"What if Marshall had replaced Eisenhower?" Topic

Everyone talks about what a superb military mind he was. However, he was totally untested in command. So was Eisenhower, for that matter.
would Marshall have handled Overlord any better? I don't think so myself. He would have had to learn all over the things that eisenhower had.

On another track, I think replacing Ike with either Bradley or (God forbid!) Patton would have been disastrous. They both HATED Monty, and Ike got along with him. Os much for Allied cooperation.

Eisenhower's wife would have been confused?

Yes, he was a long time away from home.

As the Chief of Staff of the Army would he have been able to? He was responsible for the Army activities in all the Theaters and areas where the Army was involved. Who would replace Marshall? Robert

Overlord would have happened pretty much the same. The Cossack plan had been around for a while before it was ever really needed.

Of course being replaced would have meant Ike didn't have to pay Monty the £5.00 GBP for being in Paris early.

That's interesting, but wasn't Ike Senior overall?
There's no way Patton would be in overall charge, as he only had 2/3 stars.
I've just talked to my friend Fred and he said That Ike was a staff officer during the inter-war years and had better organization skills than the people he was promoted over.
After North Africa, Marshall had charge of the Med theater and Ike went to the UK.
If he had screwed up in Africa he might have been replaced, or if Overlord had failed he might have been replaced then.

Since Marshal was Ike's mentor, I would assume he would have planned it about the same. The real question is, would he have gambled on the weather on 6 June, as Ike did.

After North Africa, Marshall had charge of the Med theater and Ike went to the UK.

No, sorry, Marshall was already chief of staff of the US Army. FDR trusted him and would not have let him leave that job. Ike was Marshall's protege', a mere lt. col. when the war started, IIRC.

If Ike had been replaced, we'd all be speaking Dutch and eatin' croissants for dinner, I tells ya.

There's no way Patton would be in overall charge, as he only had 2/3 stars.

Nothing that a promotion, and restraining himself from slapping a shell shocked soldier or two could not have fixed.

Maybe FDR figured that one prima donna was enough and he already had MacArthur.

I think we all must be grateful that a man of Eisenhower's patience was in command and thus able to cope with the huge ego's involved, by this I mean Montgomery and Patton. It was a rare man who could stand to cope with their badly flawed personalities and yet recognise their contributions to allied success – to whit, Monty's professional knowledge and grip, and Patton's drive and leadership flair.

Well said Sparker--What Ike did well was working with different people and co-ordinating….He wasn't a very good General but was a good diplomat!! That was more important with prima-donnas like Monty, Patton etc etc..

Marshall seemed to have the knack of putting the right people in the right place. Many of the officers he hand picked and had a hand in their careers before the war. Robert

Why doesn't anyone ever call Bradley a prima donna? He could be just as bad.

OFM, are you reading Atkinson's books? I am and I picking up that same opinion of Bradley.

IIRC, Atkinson thought FDR briefly considered placing Marshall in charge of Overlord but decided to stay with Ike. Even though Ike was on shakey ground after Sicily and Salerno.

Archstanton – it's probably a bit unfair unfair to label Eisenhower as "not a very good general" because he was basically untested as such. He didn't get a field command in WWI because he was so good at organising & training, rahter than through any preceived incompetence. I agree completely with the rest of what you (& Sparker) say though, Ike was the right man for the job.

Didn't Patton talk about being Ike's cavalry commander in the next war, back in the 1920s when Patton was still the senior? Patton strikes me as a more hands on sort of guy, who probably didn't want Ike's job. The kind of guy who came out of the war just a little disappointed he didn't get to kill any Germans himself.

Eisenhower mentions working with Monty setting up NATO after the war for about twice as long as he did during the war, and seems to have managed to get on with him then.
Grelber

OFM, are you reading Atkinson's books?

Why, yes, I am!

Eisenhower was the perfect choice – the prototype of the coalition general – while I don't know that he was a military genius, he had great command ability and could keep the peace between feuding subordinates – and keep them focused on fighting the Germans

I have to agree, while I think Patton would have been a disaster in supreme command I don't think Bradley would have done better – Bradley just had the good sense not to have too many public fits

Fortunately, perhaps, Ike's job didn't call for the kind of brilliance we usually associate with military geniuses, such as Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, et al. It called for meticulous planning (at least until the amphibious landings succeeded) and great diplomatic skills. Once securely ashore in Normandy, Ike's one strategy was attrition, and one has to say, it worked. It was not brilliant, but it was not risky either -- the one thing the Allies could not afford was a major disaster, so why risk one in pursuit of some brilliant maneuver? And, to get back on topic, I think Marshall would have done much the same.

