of pages, but we don't much insight into his thinking. It's somewhat counter-intuitive that a man allergic to clear lines of command and Clausewitzian concentration would preside over the greatest American victory.
Of the other three men, King is drawn the most clearly. A staunch naval chauvinist, and advocate of offensives against Japan when the stated policy was 'Germany first', he fought for his vision of the war. Some wag (elsewhere, not in this book), said that "Admiral King was the most even-tempered man in high command. He was always furious." Marshall is a self-effacing, trying to reign in Churchillian sideshows, while letting Eisenhower serve as the liberator of Europe. Stimson disappears almost entirely.
The focus on strategy and personalities is reasonable enough, but what I find most interesting about America in World War II was that it fought a New Deal War. America in 1940, as the clouds of war loomed, was at best a second rate power. Even before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt and Marshall turned millions of civilians into soldiers, sailors, and airmen. They set factories churning out weapons, a tide of material warfare that buried the Axis power under tens of thousands of warplanes per year, M1 rifles, carbines, and tanks, dozens of aircraft carriers, and 2710 Liberty ships to bring the war to Europe and Japan. They harnessed science and technology to create advanced wonder weapons, including the B-29, the proximity fuse, the ULTRA codebreaking program, and above all else, the atomic bomb. This transformation of America into the arsenal of democracy was the real battle of the war, and Jordan only discusses it in passing.
August 29, 2019
There was a time when a liberal Democrat, a conservative Republican, a general who served both parties, and an admiral who served none set aside profound differences and led America through history’s greatest bloodletting.
This is a thorough, well written, story of how America managed to win in WWII, despite all odds, from a prepared vicious enemy bent on world domination through the infighting among politicians and among military men as well. (It is a bit amazing that the West won the war!) (As in every war, men and civilians died needlessly, because of some decision by someone with less than pure motives and/or less than good information/knowledge.)
It was a long read, because I had to pay attention. But it was worth it. It is a valuable portrayal. I've never heard of the author but he did a brilliant job (the back 100 pages are notes and such) and his characterizations are full and clear-eyed. I was particularly interested in his words on Churchill (others have said similar things, making Churchill more human and more difficult than the hero he also was; ex: despite Gallipolli he was again fixated on Italy's boot) and Stalin (who was looking from the start for conquest beyond the enemy). But the story of less-well-known Americans, Stimson, King, Marshall, and a few others, is spell-binding. As is the story of Fat Man and Little Boy.
I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the subject, or possibly as a cautionary tale for our times, whether the Republic can survive today's attacks and lies and venality and basic undemocratic lack of love of country not just from the enemy without but apparently rampant from an enemy within at least one party. (Yes, I'm dismayed by the lack of character and honesty and spine being displayed today. Putin could not ask for more!)
Here's a quote from the Epilogue:
Roosevelt and his warlords [Stimson, General Marshall, Admiral
King] had done something thought impossible in a democracy. Four men fundamentally different in personality, background, and training had weathered storms of defeat, recrimination, professional bias, personality difference, and political division. They came together to defeat two of history’s most murderous empires and changed the face of their world. And they did it without suspending the freewheeling, adversarial, often stupefying system that has characterized American democracy since the founding of the Republic.
This is a thorough, well written, story of how America managed to win in WWII, despite all odds, from a prepared vicious enemy bent on world domination through the infighting among politicians and among military men as well. (It is a bit amazing that the West won the war!) (As in every war, men and civilians died needlessly, because of some decision by someone with less than pure motives and/or less than good information/knowledge.)
It was a long read, because I had to pay attention. But it was worth it. It is a valuable portrayal. I've never heard of the author but he did a brilliant job (the back 100 pages are notes and such) and his characterizations are full and clear-eyed. I was particularly interested in his words on Churchill (others have said similar things, making Churchill more human and more difficult than the hero he also was; ex: despite Gallipolli he was again fixated on Italy's boot) and Stalin (who was looking from the start for conquest beyond the enemy). But the story of less-well-known Americans, Stimson, King, Marshall, and a few others, is spell-binding. As is the story of Fat Man and Little Boy.
