Eisenhower's Armies Book Report

The book Eisenhower’s Armies focuses on the interactions between the British and American armies during World War II. Its purpose is to show the incredible amount of tension that existed between the two armies and that despite this threatening to tear the alliance apart on several occasions they were able to maintain a working relationship and win the war. However, the book isn’t just about World War II, it contains a history of relations between the two armies beginning with the French and Indian War and ends with World War II. It also explains how the members of the two armies viewed each other and what they learned from each other. While the book is interesting to read and is very informative it contains several historical errors.

The book

In the years after World War II started, but before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor there was tension over how Britain should pay for the goods it was receiving from the United States. At first Britain paid for them, however, there was increasing pressure to allow them to buy on credit. When the “USS Louisville [went] to Cape Town to pick up the gold” to pay for the goods it increased tension. (page 115) Many in Britain saw the Americans as “high-handed and grasping, while the Americans saw the millions of dollars in gold as proof that Britain wasn’t on the verge of bankruptcy as the British claimed.” The problem with this argument is that while this issue created tension it didn’t threaten to break them. As much as the British hated the depletion of their gold reserves they needed American help too much to be stingy. While many Americans questioned why they should help Britain there were very few who wanted Germany to

Patton and Montgomery’s race to capture Messana did more harm than good. The news that the British Eighth Army was credited with having “saved [the American troops] at Salerno” caused outrage among the American troops that were supposedly rescued. (pg 278) In addition, he mentions several instances where the two allies blamed each other when things didn’t go according to plan. Niall points out that after the allied landing at Anzio stalled, Churchill “placed the blame on his allies” the Americans. (Page 294) While it is important to acknowledge that there was a great deal of tension over the way the war was being fought, the problem is that this argument ignores the fact that generals compete even in wars fought without allies. There are numerous examples of generals in the US Civil War who complained of not getting enough credit or stating that they had the situation under control and didn’t need any help. There would have been competition between generals in World War II even if they had come from the same country. The fact that they did come from different countries only made the competition more of a problem as it could cause political