Buy new:
-28% $15.73
to get FREE delivery Friday, November 15
Ships from: Amazon.com
Sold by: Amazon.com
$15.73 with 28 percent savings
List Price: $21.99
The List Price is the suggested retail price of a new product as provided by a manufacturer, supplier, or seller. Except for books, Amazon will display a List Price if the product was purchased by customers on Amazon or offered by other retailers at or above the List Price in at least the past 90 days. List prices may not necessarily reflect the product's prevailing market price.
Learn more
to get FREE pickup Friday, November 15. Order within 23 hrs 53 mins
Or Non members get FREE pickup Monday, November 18 on orders shipped by Amazon over $35

1.27 mi | ASHBURN 20147

How pickup works
Pick up from nearby pickup location
Step 1: Place Your Order
Select the “Pickup” option on the product page or during checkout.
Step 2: Receive Notification
Once your package is ready for pickup, you'll receive an email and app notification.
Step 3: Pick up
Bring your order ID or pickup code (if applicable) to your chosen pickup location to pick up your package.
Only 15 left in stock (more on the way).
$$15.73 () Includes selected options. Includes initial monthly payment and selected options. Details
Price
Subtotal
$$15.73
Subtotal
Initial payment breakdown
Shipping cost, delivery date, and order total (including tax) shown at checkout.
Sold by
Amazon.com
Sold by
Amazon.com
Returns
Returnable until Jan 31, 2025
Returnable until Jan 31, 2025
For the 2024 holiday season, eligible items purchased between November 1 and December 31, 2024 can be returned until January 31, 2025.
Returns
Returnable until Jan 31, 2025
For the 2024 holiday season, eligible items purchased between November 1 and December 31, 2024 can be returned until January 31, 2025.
Payment
Secure transaction
Your transaction is secure
We work hard to protect your security and privacy. Our payment security system encrypts your information during transmission. We don’t share your credit card details with third-party sellers, and we don’t sell your information to others. Learn more
Payment
Secure transaction
We work hard to protect your security and privacy. Our payment security system encrypts your information during transmission. We don’t share your credit card details with third-party sellers, and we don’t sell your information to others. Learn more
Kindle app logo image

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

QR code to download the Kindle App

Follow the author

Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.

Masters and Commanders: How Four Titans Won the War in the West, 1941-1945 Paperback – May 4, 2010


{"desktop_buybox_group_1":[{"displayPrice":"$15.73","priceAmount":15.73,"currencySymbol":"$","integerValue":"15","decimalSeparator":".","fractionalValue":"73","symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"8VF5klB3GbwnjYTLeP%2BSCBFhZqUkuQ3vT1kAoMsCFxbZTXFMBpEqL2XPmxfBzAN0xkufeL0M9v4Qm9bTzEfX3xnJY6UIS%2BFAT0yr4aLkg4ZlxhONHsLDnjtXkVyqwrvN%2BhHXt4jWe1k%3D","locale":"en-US","buyingOptionType":"NEW","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":0}, {"displayPrice":"$9.55","priceAmount":9.55,"currencySymbol":"$","integerValue":"9","decimalSeparator":".","fractionalValue":"55","symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"8VF5klB3GbwnjYTLeP%2BSCBFhZqUkuQ3vo4HQrUF2WoZ7iRFyaCG42UbSgH9Jb68A3jNaqRHNY%2B%2BT3%2FmrS88gcRNNPIqzeIAz1xuNkkfyk0ZAtWHFJmyOfuhShYG07DCF2GefSSBjvWtVTWToS2EgNg8C7jmLpu2Z2%2BN77VD3B0BqqysXyLKBSk3kB4O9nCAS","locale":"en-US","buyingOptionType":"USED","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":1}],"desktop_buybox_group_2":[{"displayPrice":"$15.73","priceAmount":15.73,"currencySymbol":"$","integerValue":"15","decimalSeparator":".","fractionalValue":"73","symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"8VF5klB3GbwnjYTLeP%2BSCBFhZqUkuQ3vT1kAoMsCFxbZTXFMBpEqL2XPmxfBzAN0xkufeL0M9v4Qm9bTzEfX3xnJY6UIS%2BFAT0yr4aLkg4ZlxhONHsLDnjtXkVyqwrvN%2BhHXt4jWe1k%3D","locale":"en-US","buyingOptionType":"PICKUP","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":2}]}

