If not Ike, who?

Discussion in 'NW Europe' started by sherlock, Aug 18, 2012.

  1. Jim Lankford

    Jim Lankford Member

    TTH

    all very well trying to strike a balance in commanding but what is also forgotten that unlike Hollywood - the dead do not arise and shoot endless bullets from their guns - but rather they STAY dead. Main problem as we saw it fairly close up -was the difference in strategy - the Americans were obsessed with capturing cities and territory Rome - Paris etc ..whereas the British concept was to KILL Germans and thus weaken them
    not feed them !
    It was mainly the dispositions of Anderson who held the line at the western dorsale- not Eisenhower - it was Alexander working to Monty's plan to finish off at Tunis and Cap Bon

    His command structure at Sicily was rubbish - He in Algiers - Alex in Malta - all over the place -
    failed to censure both Alex and Patton who took off for Palermo when he was needed at Catania.....

    Southern Italy - Germans were heading back to their first defence line and were dependent on wrecking highways to slow down Monty - whereas Clark thought Monty should "beam" over - like Scotty to help out at Salerno -

    No Eisenhower was lucky and an excellent PR man - until he took over field command in September of '44 - and as Alanbrooke pointed out - this act alone extended the war by six months
    Cheers

    I could not agree more with your assessment of Eisenhower and Clark. For that matter, Alanbrooke was almost certainly correct in his opinion that Eisenhower's assumption of overall field command delayed VE day by six months. The only thing that would have made things worse is if Clark had been given command of Seventh Army instead of Patch.
     
  2. TTH

    TTH Senior Member

    TTH

    all very well trying to strike a balance in commanding but what is also forgotten that unlike Hollywood - the dead do not arise and shoot endless bullets from their guns - but rather they STAY dead.

    Honestly, Tom, do you really think I don't know that as well as you do?

    I said that no general has a spotless record, and I meant it. I don't care who you are talking about. Wellington, Napoleon, Montgomery, Grant, Lee...all made mistakes, sometimes quite big ones, but they rank high because they got it right more often than they got it wrong. This applies to other ranks too, of course; I don't think you can find an honest veteran of any rank who won't admit to making errors, sometimes errors that put the lives of comrades in jeopardy. From generals to privates, you can only assess a soldier's ability by looking at it as a whole and balancing good against bad. That's true for men in any job or area of life.

    If you think that American generals always preferred to seize geographic objectives, then you are wrong. Some of them did, some didn't, and some went back and forth. Rome was Clark's obsession, yes, but Truscott wanted to go for Valmontone in the breakout from Anzio in order to destroy the German 10th Army. Later, when he led 5th Army, Truscott side-stepped Bologna and drove to meet the 8th Army to trap the Germans south of the Po.

    Eisenhower was not anxious at all to get bogged down in Paris; on the contrary, he only sent troops there after a good deal of political maneuvering and pressure by De Gaulle and others. At the end of the war, he refused to push on to Berlin for similar reasons. Instead he directed his armies to focus on destroying German forces in the north (the Ruhr) and the south (the so-called Alpine redoubt, which turned out to be a phantom).

    You wrote that "Eisenhower was lucky and an excellent PR man." Now, do you really mean that Eisenhower and his lieutenants defeated the German Army in the West just by luck? Don't you think that intelligence and hard work by Eisenhower (as well as others) must have had a little to do with it? The victory of the Allied forces in the West over the Germans was a tremendous accomplishment, and nobody can be that lucky. Was Ike's successful (if imperfect) record in the Med simply luck and PR too?

    I do not say the man was a genius, but he didn't need to be. He did the job; look at the record.
     
  3. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    TTH
    there is no question that everyone makes mistakes - and the man who make the least is the better man......and I still say that Ike was lucky in the sense that he was chosen - AFTER Andrews was killed - so he was SECOND choice - in the same way as I constantly hear how Monty was also second choice for 8th Army when Strafer Gott was also killed.

    I alo find your comparison with Alanbrooke vis a vis Ike quite strange inasmuch as you claim that from commanding a Corps to the top job would be too big a step- so lets have a good look at that....

    A British Corps - as I am sure you are aware - consists of THREE Divisions of mixed Fighting and Support troops for an approx total of 45/50,000 men of with some 29 Battalions are fighting troops - big job for Lt. General....Alanbrooke did very well to command this Corps at France until Dunkirk.

    Ike on the other hand commanded a battalion of some 800 men as a Lt. Colonel - but not in any fighting....and even bigger step !

    Ike did very little planning for any campaign as he was not trained to do so - at anytime
    and it was Alanbrooke's strategy of weakening the German Army wherever we found them - and "flatly refused" any interference by un professional soldiers and others - in the same way as Monty - when asked " how do you keep your men co-operating with your orders in battle" - Monty of course was fairly simple minded at time and his answer was that ' I tell them what to do - and they do it "

    and please don't tell me how Truscott by-passed Bologna to meet 8tth army as it was MY brigade - 26th Armoured of 6th Armoured Div which was half way toward him through the Argenta gap - on a plan by Gen McCreery and NOT Gen Clark....

    Cheers
     
  4. Jim Lankford

    Jim Lankford Member

    ......and I still say that Ike was lucky in the sense that he was chosen - AFTER Andrews was killed - so he was SECOND choice -


    Eisenhower was lucky, but General Marshall was the first choice. He sent Andrews and later Devers to London with the idea they would eventually occupy senior positions under him when he became Supreme Commander. He planned to return Eisenhower to the US where he would become the Army Chief of Staff.

    When Roosevelt decided not to release Marshall from his job in Washington, the choice was narrowed down to Eisenhower, Devers, and perhaps a few others.

    Devers had already proven himself to be far less susceptible to British manipulation than Eisenhower so Churchill pushed for the latter’s appointment to the position of SC. As a result Eisenhower got the job despite his spotty record in N. Africa and the Med. Eisenhower then moved quickly to get Devers, who he saw as a threat, out of the picture by requesting his transfer to the Med. as commanding officer MTOUSA, NATOUSA, etc., and deputy allied commander.

    Except for the part about Churchill's view of Devers, this information is laid out pretty well in Pogue's biography of General Marshall.
     
  5. sparky34

    sparky34 Senior Member

    I think the majority of opinion is that '' IKE '' was the man for the job ,,
    what influence , if any ,did the DEPUTY SUPREME COMMANDER , ARTHUR TEDDER.
    have on EISENHOWER'S decisions ,,
     
  6. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Sparky
    i don't usually go along with the majority on many cases as IKE was the only one in that job -similarly with Tedder as Monty bounced off him - and Coningham in th desert for NOT supporting the Army better - and it wasn't until around Medenine when T& C took off for Algiers with Ike thatHarry Broadhurst took over and he and Monty them created the "Cab Rank" support for the army which was ultimately successful at El Hamma - Tunis and the swan to Antwerp et al-

    T & C then conspired to have Monty removed from his command and thus influenced Ike to have doubts - this was in the July '44 - so my thoughts are that they were a BAD influence
    with most things......but then I am known to be harsh on authors -so leaders are also fair game
    Cheers
     
  7. Dave55

    Dave55 Atlanta, USA

    Ike and Mamie on wedding day

    upload_2020-3-25_7-15-7.png
     
    TTH, von Poop and Owen like this.

Share This Page