A very insightful review of Advocating Overlord appears in the December 2018 issue of the U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings. The book is reviewed by Lt. Col. Bradley Fultz, USMC, the Marine attache in Tiblisi, Georgia (Abbie Hoffman said it first, “We are everywhere!”). Lt. Col. Fultz was struck by the many case studies in Advocating Overlord that have relevance today for military planners and commanders turning again to the challenges of confronting a peer competitor adversary. He criticizes as being based on circumstantial evidence the case for a quid pro quo having been reached to resume U.S. atomic cooperation with Britain in response to Churchill’s consent to the Overlord strategy . His criticism is accurate and fair. The evidence is circumstantial, but also very extensive and in my opinion compelling. On that basis, I made a decision to put the case for a quid pro quo out there in the discussion of this history and take my lumps as necessary. Proceedings is not so easy to access unless you are a member of USNI or have access to a military-related or major university library. If you do, however, I strongly recommend Lt. Col. Fultz’ review.
Philip Padgett examines history by applying skills developed during 40 years of national security and preparedness research and analysis in the military, government, and the private sector. As Deputy Intelligence Adviser at the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, he supported from Washington teams negotiating five international treaties and agreements. Read more >>
Get Notified When a New Blog Post Goes Live
Signup for updates and blog posts from Phil Padgett