Purchase options and add-ons

“Masterly. . . . Roberts’s portrait of the relationship between the four men who made Allied strategy through the war years is a triumph of vivid description, telling anecdotes, and informed analysis." —Max Hastings, The New York Review of Books

An epic joint biography, Masters and Commanders explores the degree to which the course of the Second World War turned on the relationships and temperaments of four of the strongest personalities of the twentieth century: political masters Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt and the commanders of their armed forces, General Sir Alan Brooke and General George C. Marshall.

Each was exceptionally tough-willed and strong-minded, and each was certain that only he knew best how to win the war. Andrew Roberts, "Britain's finest contemporary military historian" (The Economist), traces the mutual suspicion and admiration, the rebuffs and the charm, the often-explosive disagreements and wary reconciliations, and he helps us to appreciate the motives and imperatives of these key leaders as they worked tirelessly in the monumental struggle to destroy Nazism.

Books with Buzz
Discover the latest buzz-worthy books, from mysteries and romance to humor and nonfiction. Explore more

Frequently bought together

This item: Masters and Commanders: How Four Titans Won the War in the West, 1941-1945
$15.73
Get it as soon as Monday, Nov 18
Only 15 left in stock (more on the way).
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
+
$17.99
Get it as soon as Monday, Nov 18
In Stock
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
+
$11.74
Get it as soon as Monday, Nov 18
In Stock
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
Total price: $00
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Details
Added to Cart
Some of these items ship sooner than the others.
Choose items to buy together.

Editorial Reviews

Review

“With his usual brisk and vivid prose. . . . Mr. Roberts captures not only the personalities of World War II’s masters and commanders but the dynamics of their relations.” — The Wall Street Journal

“Compelling. . . . In Masters and Commanders, British historian Andrew Roberts skillfully dissects the complex, contentious relationships among Brooke, Marshall and the other two key strategists of World War II’s Western Alliance, Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt. . . . As Roberts makes clear throughout the book, hammering out Allied strategy was an untidy, exhausting, sometimes debilitating process, replete with fist-shaking arguments and emotional tantrums.” — Washington Post

“Fascinating. . . . By mining previously unavailable diaries and oral histories . . . this book brings vividly to life the personal interactions and impressions of those involved. Roberts has a keen eye for the telling anecdote.” — Mark Mazower, The Guardian

“Andrew Roberts, a tenacious archival historian and gifted writer, looks behind the façade of the familiar photographs and published accounts to see how these war leaders actually operated.” — Sir Martin Gilbert, The Evening Standard

“This is an important book which, in its layered references to Waterloo, the Crimea and the Somme, sees Mr. Roberts lay claim to the title of Britain’s finest contemporary military historian.” — The Economist

“The strength of Masters and Commanders lies in the power of the narrative and the fascinating detail used to construct it. Roberts has exploited a rich mine of private papers to fill in missing parts of the story.” — Richard Overy, Literary Review

“Roberts’s account of the war and its intrigues is fresh-filled with new revelations and new analysis. . . . It is both high scholarship and superb writing by a masterful analyst of power and war.” — Simon Sebag Montefiore, The Daily Beast

“Masterly. . . . A triumph of vivid description, telling anecdotes, and informed analysis. Roberts’s book reinforces his claim to stand among the foremost British historians of the period.” — Max Hastings, The New York Review of Books

Masters and Commanders is a magnificently researched, superbly written account of how the US and UK’s top civilian and military leaders overcame mutual suspicions and conflicting priorities to win the war in Europe.” — The New York Post

