Skip to main content

A Hero Still


My first job as a librarian was in the city of Uniontown, the birthplace of George C. Marshall. Reminders of the general's presence were everywhere, from the plaza dedicated to his memory to the portraits that rested in the library, including one hanging directly across from my desk. Two full shelves were dedicated to various biographies of Marshall, all of them laudatory, including one whose very title declared Marshall "A Hero for Our Time." It was then with great interest that I came across a new biography by historians Debi and Irwin Unger, which promised to paint a more balanced picture of the general's life and achievements.

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

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...