War Diaries, 1939-1945: Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke

by Daniel Todman

Alanbrooke was CIGS - Chief of the Imperial General Staff - for the greater part of the Second World War. He acted as mentor to Montgomery and military adviser to Churchill, with whom he clashed. As chairman of the Chiefs of Staff committee he also led for the British side in the bargaining and the brokering of the Grand Alliance, notably during the great conferences with Roosevelt and Stalin and their retinue at Casablanca,Teheran, Malta and elsewhere. As CIGS Alanbrooke was indispensable to the British and the Allied war effort. The diaries were sanitised by Arthur Bryant for his two books he wrote with Alanbrooke. Unexpurgated, says Danchev, they are explosive. The American generals, in particular, come in for attack. Danchev proposes to centre his edition on the Second World War. Pre and post-war entries are to be reduced to a Prologue and Epilogue). John Keegan says they are the military equivalent of the Colville Diaries (Churchill's private secretary), THE FRINGES OF POWER. These sold 24,000 in hardback at Hodder in 1985.

Genres: History, World War II, Military History, Nonfiction, Biography, Military Fiction, War

763 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1998

About the author

Daniel Todman is professor of modern history at Queen Mary University of London.

Reviews

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the complete war diaries and subsequent comments of Alanbrooke, which were first summarised and published with Arthur Bryant as "Turn of the tide" and "Triumph in the West". This book has removed any additional commentary and summary and serves the diary and comments almost entirely without comment.

The benefit is that one sees the complete set of entries, which from an historical perspective are pure gold, and items that were censored in the 1950's (especially Bletchley Park) are now fully revealed. The downside is that Alanbrooke does not deal with the entire strategic situation daily, only what was on his mind, and this makes the diaries more uneven and sometimes missing context.

The introduction to this book annoyed me immensely, and so I was very pleased to discover that I was not alone in my concerns which are well summarised on the website of the International Churchill Society:

"Another problem with the introductory materials is that they may well make errors at the very moment they boast of straightening out the record. The editors flatly declare Gen. Montgomery and Churchill 'infantile tyrants.' It is not that they acted intemperately at some midnight meeting, or that Alanbrooke considered one or the other ‘puerile’ on some occasion, but that they are 'infantile tyrants.' There is an unqualified editors’ reference to 'Churchill’s moral degradation.' That is not anything Alanbrooke said, but words of the editors about a man whose seven decades in the public eye included fewer questionable moments than many congressmen or parliamentarians have in no time. We are told of Churchill’s 'black dog' but we are not told the words don’t appear in this diary. The editors say Churchill 'scrambled into supremacy' in 1940, a brainless untruth that should not efface the drama of just how Britain’s government did change in those remarkable days of May.

Some of these excesses may be the editors’ real views; some could be the strained interpretation of a chance remark by Alanbrooke. An example of the latter is the editors conclusion that Alanbrooke wished Churchill dead. They write a paragraph, shaping insinuation until it begins to look like an argument, and then spring their odd conclusion. The reader waits, entry after entry, for the diaries to reveal evidence that could have inspired their fantasy. There is none."

The diaries then, are here in a more complete form, but without Bryant's efforts to set the context and reference contemporaneous diary entries from other people of the era, it does not have the depth and compelling nature of "Turn of the Tide". Perhaps this was a necessary thing, and certainly it is useful to the scholar, but the introduction undermines the nature of the work itself, and needs to be purged as it adds virtually nothing of value. The footnotes also seem to strike a curious note, with several references to Bryant's works that seem somewhat petulant.

Incidentally for a far finer (and relatively short) assessment of Alanbrooke, look to this excellent presentation at the Institute of World Politics.