From the Back Cover

An epic joint biography, Masters and Commanders explores the degree to which the course of the Second World War turned on the relationships and temperaments of four of the strongest personalities of the twentieth century: political masters Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt and the commanders of their armed forces, General Sir Alan Brooke and General George C. Marshall. Each was exceptionally tough-willed and strong-minded, and each was certain that only he knew best how to win the war. Andrew Roberts, "Britain's finest contemporary military historian" (The Economist), traces the mutual suspicion and admiration, the rebuffs and the charm, the often-explosive disagreements and wary reconciliations, and he helps us to appreciate the motives and imperatives of these key leaders as they worked tirelessly in the monumental struggle to destroy Nazism.

Product details

  • Publisher ‏ : ‎ Harper Perennial; 1st edition (May 4, 2010)
  • Language ‏ : ‎ English
  • Paperback ‏ : ‎ 736 pages
  • ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0061228583
  • ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0061228582
  • Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1.64 pounds
  • Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 6 x 1.47 x 9 inches
  • Customer Reviews:

About the author

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Andrew Roberts
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read book recommendations and more.

Customer reviews

4.5 out of 5 stars
410 global ratings

Customers say

Customers find the writing quality well-written, entertaining, and informative. They also find the insights interesting and different from other WWII books. Readers describe the characters as complex and a good job of describing them. Opinions differ on the narrative quality, with some finding it magnificent and good, while others say it's unbalanced and poor.

AI-generated from the text of customer reviews

23 customers mention "Writing quality"18 positive5 negative

Customers find the writing quality of the book well-written, entertaining, and detailed. They say the author is clearly knowledgeable and the book is a coherent and moving read.

"Very thoroughly researched and entertainingly written, Andrew Roberts presents a detailed look into how the two Western democracies formulated the..." Read more

"...Roberts is British and while his sympathies are obvious, his writing is fair and he is unsparingly in pointing out the flaws in his principals and..." Read more

"This is a well-written, extremely well documented and detailed account of the Brit/US strategy and relationship during W.W. II...." Read more

"...Roberts is a fine storyteller and a master of the complex characterization, which serves him well in this story of four of the most significant..." Read more

5 customers mention "Insight"5 positive0 negative

Customers find the book insightful, interesting, and deeply informative. They say it's a fascinating glimpse of coalition strategy-making at the highest level.

"...He was fair-minded, gracious, firm, determined, humane, had an extraordinary grasp of detail, was an excellent administrator and an inspiring leader...." Read more

"...Taken as whole, this is a fascinating glimpse of coalition strategy-making at the highest level...." Read more

"An interesting and deeply informative read, but not an easy one. The Anglo-centric nature of the book confused the American more than once...." Read more

"...Very informative and interesting from a slightly different angle than other WWII books." Read more

4 customers mention "Character development"4 positive0 negative

Customers find the characters complex and well-described. They say the book shows its characters under extreme pressure.

"...officers are not just extremely smart and dedicated, they are complex human beings...." Read more

"...Roberts does a good job of describing the character and traits of his four protagonists, none of them a shrinking violet...." Read more

"...; it has dramatic conflict; it has intrigue; it shows its characters under extreme pressure, sometimes responding with brilliance and nobility and..." Read more

"Good thorough review of the personalities and grand strategy that defeated Hitler. Well written and even handed account. Loved it." Read more

6 customers mention "Narrative quality"4 positive2 negative

Customers have mixed opinions about the narrative quality of the book. Some mention it's magnificent and a good view of this period, while others say it's inherently unbalanced and poor history telling.

