Marshall and his generals : U.S. Army commanders in World War II
(Book)

It is well known that one of George C. Marshall's greatest contributions to the American army in WWII was his outstanding ability as a picker of leaders (Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton are household words). This arose from his long service, during which time he had been exposed to every sort and condition of officer, his evaluation of officers' performance in the army-school situation (in which he played an influential part), and, finally, what can only be called emotional intelligence extraordinary insight into what made officers tick (or, in some cases, stop). Marshall was not infallible, and the labyrinthine Pentagon bureaucracy left no stone unturned to enforce Murphy's Law. But an extraordinarily high percentage survived faults of ethic and temperament to do valuable work when they were turned loose on the enemy which is where generals do their business, after all. For serious followers of military history.--Green, Roland Copyright 2010 Booklist

History professor Taaffe (Commanding Lincoln's Navy) documents the experience of George C. Marshall, chief of staff of the U.S. Army during World War II, as he chose the army's fighting leadership. Taaffe discusses the qualities Marshall looked for, as well as the compromises needed to weld an international fighting force in which British troops played a significant role. The 10.4 million men who served in the U.S. Army during WWII were organized into eight field armies and 20 corps, and Taaffe studies the 38 men who commanded them. He highlights the way Eisenhower and MacArthur differed in outlook and method as they commanded their respective European and South Western Pacific theaters. Alternating between these regions, Taaffe shows how Marshall and Eisenhower cooperated to pursue leadership staffing for their shared objectives, as well as the more turf-based approach adopted by MacArthur, who tried to maintain a leadership promotion process as a patronage type system, within his own command. Despite their differences, the common service background, education, and training which united Marshall's leaders helped address rivalries between armies-and allies-as they pursued victory. (Oct.) © Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.

It is well known that one of George C. Marshall's greatest contributions to the American army in WWII was his outstanding ability as a picker of leaders (Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton are household words). This arose from his long service, during which time he had been exposed to every sort and condition of officer, his evaluation of officers' performance in the army-school situation (in which he played an influential part), and, finally, what can only be called "emotional intelligence"—extraordinary insight into what made officers tick (or, in some cases, stop). Marshall was not infallible, and the labyrinthine Pentagon bureaucracy left no stone unturned to enforce Murphy's Law. But an extraordinarily high percentage survived faults of ethic and temperament to do valuable work when they were turned loose on the enemy—which is where generals do their business, after all. For serious followers of military history. Copyright 2011 Booklist Reviews.

History professor Taaffe (Commanding Lincoln's Navy) documents the experience of George C. Marshall, chief of staff of the U.S. Army during World War II, as he chose the army's fighting leadership. Taaffe discusses the qualities Marshall looked for, as well as the compromises needed to weld an international fighting force in which British troops played a significant role. The 10.4 million men who served in the U.S. Army during WWII were organized into eight field armies and 20 corps, and Taaffe studies the 38 men who commanded them. He highlights the way Eisenhower and MacArthur differed in outlook and method as they commanded their respective European and South Western Pacific theaters. Alternating between these regions, Taaffe shows how Marshall and Eisenhower cooperated to pursue leadership staffing for their shared objectives, as well as the more turf-based approach adopted by MacArthur, who tried to maintain a leadership promotion process as a patronage type system, within his own command. Despite their differences, the common service background, education, and training which united Marshall's leaders helped address rivalries between armies—and allies—as they pursued victory. (Oct.)