[Bernard Neeson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Alanbrooke was Britain's most important general in WW2. Responsible for the defence of the country against invasion in 1940, he later took over world-wide responsibility, as Chief of the Imperial General Staff.
This is the second major release of the diaries, the earlier version having been heavily expurgated by the editor.
Here we find Alanbrooke's candid views - not intended for publication. We learn that Churchill was drunk on occasion and, as a result, Cabinet meetings had to be abandoned from time-to-time. (Jock Colville in his diaries said Churchill drank a lot, but that he had never seen him drunk - but his diaries WERE intended for publication.) Alanbrooke had a low impression of Eisenhower's intelligence and his generalship, but later developed a high regard for his political ability. On the other hand, he was higly impressed by Stalin! In regard to Churchill's cronies, his opinions varied. He had a clear regard for Brendan Bracken, but detested Beaverbrook. His references to handling the two prima donnas, Mountbatten and Montgomery, are illuminating and amusing.
While written in a very matter-of-fact and rational manner, in retrospect some of the issues that he was passionate about seem dubious. This is particularly the case in his justification of the continued British focus on Italy and the Balkans, when the Americans were crying out for maximum strength for the assault on the Reich through France.
I am intrigued by the fleeting references to Ireland. Alanbrooke was Basil Brooke's uncle (later the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland) but seems remarkably free of the latter's insular, not to say bigoted view of the world. I am still trying to research the issue, but it seems likely that Alanbrooke was one of the generals who regarded Eire's neutrality as being in Britain's strategic interest, and helped restrain Churchill from any precipitate action over the Treaty Ports. It also seems a reasonable guess that he may have been the conduit to Brooke that put the kibosh on Churchill's offer to Eamon de Valera of Irish unification in return for Eire joining the Allies.
Amazingly Alanbrooke fell on quite hard times after he left the Army. So much for a grateful nation! As an aside, I saw and heard him speak once, when he was Chancellor of Queen's University in Belfast, when I was an undergraduate. Sadly I was too young at the time to appreciate his significance. Oh for a Q&A session on what we now know!
This is a fascinating account by a general who was at the very heart of the action throughout the war, both militarily and at the great power conferences that determined the shape of the Europe we know.

[Dj · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was interesting but very difficult to read. The information provided is wonderful and a great help in understanding the process that took place to lead to major decisions during the war. Might have given it five stars if it wasn't like reading a diary from the most unfriendly of my relatives. You know the one that comes to all the reunions and hates everybody and everything and isn't in the least afraid to let all and sundry know it. Reading this book you really get the feeling that Alan Brooke was one miserable individual. He rarely had decent comments to say about anyone and usually, if they disagreed with him on any particular they were 'incompetent or strategically inept'

There is one passage where he talks about Eisenhower's books saying that Brooke came up to him and said thank god you held your ground, I was wrong. Brooke states he doesn't recall the conversation going in that vein. I am sure that would be the case since I can't imagine from reading this book that Field Marshal Alan Brooke ever apologized to anyone in the military for anything.

Lot's of great information in the book, but be aware the author doesn't earn points as a likable individual.

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can't recommend this book enough, if you have an interest in WWII in general and the British role in particular, the wartime diaries of Lord Alanbrooke (23 July 1883 – 17 June 1963) are required but pleasurable reading. Alanbrooke (Alan Francis Brooke, 1st Viscount Alanbrooke, KG, GCB, OM, GCVO, DSO & Bar) was CIGS - Chief of the Imperial General Staff - which placed him in command of British Army and Commonwealth forces for the greater part of the Second World War. He had very critical opinions of many of his British colleagues and most of his American counterparts, whose strategic views he held in contempt, and so the diaries had to be ‘sanitized’ when first published. It should be remembered that Alanbrooke was in command during the darkest defeats of the war, and he had to soldier on. One of Alanbrooke’s many frustrations during the war was watching the growing primacy of American military power. Another was dealing with his boss. You get a very different perspective on Winston as a warlord from his senior soldier. Let's just say that, when getting to know George Marshall, he jealously noted that the American CGS barely met with FDR once a month or every 6 weeks. Brooke felt lucky if 6 hours would pass without a phone call from the PM about one thing or another! Part of the problem was that General Brooke was blessed with an orderly mind, a gift that, with all his talents, Churchill lacked. Amongst the distractions (and Brooke found it difficult to keep Churchill focused strategically), Brooke admired his leadership and had great personal affection for Winston. But working with him was an enormous pain in the ass. As well as being entertainingly acidic, we get see how war was carried out at the highest level. We also get to see some of the private man. Charmingly enough, Alanbrooke was a passionate bird watcher, and the diaries refer to his attempts to photograph and film them.

[Frank · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'd have to say this is one of the better of the published diaries/journals that I've read. It shows what happened in the not so public prosecution of the war. The stress that he had to deal with in his part of the planning and its attendant responsibilities were incredible. The fact that he had to deal with the personality clashes and attitudes and sometimes the outright incompetence that he came in contact with almost certainly added to that stress. He most certainly did not suffer fools gladly if at all. Sometimes he had the highly unpleasant task of telling other British officers that there was no longer a place for them due either to age or that it was decided that they simply were no longer up to the task. There were one or two times he had no problem in telling them this due to their own shortcomings. He wasn't afraid to give anyone a good dressing down when they deserved it.