Marty Fenelon's "Luftwaffe 1946" rule book has an Eisenhower replacement scenario all laid out. Ike, overflying the the Normandy front, is shot down by a Me-262. Monty takes charge of SHAEF, fires Patton (who goes to Pacific front), pulls strategic air off targets in Germany to help the front. No breakout ever occurs. German air defense, given the breather improves, new pilots are trained and not killed right away by the P-51's, new marks of fighters and jets appear in numbers, Type XX1 snorkeling UBoats go to sea in large numbers, transport of supplies and troops to the West front slows, Amerika bombers go active. The war moves into 1946 and 1947. I can't really speak about the East front in all this. There are other assumptions, mostly, I believe that the Germans somehow retain their petroleum assets. Germans do lose, eventually. Marty has a couple of cracking supplements to his game before that even. You asked.

It called for meticulous planning (at least until the amphibious landings succeeded) and great diplomatic skills. Once securely ashore in Normandy, Ike's one strategy was attrition

But planning for the invasion was COSSAC's responsibility, not Ike's and the final plan reflected Montgomery's insistence that the invasion be scaled up from three divisions to five. Also, Montgomery was land forces commander in Normandy so the strategy was more his than Ike's.

I think it's also fair to say that whoever was appointed supreme commander had to be acceptable to Britain, which was why Ike was right for the role and Patton wasn't. So it's not really a question of who FDR decided to give the job to, more an issue of who could the Allies agree on.

Allowing for the fact it had to be an American for political reasons, of course.

True, Ike was no military genius, but authentic great Captains were pretty thin on the ground in WWII on all sides. One could argue for Guderian and Manstein, but they had plenty of flaws as well. The allies had plenty of highly skilled above average types, but the geniuses were all off designing digital computers and atom bombs, not commanding armies.

Marshall would likely not have done as well as Ike, but the war would not have gone much differently.

Having just finished re-reading Weigley's superb "Eisenhower's Lieutenants" it seems like Marshall frequently made suggestions to Ike that indicate Marshall would have liked him to be more daring and aggressive than he was. So, if Marshall had been in Ike's place there is a chance he might have been more aggressive--or maybe not: it's easy to be in favor of taking a risk when you're not the one taking it.

But planning for the invasion was COSSAC's responsibility, not Ike's and the final plan reflected Montgomery's insistence that the invasion be scaled up from three divisions to five. Also, Montgomery was land forces commander in Normandy so the strategy was more his than Ike's.

Ike, Monty, et al greatly revised and, as you say, scaled up COSSAC'S plan after SHAEF was established. Ike had charge of overall strategy, Monty had charge of operations. But I was thinking mostly of the post-breakout phase, when Ike was ground commander as well as supreme commander. Monty kept wanting to concentrate on a narrow front (his) and Ike insisted on a broad front. A narrow front might give a better chance of a real break-through, but the broad front was better for causing attrition. Ike did approve one narrow-front thrust: Market-Garden, which, had it worked, would have "bounced" the Rhine; but it failed.

I think it's also fair to say that whoever was appointed supreme commander had to be acceptable to Britain, which was why Ike was right for the role and Patton wasn't. So it's not really a question of who FDR decided to give the job to, more an issue of who could the Allies agree on.

Good point. But I don't think Patton was ever considered for the job. He was not the HQ type.

it's easy to be in favor of taking a risk when you're not the one taking it.

Just so!

Everyone talks about what a superb military mind he was. However, he was totally untested in command.

Not sure if there is any life left in this topic but I've just reached 1942 in reading Alanbrooke's diary and thought I'd share some of his comments on Marshall. Brooke (as he was then) liked Marshall as a man and recognised him as a very good organiser and administrator. However, Brooke was unimpressed with Marshall as a strategist, commenting that a meaningful discussion with him on strategy was impossible as he simply accepted and repeated the brief prepared by his staff. Brooke cites a discussion with Marshall around Feb 1942 on the US proposal for a landing in France in Sep 1942, what became the Op Roundup plan. Marshall was evidently all in favour of the idea but noted the US would be able to contribute no more than 2.5 divisions due to shipping constraints from the US to UK. Brooke asked Marshall whether, once ashore in France, the plan would be to drive south, east or west. Marshall apparently replied that he hadn't looked that far ahead and didn't have an answer. Unsuprisingly, Brooke felt that a landing on the scale possible would be a total disaster and I'm sure most of us would agree.

As the OFM said in the op, Marshall was untested in command and AFAIK didn't fight in WW1. I don't know enough about Marshall to say whether the "superb military mind" view in the op is justified, but the above suggests to me that he probably wouldn't have been an improvement on Eisenhower.

Comments appreciated if anyone's still out there!

Its been stated above that Ike lacked aggressiveness. I think his D-Day call and the effort at Market-Garden were pretty gutsy.