Alternative Supreme Commanders instead of Eisenhower

[ivanotter]

All,

We may have been here before.

I had to look up something in Brooke's book (By Trent).

The agreement was that a US general would be Supreme Commander in the Med and the Overlord would be a UK general.

Churchill had to renege on his promise to Brooke.

Brooke did not have a high opinion of Eisenhower's strategic outlook, also based on Eisenhower's inability to run the war in North Africa, being very involved in the politics.

That said, Eisenhower had one quality that others might have lacked: getting all to work together!

But besides Brooke, who else?

Marshall was identified early in the process, but how would he have faired? Marshall was very concerned about getting ashore, but what thereafter? did he really know what next after a landing?

MacArthur could have been a candidate -> disaster probably.
Paget?
Wilson?
Wavell?
Monty -> oh dear!
Patton?
Bradley?

Anyone?

 

[prester.john208]

All,

We may have been here before.

I had to look up something in Brooke's book (By Trent).

The agreement was that a US general would be Supreme Commander in the Med and the Overlord would be a UK general.

Churchill had to renege on his promise to Brooke.

Brooke did not have a high opinion of Eisenhower's strategic outlook, also based on Eisenhower's inability to run the war in North Africa, being very involved in the politics.

That said, Eisenhower had one quality that others might have lacked: getting all to work together!

But besides Brooke, who else?

Marshall was identified early in the process, but how would he have faired? Marshall was very concerned about getting ashore, but what thereafter? did he really know what next after a landing?

MacArthur could have been a candidate -> disaster probably.
Paget?
Wilson?
Wavell?
Monty -> oh dear!
Patton?
Bradley?

Anyone?

From the US side its Marshall or one of his proteges Devers or Clark with Ike going back to Washington DC, if its Marshall.

 

[ivanotter]

Clark probably had enough 'personality' to be chosen, but maybe not the skills of commanding army groups?

Devers probably had the skills, but was he well-known at that level among the people deciding?

 

[prester.john208]

Clark probably had enough 'personality' to be chosen, but maybe not the skills of commanding army groups?

Devers probably had the skills, but was he well-known at that level among the people deciding?

According to his Wiki bio he was well known. He was Clark's boss in the Med, and made a lot of good calls that McNair overruled on army structure and weapons. He was also head of US forces in UK before Eisenhower.

He got along well with the British, French (exVichy and free French) and Poles. Ike assigned him all French units because Ike didn't work well with the French.

Clark botched Salerno, Rapido river, multiple Casino assaults, Anzio and the Anzio breakout. He passed on a very good opportunity to cut off over half the German army, and went for Rome instead. He liked headlines.

General Lyman Lemnitzer* later recalled that Fifth Army staff feared that Devers would relieve Clark every time both met.**

Ike felt threatened by Devers and undermined him in communications with Marshall***. Ike was always looking over his shoulder expecting to get relieved. His direct commander, Wilson, thought highly of him as did Marshall.

* Lemnitzer served as the fourth chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1960 to 1962. He then served as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1963 to 1969.

** Adams, John A. (2015). General Jacob Devers: World War II's Forgotten Four Star. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. Pg. 123

*** Adams, John A. (2015), PP 372-389. PP 390-394
"""BEFORE D-DAY, DWIGHT EISENHOWER ... In a confidential personnel evaluation to George Marshall, Eisenhower raised questions about “trust and confidence” in Devers, stating that while his performance could be brilliant, Eisenhower had some reservations.

Up until that time, Marshall’s experience with Devers had been quite different. He had found the man from York to be a star performer with exceptional talent and productivity. Marshall did not want to sacrifice the good work he was getting from either of these subordinates."""

"""IN A LETTER TO GEORGE MARSHALL IN FEBRUARY 1945, DWIGHT Eisenhower rated his top thirty-eight officers. This was serious business in which a commander was expected to be brutally honest. As might be expected, Eisenhower rated Omar Bradley first, tied with Carl Spaatz, the air commander. Walter Bedell “Beetle” Smith was third, George Patton was fourth, Mark Clark fourteenth. Jake Devers was twenty-fourth. Every army commander in Europe and six corps commanders came in ahead of him. Eisenhower placed Sandy Patch, Lucian Truscott, and Alan Brooke above Devers. Damning with faint praise is something of an understatement."""

 

[Uruk]

Harold Alexander?

 

[prester.john208]

Harold Alexander?

No, the vast majority of forces would consist of American troops and aviators. Five field armies, 1, 3, 7, 9, 15 to one British, one Canadian and one French.

At the beginning of the campaign, all the troops employed on D-Day were under command of the British 21 Army Group, yet by the end of the campaign, the majority of the forces deployed were American, with both the U.S. 12 Army Group and U.S. 6 Army Group in operation. The increasing dominance of U.S. forces in Europe can be seen that on D-Day (6 June 1944), the assaulting forces comprised two British, two U.S. (plus elements of a third) and one Canadian infantry divisions, and two U.S. and one British airborne division. These were under a British Commander-in-Chief.