As far as his dealing with Winston Churchill he could be highly critical of him or shower him with praise.

One thing that surprised me is that he did not have a very high opinion of many of the American commanders, especially Eisenhower!

If you want to know what was involved in the not so public planning and prosecution of WWII from the British side and what the responsibilities of THE senior British military officer were then this is a must read.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alanbrooke is the brains behind the Allied victory in WWII, according to these diaries. He published them in response to Churchill's self-glorification in his history of WWII. They show that Churchill was quite eccentric and almost mad, but then it would take a genius bordering on the brink of madness to have the courage and determination to see the war through. If it was not for Alanbrooke, what may have happened?

The first 50 pages are rather boring, and it is not until he is made CIGS that the history comes alive. The fight with the Americans over Italy and Stalin over the opening of a second front is vividly described, but in the end, Alanbrooke is vindicated as one of the greatest military strategist ever, and the real reason that Britain and the Allies won the war in Europe.

A must for any student of WWII and military history.

[Simon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a candidate for my book of the year

An absolutely riveting day by day account of the man at the middle of the British war effort from 1941 to 1945 . Reading the diaries transports you into the period of history as you become more and more familiar with the politicians and generals coordinating the war . An insight also into our relations with the leading Russian and American figures.

Alanbrooke is a very opinionated diarist but clearly a very well mannered soldier in meetings and dinners. He manages to hold his temper when he must be pushed to the limits of his patience and physical mental endurance .

His regard for Churchill is an exquisite blend of admiration and on a few occasions absolute disdain. His views on many of the leading figures - Eisenhower’s lack of strategic grasp , ditto Marshall , ditto Alexander - caused a rumpus when published .

He seems above all to favour Monty as a general .

There is a great deal one could recount about this collection but I shall limit myself to saying that it is an absolutely fascinating adventure and is unputdownable !

[Robert Webber · Rating 5 out of 5]

I suspect that few walking down Whitehall in London who notice the statue of Sir Alan Brooke realise the pivotal role he played throughout World War 2. First as the General who led II Corp of the British Expeditionary Force which filled the gap left by the Belgian Army thus facilitating the evacuation at Dunkirk. On returning to Britain after a short spell as chief of Southern Command he was appointed to organise home defence against invasion. In December 1941 he was appointed Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Britain’s most senior soldier. He held this office until 1946 and was responsible for devising and managing the allied strategy to defeat Germany and Japan.

These diaries are a day by day account of a man faced with the most fearful responsibilities throughout the duration of the war. They make fascinating reading and at the time of their original publication. Much of this controversy surrounds the criticism of Britain’s wartime leader Winston Churchill. Often recorded as a dangerous amateur strategist given to outlandish schemes. In my opinion the diary should be read from the perspective that each entry was written at the end of the day when emotions ran high and they provided s safety valve for a man with stupendous responsibilities. They also convey to the reader that in war, to borrow Churchill’s phrase, everything is happening at once. The anxieties of D Day coincided with great events unfolding in the Pacific and on the Eastern Front etc.

This is a wonderful opportunity for the historian whether amateur or professional to gain and insight into the conduct of World War 2 at the highest level. Recommended

[JohnR · Rating 5 out of 5]

Always read extracts from this book or seen references to it within other books, so knew the integrity and high regard people felt for him.

After staying in the house of one of his grandsons over the summer - our part of the house had the desk he used after the war to take his verbatim notes into the first published edition - I had to read it cover to cover and it has not disappointed for facts, perspective and insights into the human condition.

It does however cover all the days...... so you see the humdrum side too .....

[R · Rating 4 out of 5]

The diaries of Field Marshal Alan Brooke (later 1st Viscount Alanbrooke) represent one of the most interesting, uncomfortable and controversial accounts of the Second World War. When originally published, they were seen as jealous, scornful and full of sour grapes, but in retrospect give us a fascinating and comparatively unadulterated view of the true nature of the conflict from high command, from one in the thick of it.

The diary gives an account of Brooke’s time in three main roles – as one of the senior commanders in France in the lead-up to Dunkirk, a brief interlude in preparation for Hitler’s invasion of Britain in 1941, and an extended period working as Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS) under Churchill for the remainder of the war. While the latter is perhaps the most extensive and influential part of Brooke’s career, all three are genuinely interesting and worth looking at, both for the narrative they tell and the analysis they present.

