144 - Alan Brooke: Churchill's Right-Hand Critic

preview_player
Показать описание
Alan Brooke would take over as the British Chief of the Imperial General Staff in December 1941. For the rest of the war Brooke would organise and coordinate the British military effort, in such a role acted as Winston Churchill’s senior military advisor.

Brooke’s relationship with Churchill could be tempestuous. Brooke was not a ‘yes man’ and would stand up to Churchill. The two might argue, but Churchill never fired him and appreciated his candour.

History now often overlooks the contribution Brooke made to the war, in favour of commanders who were happy to seize the limelight. He is very much the forgotten Field Marshal.

Joining me is Andrew Sangster.

Andrew is the author of Alan Brooke: Churchill's Right-Hand Critic: A Reappraisal of Lord Alanbrooke. This is a new appraisal and biography of Brooke.

This episode is brought to you by Tactical Tea, for your supplies use promo code WW2PODCAST

Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

Brooke was a brilliant officer. Unfortunate that he hasn't gotten the popular recognition he deserved.

executivedirector
Автор

"Alan Brooke is the greatest general England has produced since Wellington" - Douglas MacArthur

stracepipe
Автор

This guy knows his World War Two history in depth and with great accuracy. I found myself increasingly impressed and delighted as he continued to speak. Well Done!!

southwerk
Автор

This was delightful! Brookie's my favorite, so it was a real pleasure to hear him appreciated. Off to buy the book now... thanks!

josephcallahan
Автор

It's all about having a winning strategy! And Alan Brooke knew this. A great man!

Dewiart
Автор

You are both right to say Alan Brooke is little known, this podcast is nearly the most l can find about him. Good job!

andrewbaker
Автор

He was an advocate of the use of artillery in the All Arms Battle and was one of the instigators of the creeping barrage in the Advance and the Depth Fire Battle in WW1, basically learning the lessons from 1916 and the Somme, which we saw used with such effect in the Battle of Vimy Ridge! He also worked with the RAF in 1938/9 establishing Anti Aircraft Command and laid the infrastructure which brought success in the Battle of Britain.

anthonybrownhovelt
Автор

this is amazing please keep up the good work :), This is really helping me learn more about possibly the most interesting era of human history

foodie-live
Автор

I actually found about Alan brooke through Niall Ferguson’s book on ww2 where he described Alan brooke as a fascinating character.

Vgallo
Автор

Brooke never had a theatre command like Wavell or Auchinleck ...he stood by Monty as well as Churchill despite their short comings.

kerrylangman
Автор

Montgomery needed an Alan Brooke to reel his ego in

Idahoguy
Автор

" What's your Monty doing now?" Alexander would have suited 8 Army -- Monty with his vaunted untested defence of England : suited Singapore. Alamein lasted longer than it should have ... only after Monty lost control of the battle was the final break through made.

kerrylangman
Автор

Don't forget that the Italy choice was favoured by Churchill and Brooke could see the potential end game of the Western Allies seizure of the Adriatic coast and a push in to Austria.

ukpips
Автор

Read Brooke’s diaries…..fabulous stuff.

mikewinston
Автор

Great book by Arthur Bryant, the turn of the tide, about Brooke and Churchill. Churchill comes off as a bit of a, not sure what to call him…

georgeburns
Автор

Dill was given the singular honour of burial at Arlington by the Americans...

kerrylangman
Автор

i think you are judging montgommery way too harshly based on his social abilities and comparing him to Patton.
It is rather clear to me that Montgommery very likely was on the autism spectrum, of course at the time you did not hand out diagnoses and we will never know, but his acting in social circles perfectly fits. For me it is wrong to judge his abilities as a military commander based on his media handling, it speaks of a very narrow view.
As for Patton versus Monty, it is important to remember that Monty was not in charge of the american army, he was in charge of the british army, on a superficial level they may seem similiar, but there are deep differences when it comes to the homeland, Patton could afford to be risky, he would get new tanks and replacement delivered the next day and the losses would hardly be felt at home; Monty could not. Yes, he would get replacements, but they would be hard felt elsewhere, he could not afford to act like Patton and charge.
Patton is an amazing american commander, but he would be a rather poor british commander.

lek
Автор

excellent presentation but Montgomery wasn't charming or good outside of that a little bit of jingoism. And Neither Clarke, Patton or McArthur ever claimed a victory that belonged to the British like the lark Bernard did with the Battle of the Ardennes - he infact ordered the GIs to fall back and Generals Joe Collins and Earnest Harmon ignored him going on the offensive successfully

*CONVERSATIONS WITH GENERAL J. LAWTON COLLINS, Transcribed By Major Gary Wade* "Monty was a fine defensive fighter up to a certain point. But Monty's basic trouble was that he was a set-piece fighter, in contrast to George S. Patton. This was epitomized in the crossing of the Rhine.Monty was always waiting, waiting until he got everything in line. *He wanted a great deal of artillery, American artillery mostly--American tanks, also. Then, when he got everything all set, he would pounce.But he always waited until he had "tidied up the battlefield"--his expression--which was his excuse for not doing anything. Monty was a good general, I've always said, but never a great one"*

bigwoody
Автор

De Gaulle and, especially, Marshal Tukhachevsky, had conceived of heavily armoured attacks, combined or preceded with massed artillery, air power, concluded with tank - accompanied infantry advances ( mastered by Zhukov in the thrashing that Zhukov dealt out to the laughably arrogant Kwantung Army at Khalkin Gol ). The Germans effectively employed, but did not create, the tactics which became known as ‘ blitzkrieg ‘. With a mostly horse-drawn army, cunningly kept away from the cameras by Goebbels, in lieu of interminable bits of footage of stukas and Hans Guderian.

matthewwhitton
Автор

No. That’s not quite true. Stalin sent Tukhachevsky out of the room of Stavkas meeting, apparently, no less than three times to ‘ think over ‘ his proposal for Bagration . And he returned each and every time as full of conviction of the rightness of the campaign proposal as previously. After having been contradicted by Rokosovsky on more than more occasion, obviously, he came to be the only Red Army commander who was addressed by the ‘ boss ‘ using his given name and patronymic, ‘ Konstantin Konstantinovich ‘.

matthewwhitton