The eventual force included 25 armored divisions and 6 airborne divisions. Included 61 American divisions, 13 British divisions, 11 French divisions, 5 Canadian divisions, and 1 Polish division, as well as several independent brigades.

1945 Spring Units

US: 15 armoured 60% of allied total, 42 infantry 70% and 4 airborne divisions 66%.

British: 4 armoured (1 of which was specialist), 8 =>7 infantry and 2 airborne divisions. One British infantry division was broken up for replacements, another was sent back to England to become a training division. One was transferred in from Italy.

Canada: 2 armoured and 3 infantry divisions.

Poland: 1 armoured division and an independent parachute brigade

France: 3 armoured and 8 infantry divisions

Note: one of the French armoured divisions refused to serve under "Vichy traitors" and served with Devers' 7th US Army commanded by General Patch.

 

[ivanotter]

So, there was a lot more talent to pick from?

How would Marshall have done in the job? How well would he have managed Patton, Monty, Bradley? Clark was in the Med but could have been shifted to Europe?

... and who would have taken Marshall's job if he got to be supreme commander?

 

[DougM]

I think you really need to specify what you are looking for in this alternative. “Better” is very subjective.
From the point of view of Monty and Patton for instance once better would be the others worse more often then not.
Each country had its own views on the war. Each military had a slightly different view than its political leaders had and each of fficer yet different from those above and so on and so forth.
And what is ”better” for the US is not necessarily better for say Canada or GB.
Ike did a pretty decent job so there are no huge wholes that are obvious that need to be fixed. He walked a bit of a tightrope and had to work with the people and resources he had available to him. Something anyone in the job will have to do. And we know that overall he got the job done.
So what do you want to improve?
There are literally hundreds of folks that COULD have filled the position (for better or for worse) but we need a bit a guide here or we are all just having our own conversation. And what I think is better you may not.

 

[Thoresby]

No, the vast majority of forces would consist of American troops and aviators. Five field armies, 1, 3, 7, 9, 15 to one British, one Canadian and one French.

At the beginning of the campaign, all the troops employed on D-Day were under command of the British 21 Army Group, yet by the end of the campaign, the majority of the forces deployed were American, with both the U.S. 12 Army Group and U.S. 6 Army Group in operation. The increasing dominance of U.S. forces in Europe can be seen that on D-Day (6 June 1944), the assaulting forces comprised two British, two U.S. (plus elements of a third) and one Canadian infantry divisions, and two U.S. and one British airborne division. These were under a British Commander-in-Chief.

The eventual force included 25 armored divisions and 6 airborne divisions. Included 61 American divisions, 13 British divisions, 11 French divisions, 5 Canadian divisions, and 1 Polish division, as well as several independent brigades.

1945 Spring Units

US: 15 armoured 60% of allied total, 42 infantry 70% and 4 airborne divisions 66%.

British: 4 armoured (1 of which was specialist), 8 =>7 infantry and 2 airborne divisions. One British infantry division was broken up for replacements, another was sent back to England to become a training division. One was transferred in from Italy.

Canada: 2 armoured and 3 infantry divisions.

Poland: 1 armoured division and an independent parachute brigade

France: 3 armoured and 8 infantry divisions

Note one of the French armoured divisions refused to serve under "Vichy traitors" and served with Devers' 7th US Army commanded by General Patch.

It's worth noting that it the Allies had decided to go for a 1943 invasion instead of Italy the balance of forces would be much more British/Commonwealth and a British Supreme Commander would have been politically viable.

 

[ivanotter]

True - thanks for the comment. It is perhaps to 'biased' to say better. Admitted.

It was meant as a little discussion in terms of prospective commanders. The choice might really have been down to three options only:

Eisenhower - did Torch.
Marshall
Brooke.

If either were chosen, then it would have to be from the next level of commanders. That is where my theme comes in.

To me (bias!) there were no clear candidate.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

So, there was a lot more talent to pick from?

How would Marshall have done in the job? How well would he have managed Patton, Monty, Bradley? Clark was in the Med but could have been shifted to Europe?

... and who would have taken Marshall's job if he got to be supreme commander?

My opinion is that the jobs Marshall and Alanbrook for that matter, were doing and doing well was far more important than moving them to the job of......

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

I realize that Brooke was considered for the job, but since most of the forces involved were American, I don't see how you get anything other than an American supreme commander.