Perhaps the most interesting (and controversial) of Brooke’s writing focuses on his relationship with Churchill, Eisenhower and Marshall, all of whom come in for some quite withering analyses in regards to their capabilities and decision-making. Marshall is regarded as good-natured and a strong planner but a poor strategist, Ike as amiable and good at people management while being clueless about ground operations, while Churchill comes in for continual criticism for being petulant, ungrateful, narrow minded, incapable of focus and generally being the bane of the lives of the generals trying to fight the war.

Obviously, there are those who will look at this and think Brooke is unfair in his criticisms, and to his credit, the author does often admit to looking at some of his contemporaries much more harshly than were deserved in hindsight – the diaries served as an effective pressure valve for Brooke to let off steam after work, and to manifest some of his more private feelings of being hard-done-by. That being said, they are corroborated by enough stories to fly in the face in some of the more hagiographical accounts of WW2 leaders, and to present a much more grimy, realistic account of the battles behind the scenes which allowed the allies to succeed in their real ones.

That being said, Brooke’s work is not simply a series of detailed analyses of military tactics and personalities – indeed, there’s comparatively little of the minutiae of war or tactics which may put the more military minded historian off. A lot of his work is dedicated to personalities and people, but you also get a good idea of Brooke the person coming through too, especially his obvious affection for his wife, to whom the diary is addressed, and his two young children, Mr Ti and Pooks. The writing is evocative enough to absolutely feel the fatigue he encounters and how much at times he feels the temptation to throw the entire thing in and retire to the comparative sanctuary of his home, his family and his birds.

There are, of course, a few complaints or things which may not be everyone’s cup of tea. The text itself suffers from the diary format, with several days going by with comparatively little happening and little narrative, and the shifting nature of his focus does mean that there’s not a clear, even or overarching view of his entire experiences – it’s very much a view from his particular wheelhouse. In addition, there are a couple of situations where events which were massively important in hindsight are glossed over in favour of those which more drew his attention at the moment. In terms of the editing, the footnotes are mostly kept to a minimum (which is generally a strength of the work), but there are a couple of moments where an editor’s voice might add some analysis or commentary to Brooke’s own work and annotations.

Overall, this work is of interest to anyone who has studied the period and wishes to know more. It’s probably helpful to have some knowledge of some of the big figures at the top (like Eisenhower, Montgomery, Churchill, Auckinleck, Marshall and Clarke), but there’s enough notes to help you along. Depending on your existing impressions of the war and those who led it, it may occasionally be uncomfortable reading, but I think it’s a genuinely interesting account and one which contains a lot of insight into some of the key decisions of the war, as well as a more general account and analysis of the difficulties encountered by anyone trying to co-ordinate such a massive endeavour.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

This review is in reference to the Danchev/Todman version, the unredacted one. As the top British military officer during WW ll, Alanbrooke participated in virtually every major political, military and civic planning/strategy meeting during the war. He met and worked with all the major military and political leaders of the time-Roosevelt, Marshall, Eisenhower, King, Churchill, the King, Stalin, etc. He was the major influence in the assignment of all the British commanders. He persuaded Churchill to appoint Montgomery to command the British 8th Army in North Africa, when Churchill favored others.

Although there are entries here that are gems: Churchill just out of the shower and stark naked as he discusses strategy with Eisenhower, Stalin's poker face but penetrating eyes, Mountbatten's simpleton personality; there is so much that is left unsaid. Alanbrooke notes in his diary that he has a lengthy one-on-one meeting with Montgomery shortly after the Market Garden disaster but that's it. Nothing on Montgomery's state of mind, the destruction of Browning's 1st Airborne Division, the intelligence failure--Alanbrooke as Monty's senior, surly heard it all. He often indicates his positive or negative judgement with regard to army commanders but rarely tells us why.

The real value here is in the depiction of the character and personality of Alanbrooke himself. He addresses his diary to "you" his wife, and "the little ones." No doubt his attempt to keep the home fires burning since he was almost never home. While he stays at his military quarters in London the family lives in the country. He travels the world meeting with military commanders and political leaders, taking time off to hunt or fish and bird watch. Alanbrooke was highly respected by all who knew and worked with him. He struggled to exude supreme confidence while rebuilding the British Army after Dunkirk as it faced the prospect of German invasion, despite his deep fear of disaster if invaded. He often confronted Churchill when the latter used poor judgement in military affairs. Despite his great frustration with Churchill, he remained loyal and supportive when Churchill was challenged by others or personally out of control with his late night drinking and childish behavior.

