While not denying his successes, the authors are quick to point out Marshall's many flaws. While he deserves acclaim for overseeing the military buildup in the war, the training of American soldiers was grotesquely inadequate. Lauded as an exceptional judge of character, the Ungers assert that the real record speaks otherwise. His trust in Eisenhower and Bradley were valid; his faith in Stillwell and the cautious Fredendall were not. They note that he trusted Stalin's good intentions too willingly and for too long. The plan for the recovery of Europe following the war that bears his name was not truly his idea, at least not originally. His cultivated professionalism, his good manners and personality, helped shield him from most criticisms during his lifetime.
Yet while their analysis of Marshall's record, and their grasp of the competing personalities during the Second World War is often insightful, their criticisms of Marshall sometimes seem somewhat unreasonable. Faced with intransigent isolationist sentiment, and a Congress that saw little need for increased military spending, anyone in Marshall's position would have been hard pressed to do better than he had. His personality, his reputation for being non-partisan, were invaluable in securing even the modest increase in military funding that he received before Pearl Harbor. Marshall was hardly the only one who was too willing to think the best of Stalin, America's ally against the Nazis--Franklin Roosevelt too wanted to believe the best of "Uncle Joe." And while he did not come up with the idea for the "Marshall Plan," the Ungers admit that his tireless promotion of the plan across the country and before Congress helped ensure its passage.
The real surprise is not that Marshall was imperfect, it's that we continue to imagine that our heroes must be without flaws. Marshall was human, yes, but he remains a hero still.
A version of this review, modified for radio, appeared on WPSU's "Bookmark" program on March 26, 2015.
Comments
Post a Comment