At the most you can have a British general continue as ground forces commander, instead of the historical split of ground forces into two, and later three, army groups, with one of them under British command. Maybe a British general with a more agreeable personality, to the Americans, than Montgomery, had commanded the ground forces in Overlord, the Americans would have continued to keep him as the single ground forces commander. Montgomery was a good general,, and this might weaken Overlord. Also, if Montgomery has had his historical success, why not put him in charge of Overlord, and if he hasn't (for example never takes the 8th army command), that butterflies other aspects of the war. Once Brooke became CIGS, he stays in that role or takes Eisenhower's role, and a British general is not getting Eisenhower's role, and Brooke not becoming CIGS butterflies too many aspects of the war.

The main alternative would be Eisenhower and Marshall swapping jobs, which I think was the original plan. I don't know how Marshall would do doing something other than organize forces.

The other thing you can do a scenario where Eisenhower doesn't get command of Torch. If the commander of Torch is Devers, the most likely alternative, he gets the Supreme Command job later.

Of course with no fall of France in 1940, a French general would be Supreme commander, but there is a good chance in that scenario that American troops never get to Europe.

 

[Valentinian]

If you want a dumpster fire, in 1942, swap roles for Ike and Stillwell. Vinegar Joe commands North Africa and on to Italy and France. Imagine Stillwell commanding Montgomery. It would have been fun to be a fly on that wall.

 

[Driftless]

If you want a dumpster fire, in 1942, swap roles for Ike and Stillwell. Vinegar Joe commands North Africa and on to Italy and France. Imagine Stillwell commanding Montgomery. It would have been fun to be a fly on that wall.

Stilwell was considered for Torch, due to his pre-war CV, but he was something of an Anglophobe and he also pushed for invading Spain, so those two points neutered his being assigned to Torch. The only British general he really got along with was Bill Slim, and that was probably more a credit to Slim's ability and personality.

And yes, Vinegar Joe and Monty in the same room..... Woooof.

 

[Driftless]

My opinion is that the jobs Marshall and Alanbrook for that matter, were doing and doing well was far more important than moving them to the job of......

Yup. I've read in a number of spots that FDR wasn't letting Marshall get at all far away. The back room battles between Brook and Winston are legendary, and they drove both men to the brink, but both also firmly understood the necessity of their "marriage" Yin and Yang, of a sort.

 

[Driftless]

My vote would be for Devers. He had both the operational ability and an appropriate personality for coalition warfare and handling big egos.

 

[prester.john208]

So, there was a lot more talent to pick from?

Slims unavailable, FDR won't let Marshall take it, Clark struggled managing an army and had issues with water operations (Salerno, Anzio and Rapido River), Brooke and WC team works, MacArthur & Stilwell ..., Bradley highest level experience is corps command and Patton not diplomats, the last man standing is Devers.

How would Marshall have done in the job? How well would he have managed Patton, Monty, Bradley? Clark was in the Med but could have been shifted to Europe?

Montys a good question, He would respect Marshall for his combat experience, personal reconnaissance, silver star, and planning in WW1 and the Philippines.

Marshall did promote Lloyd "Deep Dugout" Fredenhal, Lesley "Tanks don't fight tanks" and "who needs bigger tanks or 76mm guns" McNair and JCH "as many HQ staff as the Pentagon" Lee. Three suboptimal choices. On the other hand he picked out Devers, Patton and Ike.

... and who would have taken Marshall's job if he got to be supreme commander?

Ike, FDR didn't care for Field Marshal MacArthur.

 

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

From the US side its Marshall or one of his proteges Devers or Clark with Ike going back to Washington DC, if its Marshall.

You are right that Clark "struggled managing an army." As a grandstander, he went into Rome rather than taking the necessary moves to cut off a large Nazi force. He would have been a disaster in charge of D-Day considering his poor performance in Italy OTL.

 

[prester.john208]

Clark would have been a disaster considering his poor performance in Italy OTL.

That's my only issue with Devers, why didn't he can Clark? Perhaps Marshall connection, that's what scared off Ike and Bedell Smith from trying to can JCH Lee. Bedell did divert resources from Patton to Simpson and Hodges, behind Lee's back.

 

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

All,

We may have been here before.

I had to look up something in Brooke's book (By Trent).

The agreement was that a US general would be Supreme Commander in the Med and the Overlord would be a UK general.

Churchill had to renege on his promise to Brooke.

Brooke did not have a high opinion of Eisenhower's strategic outlook, also based on Eisenhower's inability to run the war in North Africa, being very involved in the politics.

That said, Eisenhower had one quality that others might have lacked: getting all to work together!

But besides Brooke, who else?

Marshall was identified early in the process, but how would he have faired? Marshall was very concerned about getting ashore, but what thereafter? did he really know what next after a landing?

MacArthur could have been a candidate -> disaster probably.
Paget?
Wilson?
Wavell?
Monty -> oh dear!
Patton?
Bradley?

Anyone?

Brooke was not exactly enthusiastic about D-Day. Ike by then had grown into the job and was able to defend the broad front strategy against Germany's borders as opposed to the narrow front offensive, although he let Monty try and fail at the latter.