I recommend this diary to committed students of WW ll history and want-to-be historians. For the general reader: forget it, the book will outlast your patience.

[Lib DM · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tremendous, new, and refreshing perspective on World War II. The daily management of a war is on full display here. Beyond the great battles and epic campaigns we frequently learn about, this book looks at the minutiae. The daily COS meetings, the lunches, the dinners, the parties, the conversations, etc. It's all here in this fantastic volume. Some things that really stood out to me:

- The relationship between Alanbrooke and Churchill is a fascinating one. AB was clearly frustrated, angry, and exasperated with the old tiring man that suffered annoying mood swings and a frantic, sporadic mind. Churchill must have tested every bone in his body. However, AB still refers to him as a genius, a superman, and Britain being lost without him. It is a masochistic, charming working relationship that is so interesting to watch mature throughout the pages.

- The Americans (according to AB) had very little sense of military strategy. Marshall and Ike were great men of character, but little strategic brains.

- The atomic bombs dropped on Japan again to me appear to be overkill. The battle was closing and a rather small expedition was being planned (British, Canada, and Australian forces) to start the campaign.

- Very interesting to see man's life and attitude change through the years in this book. AB starts off very romantic and touchingly sentimental and loving to his wife. His adoration for her is near saintly. But as the war progresses towards the end, he stops this charming tone and obviously spiraled in fatigue , age, and frustration. Obviously forgivable for a man who micro managed the greatest conflict in human history!

All in all, a mighty great read that I thoroughly enjoyed. One of the better books I have read in a while and will remember for many years to come.

[Francis Kennedy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a fascinating read, fascinating because it is a real-time unedited, not retrospective, account of the very centre of British military strategy throughout the Second World War, from the point of view of the head of the British armed forces. He had almost daily interactions with Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister, as well as the heads of the Navy and Air Force, and frequent discussions with the American generals, Marshall and Eisenhower, and he participated with Churchill and others at all the important international strategic conferences with the Americans and Russians.

What emerges is major strategic conflict, particularly with Churchill, also with his peers and with the Americans. Alanbrooke (AB) admired Churchill’s energy and political leadership and cultivation of relationships with Roosevelt and Stalin and saw his inspirational importance to the nation but found him increasingly a hindrance strategically due to his unrelenting focus on pet projects (Trondheim, Rhodes, Sumatra, Greece) that would have been costly and had no strategic value, also his indecision at key junctures and his undermining of positions painfully reached by his chiefs of staff with their American counterparts - all caused by Churchill’s desire to be a supreme decision-making military leader like his ancestor the Duke of Marlborough. We see Churchill even trying to get personally involved in the fighting, putting himself in danger, as the Allies crossed the Rhine in 1945. Churchill dismissed people he did not get on with, but though their relationship was challenging, he clearly trusted AB’s judgement, making it a crucial one for successful conduct of the war.

In fact AB voiced criticism of almost everyone he worked with. Hardly any military men were credited with strategic vision, the exceptions being MacArthur in the Pacific, Montgomery in Europe (both he characterised as difficult prima donnas) and Stalin himself. Marshall and Eisenhower he regarded as militarily inexperienced and inept, although fair-minded and cooperative. Some men - Dickie Mountbatten, the naval commander appointed British supreme commander in Asia, the Labour politician Herbert Morrison - were just useless annoyances. Anthony Eden, Churchill’s Foreign Minister, was ‘charming, but somehow always seems to just miss the point’.

There were many different pulls on strategy. The British airforce wanted resources focused on the bombing of Germany, the Navy on countering German submarines, the American Navy on the war in the Pacific, Marshall on an early invasion of northern France. AB’s strategy was to win first in North Africa, then in Sicily, then in Italy. In this way, the Germans would be diverted, by having to fight the Southern and Eastern fronts, from an effective defence of northern France, making possible an Allied invasion of the latter in 1944. 1942 or 1943 would have been too early. However, to achieve this strategy AB found he had to fight the Americans (and some British policymakers) every step of the way. He praised the diplomatic work of Dill, his friend and predecessor who was moved by Churchill to Washington and subsequently formed a strong rapport with Marshall.