"...But, second, the book is a great story - an epoch story!..." Read more

"...as arrogant, obstructionist, hidebound, narrow-mined, petulant, trapped in the past, and at times even defeatist...." Read more

"simple and easy this is a good view of this period ...." Read more

"...written in a way to keep the reader's attention and provide great historical context" Read more

Top reviews from the United States

Reviewed in the United States on August 25, 2015
Very thoroughly researched and entertainingly written, Andrew Roberts presents a detailed look into how the two Western democracies formulated the grand strategy that guided the prosecution of the war. He does not exclude China and the Soviet Union in his narrative but the majority of the book is devoted to Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, George Marshall and Alan Brooke (the Masters and Commanders) with an emphasis on the two Brits. Roberts is British and his point of view for this book is decidedly British. He makes that very clear in the preface to the book. Of the four principles of his story only Brooke maintained a diary during the war but Roberts’ narrative is informed by the diaries and verbatim notes written by those present during the meetings and conferences they attended. Even though Admiral Leahy, General Arnold, General Eisenhower and War Secretary Stimson maintained diaries the reader will learn much more about the British side of things. Other persons intimately connected with directing the war effort also contribute to the story. I was very excited to get a British point of view as my experience has been primarily with American authors and the American side of things.

As with many authors the emphasis is on the war with Germany. Some space is made for issues around keeping China supplied, liberating British Asian colonies, the role the Royal Navy will play in the Pacific after the defeat of Germany and the amount of war effort that will be devoted to the Pacific war, the majority of the book is devoted to American and British cooperation in defeating Germany and the arguments about how best to do that. As the last line of the introduction makes clear: “This then is the story of how the four Masters and Commanders of the Western Allies fought each other over how best to fight Adolf Hitler.”

And there was a lot of fighting and arguing. The early years of America’s involvement in the war saw nothing but squabbles, some very heated, over where America’s newly forming army would engage the Wehrmacht. It is well known that in first months of America’s involvement in the war General Marshall insisted on Europe while the British favored N. Africa. It all revolved around the question of how best to engage the German Army so as to provide the most help to the Soviets. The struggle to persuade Marshall to change his mind on invading Europe in 1942 and to convince him that N Africa was the best choice for the US Army’s first engagement with Germany takes up a large part of the opening year of the war and the opening chapters of the book. We all know that Roosevelt was the decider there. Roberts really does a wonderful job investigating and describing the conferences and meetings that decided the strategy for the war with Germany. Using private diaries and notes of War Cabinet meeting that violated strict rules prohibiting such things, Roberts presents a fascinating narrative of how the Masters and Commanders devised the Western Allied strategy that resulted in victory in Europe. I really did enjoy this book, it covers much more than the strategy meetings, conferences, disagreements and the compromises, also covering the creation of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combined Chiefs of Staff and how those bodies functioned. I couldn’t give it less than 5 stars even though I have some gripes with some of the author’s opinions.

I was disappointed that Roberts seems to place so much reliance on the work of Trevor Dupuy, his work has been largely discredited. There is a large body of much more recent work that Roberts could have investigated but it is clear that he is using Dupuy to support his personal feelings and biases.

I largely agree with Roberts’ assessment of the successes and mistakes of the grand strategy hammered out by the Masters and Commanders with the exception of Operation Dragoon. While it is true that the Germans decided not to contest the landing, began an immediate retreat and Dragoon did not draw German Divisions from Normandy, that does not mean it was a failure or a wasted effort. Yes, the French Riviera is a long way from Paris (as Roberts points out) but the Dragoon forces were not headed to Paris. The Allies needed to get two armies into France to extend the front to the Swiss border and the Channel ports and beaches were crowded with supplies, reinforcements and replacements for the 21st and 12th Army Groups. The 6th Army Group moved into France quickly and they were supplied entirely through Marseille and Toulon. Roberts does touch on the difficulty in moving infantry and armor divisions into Europe then ignores the success of the 6th Army Group in doing just that. He gives a very weak criticism of that operation that I interpreted to mean that he just did not like the operation. He indicates that it took resources from Italian operations after he criticizes the effort made in advancing to Rome. It all seemed very wishy-washy.

