Who Won the War? I Did

TRIUMPH IN THE WEST (438 pp.)--Arthur Bryant--Doubleday ($6.95).

One of the best-kept secrets of World War II was spilled by British Historian Arthur Bryant in a book called The Turn of the Tide (TIME, May 20, 1957). Who really devised the strategy that defeated Germany? Bryant's answer: General Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff from 1941 to 1946. How did Historian Bryant know? Because the general --now Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke--had said so in his diary, which is the meat and bones of The Turn of the Tide. As Brooke saw it, the Americans were military chumps and not always well-meaning ones. His boss, Churchill, was a splendid fellow but really just a child when it came to handling a war. In fact "Brookie" had considerably less trouble with Hitler & Co. than with Allied blunderers.

Triumph in the West concludes Author Bryant's rationalization and happy acceptance of Alanbrooke's diaries as the handbook of Allied strategy. Bryant's pattern is the same: Alanbrooke coming up with the answers almost before the problems presented themselves; then low-military-IQ types such as Eisenhower, Marshall, Bradley and Churchill stepping in to upset his foolproof traps for the enemy. Triumph begins in September 1943, ends with a diary entry in June of 1946. The book's thesis is that Alanbrooke tried to draw the Germans out to the very periphery of Fortress Europa so as to take the heat off both the Russians and the coming Allied attack on Normandy. This idea was at the heart of the Italian campaign. But according to Alanbrooke, Ike and Mark Clark never did seem to know what that part of the war was all about. A much better collaborator in the Alanbrooke plan was Hitler himself. By fighting where Brookie wanted him to, he dispersed German strength and made victory possible.

Once the Allies secured the Normandy landings, the Americans again got in the way. Why were they always complaining about cautious, tidy Montgomery when he was really taking the brunt of the battle? (The fact is that many military men, including Germans, feel that Monty could have taken his major objective, Caen, in the first days if he had chosen to move instead of sitting.) After the breakout, Brookie was again peeved. Why didn't Ike let Monty take the bulk of the armies and finish off the Germans in the Ruhr? Instead, Ike insisted on forming up along the Rhineland, fighting wherever he found the enemy in force. The Battle of the Bulge was, of course, the plain result of U.S. military ineptitude, and a very good thing it was that Montgomery was handy to fend off disaster--although how he did it was never made clear. And so it goes to the end.

There is no doubt that Alanbrooke was an able old professional who saw service from Southern Ireland through India to France (in 1914 and 1939) and carried on effectively in one of the most demanding jobs of World War II. There is also no doubt that some smallness in his nature made it impossible for him to give his equals--or his betters--their due.

IKE : "A charming personality and good coordinator. But no real commander . . . Absolutely no strategical outlook."

CHURCHILL: "In all his plans he lives from hand to mouth; he can never grasp a whole plan."

U.S. PLANNERS: "History will never forgive them for bargaining equipment against strategy."

SECRETARY OF WAR STIMSON : "Hardly able to take notice of what is going on round him."

MACARTHUR: "The greatest general and the best strategist that the war produced. He outshone Marshall, Eisenhower and all other American and British generals."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.