Although this is of course his own account, AB’s strategic instincts, to this reader, ring true. When posted in France in 1939-40 he criticised French preparations eg the fixed defences of the Maginot Line whereas for AB what was needed was mobility and concentration of force. He argued the same when made responsible for home defence in 1940-41 and set about vigorously raising quality, reviewing troop exercises, replacing weak commanders and demanding higher standards. His interventions in Egypt in 1942, replacing Auchinleck with Alexander and Montgomery, and in Italy in 1944, when the Allied advance had got bogged down before Rome, appeared effective. After DDay he criticised American battle tactics (attacking along the line instead of more focused attacks). And Italy and France were both a hard slog for the Allies suggesting that withdrawing forces too early for an assault in Northern Europe, taking them out of action for several months, could have led to reversals on both fronts.

The diary also brings out vividly the drama and lived experience of the Second World War: the initial debacle in Belgium, which forced the British to evacuate in barely over a week after the German invasion; the constant fear of bombs and invasion during the second half of 1940; the dark days of 1941 and early 1942, with British losses in South East Asia and North Africa, the British Empire under existential threat and the Australians withdrawing forces for home defence; the important first meeting with Stalin in Moscow in 1942; the British victories in Egypt and Libya and the Allied landings in Morocco and Algeria, which pincered Rommel in Tunisia; and then the landings in Sicily and mainland Italy in 1943 and the battle of Monte Cassino in 1944 that preceded the Normandy landings, followed almost immediately by the problem of V1 rockets and then later the dangerous V2s. The practicalities of the international transport and housing of the British leaders by air and sea at these times of danger are fascinating too.

AB’s diary was written as though to his beloved second wife Benita (a magnum opus in mansplaining?) and contains many sentimental brief references to her and their two young children, Pooks (daughter) and Mr Ti (son) and their family home with chickens, goats and other animals. During 1941 AB was working frequently at home on an unfinished ‘goat cart’ but all reference to this ceased when he was appointed Chief of the Imperial General Staff at a time of crisis. Only in 1944 do we find said goat cart and then a rabbit hutch being repaired by AB. His main hobby and passion was birdwatching and the reader is treated to his delight at charming scenes such as a mother bird teaching its chicks how to use a bird bath. But at other times he enjoyed angling or shooting with friends (‘a good day, we shot 300 pheasants and 41 partridges’). The diary also contains many references to friends and colleagues by their nicknames, eg Pongo, Bulgy, Jumbo and Sneezer (this last Benita’s sister).

It is, in short, an important and honest diary by a very important man, that helps to brings the past to life.

[Mike Harbert · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not a book to be read cover-to-cover. Instead it is a wonderful companion volume to the study of the war, especially if one is studying some of the key personalities involved; such as Montgomery, Eisenhower, Churchill, or George C Marshall. Part of the value of a work like this is in what is not addressed as we'll as what is covered. Also, it is fascinating to watch how Alan Brooke's views evolve over time - especially toward Churchill and Eisenhower.

If you read this book, or even use sections for reference, be sure to read the editor's notes concerning the different fonts and typefaces, which represent various revisions made to (or added to) the diaries after the war.

[Nick Pengelley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read many "high level" books about the war, including memoirs and biographies, but this was completely different and utterly fascinating. The day by day account of the man who in many respects really ran the war, from the time he got back from Dunkirk (only to be sent back to France with the 2nd almost unknown BEF) to be tapped by Churchill as Chief of the Imperial General Staff. He was probably one of the very few generals who would have stood up to Churchill who, to his credit, nevertheless stuck with Brooke (doubtless due to his WWI experience with Jackie Fisher, who was unable to tell him what he (apparently) really thought of the Gallipoli expedition).

Fascinating, too, to read Brooke's opinions of those exalted others charged with the running of the war. His views on their strategic sense is almost universally condemnatory - Marshall (no idea at all), Eisenhower (charming and great at bringing allies together but besotted by Kay Summersby), Mountbatten (comes across as a fool), Alexander (likewise). He appreciated Monty's talent for war, but not his ability to piss people off. One of the few he did admire was Stalin (for his strategic sense, not his murderous proclivities). As an Aussie I was naturally interested in his description of some of our guys - PM Curtin (couldn't tell which of his eyes was looking at me; no back to his head); Evatt (a pain who was continually trying to draw off forces for Australia); Blamey ("looked as if he'd had the most frightful hangover, from a debauched night. His eyes were swimming in alcohol").

