Forgotten to history, Phillips Payson O'Brien makes a relentless case that Admiral William Leahy was the behind-the-scenes power in WWII, instrumental in assisting Franklin Roosevelt as he led America through the war. It is clear that O'Brien has a great deal of admiration for his subject. While not ignoring any personality flaws or prejudices that Leahy had, they definitely were not emphasized. And there is surprisingly little about what Leahy's contemporaries thought of him. But if one is wondering just what O'Brien thinks of Leahy, look no further than the title of this book. To consider him to be more powerful than either Stalin or Churchill seems questionable.
O'Brien moves at a brisk pace through Leahy's early life and career – and continues that pace well into his middle age. Only once he has to retire from the Navy (upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 64) does the narrative slow down. Leahy then turns his focus to Leahy's relationship with FDR. No doubt FDR, who first worked with Leahy during the Woodrow Wilson Administration, trusted and liked Leahy. As WWII deepened, and FDR's health declined, Leahy assumed more and more power. O'Brien even refers to him as an acting president for most of 1944, when FDR became ill and began sleeping more and more.
But for me O'Brien goes way too far with his premise of Leahy being the closest person to FDR, and amassing the most power. It is like O'Brien is out to correct the prevailing narrative that George Marshall, Ernest King, and Harry Hopkins had equal influence with FDR. Did they? Who really knows, other than those men? O'Brien frequently refers to the number of meetings that FDR and Leahy had, both alone and with others, and contrasts that with the number of meetings the others had with FDR during the same time period – repeatedly trying to assert that Leahy met with FDR way more often, and thus was far more influential. It is possible that this is true. FDR did give Leahy a lot of authority and latitude. But FDR was shifty, and from anything that I have ever read about him, he was not fully comfortable with anyone. Plus, he seemed to enjoy watching his advisers, Cabinet officers, and military chiefs play against each other – often with him creating the situations that would pit one against the other.
O'Brien especially seems obsessed with proving that Leahy had more influence than Marshall. He consistently denigrates Marshall's authority and ideas, each time comparing him unfavorably with those of Leahy. He does this with King as well, and to a much lesser extent, Hap Arnold. Marshall is the main comparison though. At one point, he says that Leahy “swatted” Marshall away, as if he were a fly! On page 281, he even makes a chart with the columns “Date/Issue”, “Leahy Position”, “Marshall Position”, and “Roosevelt Choice”. Of course, each row showed FDR siding with Leahy's position. I have a difficult time believing that the influence of these two men was that lopsided. Or have most of the things written about Marshall been incorrect? Was he really second fiddle to Leahy? A man that was not as great as people were led to believe? I have no particular admiration for nor antipathy toward Marshall. I do know that he was a major player in WWII and for the next half-dozen years following the war's conclusion. Perhaps Marshall was lionized too much? I really do not know. But I suspect not, at least not nearly to the extent that O'Brien wants us to believe, and not each and every time at Leahy's expense. O'Brien does not leave this alone either; on the very last page of the book, he is still writing how misleading it is that Marshall overshadows Leahy even today. At times this seemed as much an anti-Marshall book as it was a biography of Leahy.
After FDR's death, Leahy retains his role and most of his influence in Harry Truman's first few years as President. Yet once again, O'Brien attempts to paint Leahy as the one with all of the knowledge and experience, calling Truman a “bush-league politician” (page 331) while he was a Senator. Really? I hardly think so. Slowly, Leahy lost influence the longer Truman remained in office. However, he was still influential and Truman went to him for advice on a regular basis. It is just that Leahy was no longer the main adviser, like he had been at times to FDR.
While I did not care for this book, as you can probably tell from the above, I do appreciate that O'Brien decided to shine a light on a forgotten historical figure. I do think that Leahy was influential: his proximity to power clearly proves that. He attended all of the major wartime “Big Three” conferences as well as several others between FDR and Churchill. If his opinion didn't matter, he wouldn't have been there. And, there has been so much written about many of the major players from that era that a book about someone who did matter but – at least partially thanks to his own personal style of remaining in the background – is no longer remembered except perhaps by historians, is welcome. However, I would have preferred it to have been less about tearing down George Marshall and inflating William Leahy, and more about showcasing Leahy's considerable abilities, as well as examining what his contemporaries thought of him.
Grade: D