While Roberts points out certain mistakes in strategy that I largely agree with he completely overlooks Operation Market Garden. That was a disappointment. I would think Winston and Brookie would have had some very interesting comments about the destruction of the British 1st Airborne Division, a waste of manpower the British could not afford. Newly promoted Field Marshal Montgomery’s single thrust to jump the lower Rheine and attack the Ruhr was a massive failure and I have always suspected that is why Eisenhower would no longer entertain any notions of another single thrust into Germany commanded by Monty or anyone else.

My last gripe is prompted by this quote from page 297. “In divisional terms, the US Army had 37 trained divisions at the time of Pearl Harbor, 73 by Operation Torch, 120 by the summer of 1943 and 200 by D-Day.” It is well known that the US Army produced only 90 divisions during the entire war and the 2nd Cavalry Division was deactivated after landing in N Africa in May of 1944. So the US had only 89 divisions to fight the war against Germany and Japan. That’s it! No more. And some did not see combat. All the numbers in that quote are wrong. The paragraph that quote comes from contains only one citation that is associated with the number he gives for the divisions of the British Commonwealth. How is it possible for a man who has spent so much time researching and writing about World War II to not have heard of the “90 division gamble?” Where could he have possibly come up with those numbers? 37 trained divisions by Pearl Harbor – 200 by D-Day! It must have been in his notes without a citation and he just went with it. Roberts does list “Command Decisions” edited by Kent Roberts Greenfield in the bibliography so he really has no excuse. This is especially true since he explains that the US was not prepared to engage a large portion of the Wehrmacht in 1942. In chapter 6 he discusses Marshall’s visit to London in April 1942 and on page 144 he quotes Brooke describing what took place during one of the meetings: “Marshall ‘gave us a long talk on his views concerning the desirability of starting [the] western front next September and [stated] that the USA forces would take part. However the total force which they could transport by then only consisted of 2 ½ divisions!! No very great contribution.’” So only 2 ½ divisions ready to engage Germany in September 1942. Not 37 that were supposedly ready by Pearl Harbor and certainly not the 73 he says were ready by Torch (November 1942). Roberts in fact spends quite a bit of time explaining that the US was very unprepared for major combat in 1942 so how in the world could he have written that nonsense about the number of trained divisions available at different points in the war on page 297? I just can’t let it go. I must remind myself that it has nothing to do with the development of strategy, he was trying to make a point about the phenomenal mobilization of US military and industry.

I would like to end this long review by saying that I do not think my gripes take away from the overall enjoyment of Roberts’ narrative. Even with that last one that still takes up space in my head he has produced a wonderful book examining how the Allies developed their strategy to deal with Hitler that is both incredibly informative and delightfully entertaining. I do not feel that he was biased against Roosevelt or Marshall. Each of the four gets a fair share of criticism and praise as well as many other Allied generals who come into the story. Some of the minor characters in the story do get more criticism than praise but I agreed with Roberts’ characterizations, or the quotes from some of the diaries about them, for the most part. I particularly enjoyed this one: “…Alexander [General Sir Harold Alexander] taking over as supreme commander in the Mediterranean, ‘a post for which he is totally unfitted’ in Cunningham’s [Admiral Sir Andrew Browne Cunningham – ABC] view, because he was ‘completely stupid’” (p. 530)

I would enthusiastically recommend this book to anyone interested in Allied grand strategy in World War II. It is a big story that Andrew Roberts is telling and I think that overall he has done a superlative job.
32 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on January 12, 2011
Masters and Commanders is an excellent, extremely detailed account of the occasionally humorous, often acrimonious, always fascinating interactions between the four principals most responsible to for guiding WWII: Generals Alan Brook (CIGS) and George Marshall (US Army Chief of Staff), and British PM Winston Churchill and US Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Historian Andrew Roberts does a masterful job of telling a very complex tale, relying heavily on the personal diaries on the men directly involved with determining Allied strategy for WWII, not just for Europe but ultimately across the entire conflict. Anyone with an interest in how a small group of extraordinary men arrived at the most momentous decisions yet taken by the human race, literally concerning the life and death for 10s of millions and with consequences affecting every person alive, then and now, will want to read this book.

