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...

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...

"Unanswerable Questions" for Evolution Part One

Creation Ministries International has launched a new initiative, which seems a lot like all the other creationists blitzkriegs before it. With the wonderfully creative tagline of "Question Evolution", CMI intends to challenge "evolutionists" and their "indoctrination" of high school students with the supposed dogma of evolution. They also aim to  cut the population of atheists by half , presumably by challenging the "faith" that every atheist (and only atheists, no "real Christians") is supposed to hold in Darwin's great idea. The main thrust of this is a tract with fifteen "unanswerable" questions for evolutionists. I'm done putting quotation marks around the word, evolutionists; from here on out I ask my readers to recognize that it is a creationist term that is about as silly as calling someone a general relativist (accepts general relativity) or germist (for accepting germ theory). Regardless, CMI seems just as i...