The War Between the Generals: Inside the Allied High Command

by David Irving

This is one of the great untold stories of our time - that of the little band of generals entrusted with a historic invading and liberating Nazi-occupied Europe. They were supposed to be fighting the Germans, but some of their fiercest battles were fought against each other. At the center was the Supreme Commander himself, Dwight D. Eisenhower - sincere, indecisive, desperate to hold the Alliance together. Against him was Field-Marshal Bernard Montgomery, who strove ceaselessly to gain authority. Cavilling against them both were the others - the outrageous Patton, the dogged Bradley, the bomber barons like Spaatz, Vandenberg, and Butcher Harris, and Trafford Leigh-Mallory. After the war, there was a cover-up. Not until David Irving began his research did the full truth emerge. Among his unexpected discoveries was the wickedly candid diary of the obscure general who was Eisenhower s eyes and ears . Through this and other private accounts we see the war as the generals lived it - squabbling over perks and preferences, taking their mistresses with them on to the battlefield, and there are revelations about General Patton that will amaze. There are other surprises - General de Gaulle s use of torture upon his fellow Frenchmen is one, and a clear attempt by the Allies to get rid of him is another. This book is a history of command. It shows how the ambitions and personalities of the men at the top affect the course of a war and the lives of the ordinary mortals in the field.

Genres: History, Military History, World War II, Historical, Nonfiction

456 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1981

About the author

David John Cawdell Irving is an English author who has written on the military and political history of World War II, especially Nazi Germany. He was found to be a Holocaust denier in a UK court in 2000 as a result of a failed libel case.

Irving's works include The Destruction of Dresden (1963), Hitler's War (1977), Churchill's War (1987) and Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich (1996). In his works, he argued that Adolf Hitler did not know of the extermination of Jews, or, if he did, he opposed it. Though Irving's negationist claims and views of German war crimes in World War II (and Hitler's responsibility for them) were never taken seriously by mainstream historians, he was once recognised for his knowledge of Nazi Germany and his ability to unearth new historical documents, which he held closely but stated were fully supportive of his conclusions. His 1964 book The Mare's Nest about Germany's V-weapons campaign of 1944-45 was praised for its deep research but criticised for minimising Nazi slave labour programmes.

By the late 1980s, Irving had placed himself outside the mainstream of the study of history, and had begun to turn from "'soft-core' to 'hard-core' Holocaust denial", possibly influenced by the 1988 trial of Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel. That trial, and his reading of the pseudoscientific Leuchter report, led him to openly espouse Holocaust denial, specifically denying that Jews were murdered by gassing at the Auschwitz concentration camp.

Irving's reputation as a historian was further discredited in 2000, when, in the course of an unsuccessful libel case he filed against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, High Court Judge Charles Gray determined in his ruling that Irving willfully misrepresented historical evidence to promote Holocaust denial and whitewash the Nazis, a view shared by many prominent historians. The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite and racist, who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". In addition, the court found that Irving's books had distorted the history of Hitler's role in the Holocaust to depict Hitler in a favourable light.

Reviews

[John Hales · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reads like a novel but with character and punch.

We see the war as the generals really lived it - squabbling over preferences and perks, taking their mistresses with them onto the battlefield. Did de Gaulle really torture fellow Frenchmen? Was there really an attempt by the Allies to kill him?

This book is a social history of command. It shows how the ambitions and personalities of the men at the top affected the course of the war and the lives of the ordinary mortals in the field.

God Help Us All!

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent book on the war between the British and American generals and their respective leaders in WWII. Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, Montgomery, De Gaulle are just some of the characters Irving writes of in his book. Their was much hatred and animosity between the Allies up until the end of the war in Europe in May 1945. I disagree with the Author's love for Bernard Montgomery and agree with much of his analysis of Eisenhower as a political general and not much of a strategist or tactician. Montgomery should have been sacked earlier in the war when his treachery, insubordination and incompetence was brought to light. Despite all of this, Nazi Germany was defeated. This is a very good book and one I highly recommend.