Roberts is British and while his sympathies are obvious, his writing is fair and he is unsparingly in pointing out the flaws in his principals and their arguments and positions, whether they are British or American. His praise for their good -- often great -- points is likewise fair, genuine and unforced.

So why the "but"?

I think for all its merits, Roberts introduced a structural flaw into his book by virtue of the sources he relies on; the very thing that makes his book unique. Unavoidably, his main protagonist is Gen. Sir Alan Brook -- unavoidable because this is the man with whom Roberts' sympathies most clearly lie and because Brook left a detailed, day-by-day diary of the events narrated. Brook's diary is the thread that holds the narrative together.

Other diarists are also prominently used, but in the main they were members of Brook's staff and reinforce his opinions. (Churchill's doctor is one of the few British voices presented who was not a protégé of Brook's.)

The problem is that Brook's diary casts him in a very unflattering light. He comes across as arrogant, obstructionist, hidebound, narrow-mined, petulant, trapped in the past, and at times even defeatist. He is adamant in his drumbeat that he -- and only he -- has the vaguest notion of what strategy is, both in the abstract and with respect to the war; only his ideas have any value and everyone else is ignorant, foolish, hopelessly incompetent as strategists whatever other virtues they may have, and sometimes even dangerous and mad.

Brook writes this way about everyone from Churchill to Marshall to Roosevelt to the members of the US Joint Chiefs and even to other British officers (though not his personal staff officers). He despairs of the state of the British officer corps, impugns the British fighting man, and is dismissive of Americans.

In fact the only two people who do not raise his ire to near fever pitch are Gen. Douglass Macarthur, the most arrogant and divisive of US generals and -- incredibly -- Stalin; this last despite the fact that Brook was a staunch anti-Bolshevik. This does not inspire confidence in his judgment.

The problem here is that Alan Brook was indeed a great man and excellent general with a impressive strategic grasp (although I cannot say that this book convinced me he was the brilliant strategist he is usually made out to be). He was fair-minded, gracious, firm, determined, humane, had an extraordinary grasp of detail, was an excellent administrator and an inspiring leader. His actions on the battlefield just before and during the Dunkirk evacuation were exemplary. The high degree of admiration he inspired in everyone he worked with, British and American and Russian, was almost universal, even among those -- or especially among those -- with whom he had the most bitter disagreements (which seemed to be almost everyone at some point or another) and yet remained on good terms with. There can be no doubt that Brook's contribution to winning WWII was enormous.

Roberts makes all of this clear and shows Brook's pleasant human side as well, so what is the problem?

The problem is that Brook's diary was his safety valve -- the necessary outlet of a humane man with strong emotions who had been through WWI, the death of his adored young wife in an auto accident that happened while he was driving, and who then, because of his superior abilities, was given the job managing the largest conflict in history. So yes, in his off-hours he got a little cranky.

But this has unfortunate ramifications for the portrayal of Brook. No matter how hard Roberts tries to add balance to the free-flowing invective of Brook's diary, it is quoted at such length in this long book that in the end balance just can't be satisfactorily achieved. We are left wondering which is the real Brook -- the firm and seemingly brilliant leader who is the lynchpin of victory or the small-minded dyspeptic crank who disparages anyone and everyone in his diary? In the end, it seems impossible to say.

The matter is not helped by quoting so extensively from the diaries of those closest to Brook, who often echo not only his conclusions but his emotional views as well. This reinforces the negative view of Brook and seems to suggest that he surrounded himself with people as bitter and flawed as he appears in his entries. Yet, these men too were officers of extraordinary competence and ability and the cattiness, blatantly biased judgments, and intemperate opinions of their private diaries seems never to have manifested itself in pubic or unduly effected their work.