As for the key character, his boss, Churchill drove Brooke to near despair, and there are many entries where he describes their fights over Churchill's desire to depart from the main plan, or reargue settled points, or call him up at all hours of the day or night. Despite this, he clearly loved the man and admired him a great deal. Together they were a superb combination, although it is a shame that Churchill, who hated to share the limelight, couldn't have done more to acknowledge Brooke's contribution.

[Mr N P Leversuch · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was very interesting.
After a slow start in which I nearly gave up reading, it gradually drew me in, and I had to read to the end.
The value lies in the contemporaneous comments unfiltered, unedited and without comments retrospectively toned down for fear of libel.
Given that the diaries were written almost as letters to his wife, it is not surprising that large and important elements of the conduct of the war are omitted, but seemingly inconsequential aspects are included – particularly his meals!
Given the type of people, he dined with and stayed with over weekends, it becomes self-evident how in that era the government and higher military command was populated by the public-school types.
Alanbrooke’s assessments of the effectiveness of the individuals he was in contact with was very interesting, and other sources to a certain extent reinforce and support his assessments. None the less he does seem to remorselessly denigrate most people, creating the impression that only he was competent to run the war, almost a classic definition of arrogance. Either that or ineffective people seem to be remarkably effective in rising to positions of power
I think the greatest value of this book is as a counterweight to the many self-serving autobiographies or biographies where the authors have a biased viewpoint. I believe Churchill is quoted as saying that history would be remarkably kind to his role in the war, as he intended to write that history!
Whatever, the criticisms I have outlined, nothing can remove the reality that the people mentioned in the diary and Alanbroke himself were under enormous, sustained pressure to successfully prosecute the war and without the hindsight we have of knowing what the outcome would be. For that alone we own them all an enormous debt of gratitude.

[Robbie Bond · Rating 4 out of 5]

A real fascinating insight into the mind and thoughts of one of World War 2's most influential Generals. The book is wrote in a diary format as Alan Brooke himself wrote it, almost entirely without comment.

Following his early days in France at the outbreak of war, being responsible for the defence of the country against invasion in 1940, and later taking over world-wide responsibility, as Chief of the Imperial General Staff. The obvious downside of the diary format is that Alanbrooke does not deal with the entire strategic situation daily, and only writes what is on his mind at the time of writing, and this makes the diaries more uneven and sometimes missing context. However what makes these diaries so interesting and intriguing are his candid views of major players of World War 2. Alanbrooke's love hate relationship with Churchill is a recurring theme, refered to as a boy playing war games, getting in the way and being impulsive without proper planning. Alanbrooke later concedes that although he can't do it with Churchill, he certainly can't do it without him! Alanbrooke clearly had a low impression of Eisenhower's military intelligence and his generalship, but later developed a high regard for his political ability. Most surprisingly although fairly cautious of Stalin, he was highly impressed by him! In regard to Churchill's henchman, his opinions varied. He had a clear regard for Brendan Bracken, but detested Beaverbrook. His references to handling the two prima donnas in Mountbatten and Montgomery, are amusing and eye opening.

A recommended read for any history buff, like myself.

[Sam Romilly · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was actually quite readable for a diary and gives real insights into life of the leaders during WW2. It is known for its frank criticisms of Churchill and details of Churchill's bizarre lifestyle. There was no doubt that Alan Brooke worked incredibly hard during these years with non-stop meetings, reviews, travel and planning. His main role seemed to identify those who were in his opinion useless in their roles and replacing them with better alternatives. He also seemed to dine out continuously in the finest establishments such as the Savoy and Claridges but this done whilst doing war business. War business with Churchill involved frequent early morning sessions going on to 2am or more that in most cases as can be imagined were pretty fruitless in coming to a decision. Where the diaries disappoint is that they provide no personal opinions on the great events of the war. For example, no mention is made of the destruction of the French naval fleet, the concentration camps and there is no moral reflections on the use of atomic bombs on the two japanese cities. What is sad is how after all that he achieved it seems he received no real financial benefit and in retirement had to sell his home and even his precious bird books to make ends meet, as well as having to publish this diary which was not well received at the time.

[Lewis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not the sort of book I would normally read, but a recommendation on the podcast Not Another One encouraged me to borrow a copy from the library. In many ways it was a slog, but I think that speaks more to the herculean effort that winning WWII represented for the men leading it.

