EYES ONLY

BOOK REVIEW

EYES ONLY by Andrew Dawson

“EYES ONLY Eisenhower to Marshall 19 January 1945 As times goes on there is an accumulation of evidence that we should constantly seek younger men in relatively high positions…”

— General Eisenhower to General Marshall in EYES ONLY by Andrew Dawson

Legend ~ Did it or Did it Not Happen?

Looking again at this book, I am brought up with a jolt. Where have all the great men and women gone? What is the mindset of a nation that sees no wrong in putting a discredited president back into the White House? What is the mindset of the politicians who allow this to happen? Ominously, what is the mindset of the popular vote?

Nevertheless, the electoral vote and the popular vote combined, still means that forty-eight million US citizens did not vote for the incoming Administration. This is an enormous minority. It dwarfs the size of many nations worldwide.

Here, is the clear sense of democracy in action.

Here also is a colossal reminder that many of these 48 million US Citizens will be young people, and that their education and accomplishments in numerous areas across America and even worldwide, underwrites American democracy in action.

History teaches us that everything is “for a time and for a season”.

This gives me enormous hope for the future and for the future of the United States of America.

I am indebted to R.S. in reminding me that we have every reason to be aware that what we call Generation Z are incredibly aware and fully able to respond to all challenges that earlier generations had to confront and overcome in the twentieth century.

Introduction

A legend usually has elements of truth, elements of truth and myth being confused by past chroniclers.

Why so?

In Modernity, we take written documents, misunderstand the content and then misquote the record. Myth or half-truth quietly and quickly becomes the whole truth, indisputable fact.

But let us not wrinkle our noses, furrow our brows and pass judgment on our ancestors or, indeed, our immediate past relatives. We all do it without exception and, in most cases, without illicit motive.

Part I

I will watch a documentary. If I segment this into the 26 letters of the alphabet, I've seen all 26 parts. I recall them vividly. I even remember the exact turns of phrase used by the presenters.

Yet, when I watch it again, I discover that the 26 components are at most ten. The exact turns of phrase are often not present at all or, at most, a variation of what I have then honed on the anvil.

Somehow, my brain has computed the other sixteen parts. All 26 parts become the whole. These are then conveyed in totality verbally and in written form.

The myth is born. For a time, our ability to record events on camera checked this to a degree. But evidentially, lawyers soon found the loopholes they are trained to seek out and then to use to counter the presented fact!

Part II

Then, we question authenticity. Because our minds cannot compute unspeakable horror - for example, The Holocaust - we dismiss what is evident as either myth or conspiracy theory. With the advent of sophisticated artificial intelligence, we can produce photographic evidence that, quite simply, must be the real thing!

On an AI program that I used until recently, if I want to produce a realistic piece of engineering, it will give me variations on a theme. Even the untrained eye can see the errors.

But when I use the same program to create images of people or animals – indeed any living thing on land, in the air or beneath the waves – I cannot see how, what and who I am looking at is not a natural person, not a real living thing.

A good example is the excellent study entitled EYES ONLY The Top Secret Correspondence Between MARSHALL and EISENHOWER by Andrew Rawson.

It dovetails perfectly with this journal, even though I read Rawson's introduction to his book after writing this article.

EYES ONLY

by Andrew Rawson

“Some historians stick to the facts, while others endeavour to increase the tension or interest in an event with speculation.”

— Andrew Rawson In EYES ONLY Introduction page 12 (published by Spellmount , History Press (2012)

The author gives an example of the apparent mutual contempt in the relationship between Eisenhower and General Montgomery, the 21st Army Group's British commander. However, the author makes the following observation by way of illustration:

“However, the cables reproduced in this book give us an insight into the true nature of the professional relationship between these two men when they dealt with important strategic matters without the distortion of a historian’s speculation”

— Andrew Rawson - ibid

 Part III

But it is not just the armchair historian. The author reminds us that the "media were repeatedly stirring up issues".

The author then makes this very important deliberation:

“Over time, some of these press speculations, repeated again and again, became cast in historical stone. ”

— Andrew Rawson - ibid

 He also observes the incredible pressure placed upon men and women in high command when he observes that "we can never fully understand what it is like to bear the pressures of decisions such as these ".

Part IV 

That is the main point of this article, even though I did not have it in mind when I penned it.

I always wonder how the public presumes that they understand the complexity and the pressure placed upon a prime minister, a secretary of state or a government minister. Instead, we insist that our kitchen table approach is indeed the perspective occupied by these great offices of state. There is, of course, one notable exception where a man did certainly relegate one of the highest offices of state in the world to a level below the kitchen table. It frightens me that millions of his countrymen believe even now that he is the 'greatest' leader his country has ever had in their 248 years of history.

A typical exchange

Both Field Marshal Allenbrooke and the United States Chief of General Staff, General Marshall maintained a superb relationship and which was essential in enabling the Allies to vigorously prosecute the war in all theatres, and to defeat the Third Reich and Imperial Japan.

Diplomacy between these two Chiefs is an incredible study of enlightened thinking, patience and understanding, as well as the ability to make hard decisions and then to see those decisions through.

Chief of the Imperial General Staff 1941-1946

Today, this role is known as the Chief of the General Staff (CGS), part of the combined chiefs of staff of the Royal Navy, the British Army, and the Royal Air Force. The commander-in-chief is the Monarch, and the chief of staff tends to rotate between the three services.

 I deliberately quote the opening sentence from a cable dated 19 January 1945.

My mother’s brother was killed in action over Germany on the night of 16-17 January 1945, and I grew up with the oft-repeated phrase that the operation had been unnecessary ‘as the war was almost over’. Paris had been liberated almost five months earlier on 25 August 1944, and sometimes parts of the British civilian population might slip into thinking that it was all over bar the shouting!

Reading the Cables in conjunction with the War Diaries of Field Marshal, the Lord Alanbrooke, and the Memoirs of Sir Arthur Harris, Marshal of the Royal Air Force, leaves me in no doubt that the war was now at its fiercest.

Over the years, I learned to “zip it!”. Now, is NOT the time to “zip it!”

Part V

Air Officer Commander in Chief Sir Arthur Harris, Royal Air Force Bomber Command

“ There are no words with which I can do justice to the aircrew who fought under my command. There is no parallel in warfare to such courage and determination in the face of danger over so prolonged a period, of danger which at times was so great that scarcely one man in three could expect to survive his tour of operations.”

— Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Harris, Bomber Offensive, 1947 ~ Guy Gibson Dam Buster by Geoff Simpson published by Pen & Sword AVIATION in 2013 Copyright © Geoff Simpson 2013

This was still Sir Arthur Harris’s view when I had the brief opportunity to chat about the two operations that my parents’ brothers failed to return from. Very firmly so. As I have mentioned in other articles on this website, the former AOC-in-C’s recollection of every operation was as vivid and meticulous on 19 September 1982.

1 December 2024
All Rights Reserved

LIVERPOOL

© 2024 Kenneth Thomas Webb

First reviewed on 16 September 2023