Of course this is probably an unavoidable problem when trying delve into the minds of great men operating under pressures exceeding that anyone else has ever experienced. It is literally mind-boggling. Brook and his officers are not just extremely smart and dedicated, they are complex human beings. We cannot know how much of what they privately wrote was just hyperbole and to what extent it reflected their actually beliefs. Of course, to adequately convey this complexity in a book is a daunting prospect, and Roberts deserves just praise for doing as well as he does.

But there is a larger problem here: Brook is juxtaposed most directly with the two other leaders with whom he worked most closely: Churchill and Marshall.

Churchill is character of Jovian stature -- a vastly large-than-life genius who seemed to eclipse almost everyone and everything around him. Churchill's talents are the stuff of legend, seemingly uncontainable and uncontrollable. Brook found himself chained as it were to this colossus, constantly battling Churchill's wilder flights, boundless ideas, expansive vision for the war (Churchill was himself -- and knew himself be -- no mean strategist) and bombastic temper. Brook considered the hardest part of his extraordinarily hard job to be "keeping Winston on the rails," (something he did very well).

If Churchill comes across as incredibly charming, engaging, infuriating; a titanic intellect with an ego to match, equally capable of the most dismissive cruelty and the most beguiling grace and boundless affection, Gen. George Marshall is something of a different order altogether: the only General Churchill was ever afraid of.

Marshall seems to be the undoubted hero of the piece: the omni-competent, eternally gracious, unshakeable and unflappable leader, seeing farther and deeper and more incisively than anyone else into the prodigious morass that was the problem of WWII. It was Marshall, not just more than anyone else but almost uniquely, who was thinking and planning for the aftermath of WWII while he still fighting it. After the Allied victory, it was Marshall who, as Secretary of State, put his plans into effect and literally remade a shattered world.

Against Brook's private rages is set Marshall's phenomenal strength and calm: perfectly modest, completely selfless, unfailingly gracious, guiding but never bullying, rarely raising his voice and never losing his temper; seemingly unaffected by stress or the incredible rigors of his job, moving through the cataclysmic events of WWII with a natural ease and overriding command that are seemingly Not Of This Earth.

So what's wrong with this picture? Only this: Churchill wrote volumes, all of the highest literary quality, unmatched as a wartime memoir by anything except perhaps Caesar's Commentaries, and (like Caesar's Commentaries) essentially political documents that tell us nothing the author does not wish us to know (and fudging a few things along the way, as Caesar did.)

On the other hand, Marshall wrote nothing at all (he was offered $1 million for his memoirs but turned it down). We have no window into his soul as we do with Brook; we do not know how he dealt with the enormous pressures he was under, by what private means he maintained his Olympian calm and perfect focus.

( As an aside, it also does not help us see Marshall the man that he is so often and unavoidably juxtaposed with Adm. King, CNO USN, who was nominally his equal on the Joint Chiefs, and who was described by his daughter as the "most even tempered man in the Navy -- he is always in a rage". Moreover, set against Marshall's manifest virtues are King's well-known vices: intolerance, liquor, and seducing other men's wives. But King was also brilliant strategist and a fighting admiral with few equals in WWII or any other war. )

Had Marshall kept a dairy, we might see him revealed as being as human and fallible as we see Brook. If Brook had not, we might see him as a man of the same stature as Marshall (as in fact many did at the time). So the narrative is inherently unbalanced. No matter how the author plays up Brook's virtues, which were many, and points out Marshall's shortcomings and mistakes (which are debatable) it never quite convinces and is all too easily forgotten in the dense wealth of details.

Thus, Roberts's sources and his desire to extract and assess the maximum amount of data from them, which he does masterfully, drive his narrative and in the end -- and I think quite inadvertently -- make his protagonist look small; a mere mortal trying desperately to deal with titans.

Perhaps there is something of an old heroic romance in that, but I do not think it was what Roberts intended. Even if he did, these men were peers and while as a group they were peerless, I would have preferred to see them considered more on the same plane.