I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the subject, or possibly as a cautionary tale for our times, whether the Republic can survive today's attacks and lies and venality and basic undemocratic lack of love of country not just from the enemy without but apparently rampant from an enemy within at least one party. (Yes, I'm dismayed by the lack of character and honesty and spine being displayed today. Putin could not ask for more!)
Here's a quote from the Epilogue:
Roosevelt and his warlords [Stimson, General Marshall, Admiral
King] had done something thought impossible in a democracy. Four men fundamentally different in personality, background, and training had weathered storms of defeat, recrimination, professional bias, personality difference, and political division. They came together to defeat two of history’s most murderous empires and changed the face of their world. And they did it without suspending the freewheeling, adversarial, often stupefying system that has characterized American democracy since the founding of the Republic.
October 29, 2015
Despite America's impressive achievements in contributing to the capitulation of the Axis Powers, it was hardly a smooth and congenial administrative effort within the command structure. There were many internecine rivalries between the services (Army, Navy, Marines) and the leadership. King, MacArthur, Marshall, Eisenhower among many others in the command structure all had turf wars and their own notions about who should dictate strategy and receive the appropriate supplies and manpower. This was particularly pronounced in the decision to emphasize a " Europe First" strategy in vanquishing Hitler before devoting full attention to the Pacific Theater. Needless to say, this rankled the likes of MacArthur, who was ever headline conscious.
As a practical matter, the U.S. was ill-prepared to conduct a two-front war, or indeed, even a one front war. It was up to FDR to referee all the squabbles and his leadership style often left much to be desired on occasion, thus compounding the problems. Complicating matters was the interaction with other allies. Both Churchill and Stalin had their own versions of how the war should be conducted. The most sensitive issue was opening a "second front" in what would ultimately be the D-Day invasion. Before then, the U.S. made concessions to Churchill and mounted the North African campaign, then the conquest of Sicily and Italy proper, or at is was described - attacking the "soft underbelly of Europe." American military leaders, Marshall foremost among them, feared that such a campaign diverted resources and detracted from the main objective which was the cross-channel operation in France. Be that is may, the North African and Italian effort did get launched and has been a source of historical controversy ever since. When Churchill wished to extend it to adventures elsewhere in Eastern Europe, the U.S. refused to yield and eventually returned to the primary D-Day agenda.
Excellent handling of the intricate diplomatic and personality morass, and very good analysis of strategic considerations. Very readable and fluid in the delivery.
As a practical matter, the U.S. was ill-prepared to conduct a two-front war, or indeed, even a one front war. It was up to FDR to referee all the squabbles and his leadership style often left much to be desired on occasion, thus compounding the problems. Complicating matters was the interaction with other allies. Both Churchill and Stalin had their own versions of how the war should be conducted. The most sensitive issue was opening a "second front" in what would ultimately be the D-Day invasion. Before then, the U.S. made concessions to Churchill and mounted the North African campaign, then the conquest of Sicily and Italy proper, or at is was described - attacking the "soft underbelly of Europe." American military leaders, Marshall foremost among them, feared that such a campaign diverted resources and detracted from the main objective which was the cross-channel operation in France. Be that is may, the North African and Italian effort did get launched and has been a source of historical controversy ever since. When Churchill wished to extend it to adventures elsewhere in Eastern Europe, the U.S. refused to yield and eventually returned to the primary D-Day agenda.
Excellent handling of the intricate diplomatic and personality morass, and very good analysis of strategic considerations. Very readable and fluid in the delivery.
October 21, 2017
American Warlords is a popular biography of four key American leaders of World War II: President Roosevelt, Secretary of War Stimson, General George Marshall, and Admiral Ernest King. The book is clearly the product of much research and labor, and the author Jonathan Jordan does a great job making it both factual and accessible to a general reader. It is well written and enjoyable, although I normally prefer a bit more serious tone. Regardless, if you are looking for something that examines World War II, strategic leaders, and strategy that is also a quick and fun read, this is it.