Alanbrooke is a simple but observant diarist and one can't help but admire is tenacity and vision. It is fascinating to read along with him as he moves from despair to hope to confidence that Britain will defeat Germany, all the while trying to retain his sanity through birdwatching and family life.

His descriptions of Churchill are of particular interest, especially when he goes abroad with him to the US or Soviet Union. Often very amusing, he provides a view of the Prime Minister which I have not really come across before. Churchill appears as mercurial and petty while also being admirable and dogged, a tension which Alanbrooke himself describes often. Overall, I came away grateful that there were equally dogged people like Alanbrooke there to face him down!

Reading one man's view of the war has definitely made me keen to read more about the reality of strategising on a global scale. Any recommendations welcome!

[Justin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I felt that this book was a wasted opportunity. It is amazing how much of it was spent bitching about Churchill, the Americans, Russians or whoever didn't measure up or agree with his strategic vision. I was finding the book very tough going because almost every day was another complaint about someone. The last straw for me was when he praised MacArthur who was without a doubt the worst of the major commanders during the entire war and only kept his job because of his own PR machine. It made me question his judgement about other people. I'll allow that he probably only said that without ever knowing MacArthur and his many screw ups.

My other major complaint was that many days were often about COS meetings and meeting with random people. It was incredible how little detail he wrote in his diaries about major battles. Most references to major events such as the Bulge were just complaints about Eisenhower's strategy, were not mentioned at all or just in passing. I was really disappointed with this book.

[Brian Page · Rating 5 out of 5]

The War Diaries: 1939 – 1945 of Field Marshal Lord Alan Brooke is almost certain to change your understanding of the Second World War. The book is literally a diary with daily entries. As such, it’s a primary source. AB was the chief architect of Britain’s war strategy up to the American cross-channel operation. AB makes clear his slight regard for Eisenhower, particularly Eisenhower’s broad front initiative. In hindsight, it seems as if Brooke retained the limited resource situation in Britian as he visualized strategy. Also revealing is Brooke’s relationship with Churchill. It was troubling, to say the least. Indeed, Brooke is free with his opinions of all the major players in the allied command structure, from presidents, prime ministers, on down. For any serious student of the war, this book is essential reading.

[Gary Boland · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a real eye opening book. Some great insights (and quotes) that I have noted but the highlights include:
commanders would be replaced only for political reasons and not for military ones (e.g. British commander replaced with British Commander even if better options available)
Stalin was the only leader who saw the strategic shape of the war. He was planning to dominate Europe from 1943 onwards
Although the Germans were overwhelmed in the end, the infighting with the allies severely impaired their strategy. A greater focus on 'divide and conquer' would have radically changed the duration of the war.

[Jon Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

The reason I read this book was to get a different perspective about WW". This book certainly gives this. This diary spans the entire war. A lot of the diary is fair repetitive, meetings, travel etc.. but it gives a unique insight into how WW2 was run and what a typical day might look like for some of the key players.

If you find WW2 interesting and you want to learn some more then this is worth a read. Be warned that it can be a bit slow going at times!

[S W Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Revealing more about this unappreciated architect of the Western Victory in WW2 than the Bryant version

Even more of this ignored hero of WW2 revealed together with his trenchant views on most of the major players in the Western conflict of WW2

[Alan McCord · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazing secret diary by Sir Alan Brooke, with insights of the events and personalities involved in WWII. Be sure to get the unredacted edition. Brooke of course has a high opinion of his own opinion, but he was Churchill's closest military adviser and peer of George Marshall.

[Johnny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely fascinating read. Incredible insight to all the big players from the executor of British strategy throughout WW2, and a real glimpse into how personalities and relationships shape organisation. Lots for me to take away and digest for *checks notes* my meagre team of 3 colleagues

[John Fletcher · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read to see another view of Churchill. It documents the thoughts and activities of a key player for the British War effort.

[BGS · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely worth the 10 months it took to read this monster. What an incredible incite into not just the events, but the (all too human) personalities behind the allied leadership during WW2

[Rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

A totally different perspective on WW2 from any I'd read before. You really see events play out from the personal perspective of a man with a front row seat.

[Mark Suffern · Rating 2 out of 5]

A lot of interesting stuff,particularly his views on Churchill but not exactly a thrill a minute.