[Daniel Hayes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Particularly revealing on de Gaulle.

[Kent McInnis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enlightening about military commanders and their quest for control.

[Lion]

It started out as an enjoyable read, with almost poetic language.
The Germans had prepared 40,000 hospital beds before the invasion of. They were all filled with bombed French people before the invasion even began. The French military also murdered and tortured its own soldiers. I had hoped for such juicy secrets on the Allies mostly being in-fighting power players, but the book was mostly about various generals' personality quirks, which I did not find fascinating enough to continue. Frankly, I didn't enjoy having the details of these people in my head, because I experience the Allied generals as privileged fat cats who exploited unfair advantages. The interesting people in that war are the underdogs, who fought an uphill battle, which squeezed them into a efficient 'Auftragstaktik' with generals right at the front line. The Allied generals were distant logisticians eating christmas turkey in safety while squandering light paratroopers in defensive battles that they weren't equipped for.

[Gerry · Rating 3 out of 5]

The generals didn’t always get along. They had differing ideas of how to win World War II on Europe’s western front and didn’t mind saying so to their buddies and in their journals. The main stars are Eisenhower, Montgomery, and Patton (always good for a soundbite). Much of this is covered in other books, although this book may be one of the earlier books (1981) to cover the generals’ personal comments. It gives the reader a good look at their personalities and some of the material is a little salacious; another author (sorry, forgot who) termed The War Between the Generals “mean-spirited.” The campaigns are covered in broad-brush strokes with little detail on the battles themselves. Bottom line: the Allied generals won. The book itself is an easy read.

[Iain · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'd argue that this is a seminal work in the critical analysis of WWII and should be read by anyone interested in such analysis.

That said, it's uninformed by the last 35 years of declassification, has no footnotes, and occasionally puts forward rather bizarre contentions (such as the Malmady massacre not happening).

Irving also has significant blind spots. I was disappointed that he failed to analyze Eisenhower's bias against Devers, who's forces reached (and even patrolled across) the Rhine months before any other Allied Army. The US Army's own official history questions Eisenhower's failure to capitalize on Dever's advance.

But then, that history was written more recently than Irving's book.

[JW · Rating 4 out of 5]

A gossipy account of the quarrels and rivalries among the British and American commanders from before D Day to the end of the war. What’s most interesting is how author Irving points out the differences between the published versions of diaries and their original content. The published diaries of Captain Butcher, Eisenhower’s naval aide, were heavily edited. The diaries of Kay Summersby, Eisenhower’s driver, were much more intriguing than the books she did publish. Also amusing is the problem that some diaries, such as those of Eisenhower’s friend Everett Hughes, were almost illegible due to poor penmanship. As usual, Irving was diligent in tracking down and using these original sources. But in the end, will we ever know what Ike’s real relationship with Summersby was?

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

An incredible book of the events happening among the allies. Irving, not liked at all by a lot of ppl(don't really understand why) provides again facts from diaries & unseen documents from the ppl that were there. Why do ppl dislike Irving so much. All he is doing is telling a story of what really happened. The truth. Now some ppl I suppose don't really want to hear the truth. I suppose they don't want their image/perspective/views turned around or they're pissed off bc Irving beat them to the punch. So why not just tell the truth about it all? I suppose some ppl have a lot to hide. The truth is just the truth & Irving writes about the past bases on that evidence.

[Paulo Mendes · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good book. It gave me a sight on the feelings involved in and the difficulties of dealing with so different personalities in a conflict context. It can be drawn from the text some kinds of leadership, for example, the Eisenhower's one. A leadership style based on coordinating actions rather then effectively comanding a battle group in combat. Despite some final reviews on David Irving style and his supposedly lack of impartiality the book is helpful to understand the difficulties in leading a coalition.

[Snail in Danger (Sid) Nicolaides]

Sounds like a cool topic. Except the author is a Holocaust denier. :/