Master of Seapower: A Biography of Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King

"King antagonized too many people who later wanted his name forgotten.""I believe that my record speaks for itself"My favorite quotes in the booka very well-written account of the life of Admiral King by Thomas Buell.

Admiral King thought America should concentrate on the (reduced) Japanese threat. There is a suspicion that he 'appropriated' ships from the European theatre. Indeed Churchill had 340,000 tonnes of food for Bengal but could not get ships to take it from Australia, Admiral Kings bailiwick. A patriot who got the bigger picture wrong. Fascinating stuff if a history buff

I found this book to be very good and well written. However, I couldn’t give it five stars because it lacks first hand insight from Admiral King himself. That’s not the author’s fault, as Admiral King was intensely private and didn’t keep the kinds of journals/diaries that are needed to fill in the blanks when writing about an historical figure that is no longer alive to interview. Nearly 30 years ago, I asked Admiral James Russell about his experiences with Admiral King and whether he really was as much of an SOB as legend would have us believe. Admiral Russell told me stories that I are too long for me to include here, but the short answer was yes, he was. That said, Admiral Russell told me that Ernie King was the right man in the right place at the right time. This book is one of only two I know of that tells King’s story. You can’t really understand the Navies efforts in WW2 without understanding Admiral King and his part in the great victory. This book is worth purchasing and reading. Recommended.

I suspect that this biography has both strengths and weaknesses.On the plus side of the ledger, the author appears to have done a comprehensive job of describing the interaction of key strategic players who determined grand strategy for the Allies during WWII.On the negative side, my other reading suggests that he largely ignores or whitewashes other factors.King was a decided Anglophobe, and despite some notable friendships with British military figures, this clouded his judgment and probably needlessly exacerbated Anglo-American relations at different points during the war. The most notorious example of this was ignoring British advice to convoy American shipping off American coasts and in the Caribbean until Roosevelt practically forced him to do so following grievous U-boat losses and the deaths of more than 5000 merchant seamen.I suggest that if you’re studying this era, you should read much more widely than just this book if you’re trying to get an idea of King’s place in history.

Having read the biography of General George C. Marshall, I was happy to see this author point out the contrasting positions taken by the Navy via Admiral King. While just about everyone else wanted the US to fight an entirely defensive battle in the Pacific until Hitler was defeated, King pushed hard to go on the offensive early and continuously. Can you believe the Combined Chiefs of Staff were willing to let Australia fall to the Japanese while they focused on Germany? King had his flaws which the author pointed out, but his strengths saved American lives in the war in the Pacific. If you want another viewpoint about WW2 including some interesting stories about the other leaders in the war, this book can do it.

I just finished reading the introduction in which it was stated Admiral King was the first officer to be promoted to the new five-star rank of Fleet Admiral. That occurred on Dec. 20, 1944. Admiral Leahy, however, as Chairman of the Joint Staff and Chief of Staff to President Roosevelt for all military matters, was promoted to this rank on Dec. 15, 1944, and was the most senior military officer from that date until the end of the war. Discrepancies like this make me question the author's perspective. But maybe that is the fault of the writer of the introduction.

Arriving at this captivating informative biography of FADM King via the progressive ascent from WW2 focused biographies of Adms Burke, Halsey, and Nimitz has provided a highly instructive view at progressively higher levels of the decision making regarding some of the most well known Pacific War battles, circumstances, and contentious issues. These men were great leaders for very basic reasons: they were specifically and extensively educated, trained, and practiced in those realms. Furthermore they gradually over decades distinguished themselves as even more exceptional than their very competent peers. They were not perfect by any means and certainly we can see some flaws here and there in Adm King, but overall he was absolutely among the very best leaders we have ever had and we were very fortunate for it.

This is a must read for those interested in he history of the USN in WWII. It really sheds a light on this giant of a leader, who despite his peccadillos, had a huge influence of the success of the Navy in strategy, organization and relationships with the other "giants."He only had the interests of the USN and winning the war in his line of sight and fought with Marshall, Arnold and the British to get what he thought the Navy needed to focus on the Pacific war. It seems from this account that he was a huge pain in the ass to those with other agendas and that was OK with him. Indeed he was a micro-manager and must have driven Nimitz crazy with his interference. Yet the combination of the two and the other remarkable Admirals --Michener, Sprague and Halsey proved successful to the Pacific War, despite their differences. The book is quite boring in many places and certainly not a page turner. But that's history.