I also have minor technical quibbles with a couple of the author's assertions, but all the same, Masters & Commanders is a very good book.
45 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on October 26, 2023
This is a well-written, extremely well documented and detailed account of the Brit/US strategy and relationship during W.W. II. The author's dogged research has produced a 'you are there' reading experience. The exposure of Churchill's constant and often hair-brained interference with his knowledgeable generals was revealing. Thankfully, FDR had the good sense to rely on Gen. Marshall, who was the most strategically sound of the group. An important addition to W.W. II literature.
Reviewed in the United States on June 4, 2024
The level of detail in this historical is incredibly impressive...as in all of his work, Andrew Roberts never fails to impress...

Top reviews from other countries

Robert T. Hoeckel
4.0 out of 5 stars Master and Commanders: How Four Titans won the War in the West 1941-1945
Reviewed in Germany on March 17, 2021
Well documented and much detail
Towser 2
5.0 out of 5 stars A simply brilliant insight into the way war works.
Reviewed in France on March 3, 2016
A simply brilliant insight into the way war works at the highest levels. Clear, concise and conclusive, Andrew Roberts tracks the demise of the U.K. as the leading world power and her replacement by the U.S.A. The whole book is superbly well written. Roberts leads the reader effortlessly through each unfolding event and episode of the War, showing how the military enmeshed into the political manoeuvrings of both the British and the Americans. To better understand how WW2 was won you just have to read this book.
Daydreamer
5.0 out of 5 stars Leaders to Victory
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on August 8, 2014
Wars are fought by enlisted men and led by NCOs and Junior Officers. Generals, Chiefs and their Government Masters make the plans that are so essential for Victory. This book takes a good look at the four giant Western WW2 personalities - two American and two British who devised, argued, cajouled, and conferrred with each other - and with others. They devised the strategy that overthrew the Nazi and Faschist Alliance between 1941-1945 and resulted in the overthrow and inconditional surrender of Nazi germany. Natioal Leaders in a Democracy must be seen to always act in the Public Interest. The Military Chiefs being mindful of the lives of the men they Command - as well as the defeat of the enemy. The author shines a light on the personalities of these four strong minded men and their many meetings where they thrashed out the strategy for Victory. There were many disagreements and arguments at conferences - but they somehow remained united in their quest to defeat Nazi Germany as the prelude to defeating Japan in the Pacific. That was the strategy that Winston Churchil and President Roosevelt had agreed they would follow at their meeting soon after the Japanese attack on the US Navy at Pearl Harbour in December 1941. This book is compelling reading and gave me a better understanding of the enormous responsibilities that these four Senior Leaders carried at that precarious time in our world history.
Yet Another Customer
5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent scholar focuses on the Grand Strategic level of war
Reviewed in Canada on November 2, 2009
The author is a noted scholar of British and Anglo-American history, and this volume focuses on the civil-military relationships within the Anglo-American alliance during the transition to American superpower status.

The interaction between high military leaders and democratic political leaders-cum-warlords always has lessons for our own strategic challenges. Striking the balance between civil and military authority has been particularly difficult since 2001, with arguably too much deference to conventional military thinking until leaders like Petraeus were able to make their influence felt within the councils of war. The experiences of Churchill/Alanbrooke and FDR/Marshall accordingly point to lessons that have had to be learned again. Unity of purpose/command, clear objective, economy of force, decisiveness...all these are critical principles of war for both soldiers and politicians.

Will President Milli Vanilli have to (re)learn them the hard way in Afghanistan...?
M. Livre
4.0 out of 5 stars S'adresse à ceux qui connaissent bien la seconde Guerre Mondiale
Reviewed in France on May 31, 2013
Il est intéressant de voir les tractations, tergiversations, accords et tensions entre ceux qui du côté des Alliés ont dirigé la stratégie des combats.
Il faut avoir déjà une bonne connaissance de ce qui s'est passé de 1941 et 1945 pour s'intéresser à ces documents de première main, racontés sur le vif malgré l'interdiction générale de tenir son journal. Beaucoup de points de vues, nouvellement dévoilés, éclairent certains points restés obscures jusque là