November 19, 2019
Great summary of the inner workings of the US command during WWII, with a sharp focus on FDR, King, Stimson and Marshall, with many others in support. Amazing that these men sometimes fought as hard with each other and the British as they did the Germans. Makes for fascinating reading, and a hope that the interservice rivalries, which clearly interfered with the US's military efficiencies, aren't what they used to be.
January 30, 2016
A very successful melding of the history of WWII and the struggles and challenges that faced these key military leaders and statesmen. I learned much about the wartime decision-making. Much better than this author's previous book on the generals of the European theater.
October 22, 2015
Very interesting and extremely well written. Provided a new perspective on World War II leaders and events.
July 18, 2016
Engrossing portrait of the four preeminent American leaders during WWII: Roosevelt, Stimson, Marshall, and King.
March 23, 2024
I read this book because the author reviewed a biography of George Marshall in the Wall Street Journal last week.
The book focuses on the decision making of the big four in the American military leading up to and including World War II: FDR, George Marshall, Earnest King, and Henry Stimpson.
I was not aware that George Marshall had the inside track to be supreme commander for the invasion of Europe, but he deferred to Eisenhower because Marshall was deemed by FDR to be more important to the War effort, in Washington.
I recently attended a funeral at Arlington national cemetery and attended a service in the chapel at Fort Myers . I was interested to hear that George Marshall lived in the barracks there during World War II, and that Earnest King’s funeral was held in the chapel on base.
The book focuses on the decision making of the big four in the American military leading up to and including World War II: FDR, George Marshall, Earnest King, and Henry Stimpson.
I was not aware that George Marshall had the inside track to be supreme commander for the invasion of Europe, but he deferred to Eisenhower because Marshall was deemed by FDR to be more important to the War effort, in Washington.
I recently attended a funeral at Arlington national cemetery and attended a service in the chapel at Fort Myers . I was interested to hear that George Marshall lived in the barracks there during World War II, and that Earnest King’s funeral was held in the chapel on base.
February 4, 2020
Well written history that looks at the relationships and actions of Secretary of War Stimson, Secretary of the Navy Knox, Secretary of the Navy Forrestal, Admiral Stark, Admiral King and General Marshall with Presidents Roosevelt and Truman in the prosecution of the war against the Axis powers as well as relationships with the UK, USSR and China. Well researched and written. Not too critical of any of the participants, which may or may not be a short-coming in the reader's view.
April 10, 2020
Very interesting book that highlights FDR's Machiavellian approach to leadership of organizing a team of strong leaders that are prone to competitiveness. I have read a lot about WWII but did not realize what a driving force Admiral King was in Washington. Of particular interest in the final plans for the end of the war in the Pacific. Recommend for my planner friends and WWII history buffs.
August 2, 2022
A Great Read
This book very informative as well as interesting. Moreover, it enlightened me to the fact that politics hasn't changed much from then until today. The only obvious error I noticed was the B-17 was the Flying Fortress, not The Liberator.
This book very informative as well as interesting. Moreover, it enlightened me to the fact that politics hasn't changed much from then until today. The only obvious error I noticed was the B-17 was the Flying Fortress, not The Liberator.
August 19, 2017
This was a fun take on World War 2 from the US perspective with an emphasis on personality over dates and numbers. I really enjoyed this book and it is on my read again list.
December 19, 2019
A time of patriots over partisans.
May 17, 2021
Interesting point to view to see WWII behind the scenes of those who determined all the strategic decisions. Well written and documented.
February 5, 2022
A fascinating and rigorous behind the scenes telling of WW2. His portrayal of Roosevelt, Churchill, Marshall and their daily routines was great. I learned a lot while enjoying the story.
October 16, 2022
Excellent story well researched
August 19, 2023
Enjoyed it.
Although all the main characters of this book led an interesting life. I am particularly fascinated by George Marshall and the more I read about Marshall, the more I admire him.
Although all the main characters of this book led an interesting life. I am particularly fascinated by George Marshall and the more I read about Marshall, the more I admire him.
November 20, 2023
Hokey text, hokey narrator, didn't learn much.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews