Was Eisenhower a "great" general?

Gator By Marriage said:

In the thread in the political forum on the covid vaccine, @grengadgy posted, in response to a comment by @rogdochar about Fauci, (clearly with sarcasm, to me anyway) "I don't even know how long Eisenhower was in the trenches before he became commander of all allied forces in Europe." I thought it was funny. @wrpgator on the other hand, thought it was not sarcasm and posted:
"You chose a bad example or you're trying to support Rog's premise:
Eisenhower might have been a better Supreme Allied Commander if he had served in the trenches (he served stateside through WWI) or at least had some combat command experience. If he had, and hadn't acquiesced (like the politician that he was) to the Brits so often drawing the ire of his own field commanders, he might have been better, possibly ending the war several months earlier. He was not great, and neither is the strutting Foghorn Fauci."

I have no desire to get mired in the debates in the political forum, generally, and absolutely on the whole covid business. wrp, however, did get me thinking about Eisenhower though and knowing the history buffs here, I thought his performance in WW2 might be a good topic for discussion.

While I can certainly see from where wrp and others would be coming in their criticisms of Ike, I would disagree with the overall assessment. Ike quite possibly had one of the most difficult assignments (when viewed in its' totality) any officer has ever been given. I think wrp is absolutely correct when he refers to Ike as a "politician" but I would argue that that is exactly what that position called for. He certainly made his share of mistakes, but for the most part he made them early - Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa was riddled with them and the most positive thing I can say about it with regards to Ike's role was that 1) it was ultimately successful and 2) it served him well as a learning experience. As for whether he acquiesced to the Brits too much, this is a matter of some debate among professional historians with no definitive consensus being reached. I think when viewed in terms of the ultimate results, he did one hell of a job and deserves the title of "great." No, not a great field general in the sense of an Alexander or in more modern terms say a Truscott, or on the other side a Kesselring, but as an overall theater commander? I'd say yes.

Well Chatterers, what say you?

Click to expand...

Gator By Marriage said:

In the thread in the political forum on the covid vaccine, @grengadgy posted, in response to a comment by @rogdochar about Fauci, (clearly with sarcasm, to me anyway) "I don't even know how long Eisenhower was in the trenches before he became commander of all allied forces in Europe." I thought it was funny. @wrpgator on the other hand, thought it was not sarcasm and posted:
"You chose a bad example or you're trying to support Rog's premise:
Eisenhower might have been a better Supreme Allied Commander if he had served in the trenches (he served stateside through WWI) or at least had some combat command experience. If he had, and hadn't acquiesced (like the politician that he was) to the Brits so often drawing the ire of his own field commanders, he might have been better, possibly ending the war several months earlier. He was not great, and neither is the strutting Foghorn Fauci."

I have no desire to get mired in the debates in the political forum, generally, and absolutely on the whole covid business. wrp, however, did get me thinking about Eisenhower though and knowing the history buffs here, I thought his performance in WW2 might be a good topic for discussion.

While I can certainly see from where wrp and others would be coming in their criticisms of Ike, I would disagree with the overall assessment. Ike quite possibly had one of the most difficult assignments (when viewed in its' totality) any officer has ever been given. I think wrp is absolutely correct when he refers to Ike as a "politician" but I would argue that that is exactly what that position called for. He certainly made his share of mistakes, but for the most part he made them early - Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa was riddled with them and the most positive thing I can say about it with regards to Ike's role was that 1) it was ultimately successful and 2) it served him well as a learning experience. As for whether he acquiesced to the Brits too much, this is a matter of some debate among professional historians with no definitive consensus being reached. I think when viewed in terms of the ultimate results, he did one hell of a job and deserves the title of "great." No, not a great field general in the sense of an Alexander or in more modern terms say a Truscott, or on the other side a Kesselring, but as an overall theater commander? I'd say yes.

Well Chatterers, what say you?

Click to expand...

wrpgator said:

Ike...good not great in my opinion. He's the Henry Halleck of WWII (Halleck might have been the smartest general in the Union Army, but in field command was overly cautious. When he was taken out of the field and made chief of staff, he excelled in that capacity with Grant being general-in-chief.) Eisenhower had exceptional organizational skills but had no combat command experience. He was elevated above 400 more senior officers. He typically had a 'hands off' policy and allowed his subordinates to pursue their own courses at times when coordination and cooperation were critical. In Normandy, the Allies fumbled badly and acted too slowly closing the Falaise pocket where the entire German Army in Normandy could have been trapped in Aug '44. Much damage was done to the Germans, but enough escaped through the gap that Hitler was able to mount a substantial counteroffensive in the winter of 1944. Eisenhower and his subordinates looked past Overlord as the German Army escaped the pocket to fight another day. When trapping the German Army was still possible, two "stop orders" were issued, both involving Patton. The first stopped Patton's northern advance toward the Falaise. Patton had three scenarios ready to put into action. The second "stop" prevented Patton from completing a wider encirclement by pushing east.

Montomery's 'interallied boundaries' were restrictive operationally and confused flank protections. And old American - British animosities led to poisoned relationships between Monty and Bradley. Ike allowed these things to affect the progress of operations. Failures of command, and dithering gave the German Army time to withdraw from Normandy and extend the duration of the war. This was the campaign that should have won WWII and put the Western democracies in Berlin before Ivan got there.

Click to expand...

AlexDaGator said:

Can’t agree with you on Ike as Halleck though. Halleck was jealous of Grant and actively held him back.

One of Ike’s great virtues (and one that really separates him from the likes of Patton, Monty, MacArthur, etc.) is his apparent lack of vanity. When Patton screwed up (Metz, for example) it was a result of his vanity and need for personal glory. Same with Monty and Market Garden.

When Ike made a mistake, it wasn’t hubris, it was more likely the result of erring on the side of good allied relations.

Patton wanted the glory of liberating Paris. Ike wasn’t interested in liberating Paris because he was concerned about his supply lines and he knew he’d have to feed those people. I always found that dichotomy fascinating.

Alex.

Click to expand...

Gator By Marriage said:

In the thread in the political forum on the covid vaccine, @grengadgy posted, in response to a comment by @rogdochar about Fauci, (clearly with sarcasm, to me anyway) "I don't even know how long Eisenhower was in the trenches before he became commander of all allied forces in Europe." I thought it was funny. @wrpgator on the other hand, thought it was not sarcasm and posted:
"You chose a bad example or you're trying to support Rog's premise:
Eisenhower might have been a better Supreme Allied Commander if he had served in the trenches (he served stateside through WWI) or at least had some combat command experience. If he had, and hadn't acquiesced (like the politician that he was) to the Brits so often drawing the ire of his own field commanders, he might have been better, possibly ending the war several months earlier. He was not great, and neither is the strutting Foghorn Fauci."

I have no desire to get mired in the debates in the political forum, generally, and absolutely on the whole covid business. wrp, however, did get me thinking about Eisenhower though and knowing the history buffs here, I thought his performance in WW2 might be a good topic for discussion.

While I can certainly see from where wrp and others would be coming in their criticisms of Ike, I would disagree with the overall assessment. Ike quite possibly had one of the most difficult assignments (when viewed in its' totality) any officer has ever been given. I think wrp is absolutely correct when he refers to Ike as a "politician" but I would argue that that is exactly what that position called for. He certainly made his share of mistakes, but for the most part he made them early - Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa was riddled with them and the most positive thing I can say about it with regards to Ike's role was that 1) it was ultimately successful and 2) it served him well as a learning experience. As for whether he acquiesced to the Brits too much, this is a matter of some debate among professional historians with no definitive consensus being reached. I think when viewed in terms of the ultimate results, he did one hell of a job and deserves the title of "great." No, not a great field general in the sense of an Alexander or in more modern terms say a Truscott, or on the other side a Kesselring, but as an overall theater commander? I'd say yes.

Well Chatterers, what say you?

Click to expand...

wrpgator said:

Glad you started this, I thought about doing the same when I posted that reply.

Click to expand...

AlexDaGator said:

Yes.

Not THE best, but certainly qualifies as great.

In Ike, we aren't talking about brilliant or innovative tactics, or hard-charging, leading from the front, inspirational leadership. Ike was the CEO (setting aside Marshall for the moment).

He made some mistakes (letting Monty try Market Garden is up there for me) but he had a real grasp of the situation and what he needed to do. He had an incredible logistical challenge and he understood it and overcame it. He had an incredible political challenge dealing with his allies' competing interests and he mostly overcame those as well. He understood the importance of the bulldozer, the deuce and a half, the Higgins boat, and the C-47 (and he should have thrown in the locomotive and the liberty ship).

Let's compare him to his contemporaries. The German generals get tons of credit, and there was plenty of innovation and tactical genius with them, but their invasion of Russia was a massive failure of logistics. Russia folded pretty easily in WWI so maybe they were fixated on that, or maybe they were victims of their own propaganda figured the untermensch wouldn't rise up against the supermen. Maybe it was a little of both. Either way, they weren't prepared for the roads or the weather or the distances or the supply problems. You can't blame ALL of it on Hitler. Stalin was a murderous megalomaniac too but the Russian generals (those who survived the purges, anyway) were able to overcome the worst of his interference. Some of the blame has to be laid at the feet of the German general staff.

Manstein is often credited as the best of the Germans. You can make strong arguments that he was better than Monty or Bradley (or even Zhukov for that matter), but could he have done what Ike did? Would an Ike-led Barbarossa have been better prepared for success than the plan devised by the German general staff? You'd think yes, but in preparations for D-Day, Ike had a profound respect for German capabilities. If he was on the German general staff in 1940, would he have been overconfident after crushing Poland and France and seeing the Soviets bumble in Finland? Well, was he overconfident in green-lighting Market Garden? Was he overconfident at the Ardennes in 1944? How much credit does Ike get for superior allied intelligence, superior allied strategic bombing, superior allied logistics? The Germans had bad intelligence, no strategic bombing, and weak logistics. On the other hand, he really proved a master of organization, of putting the right men and supplies where they needed to be to win the war.

I guess it's tough to say. I don't think Ike could have done what Patton did, but by the same token, I don't think Patton could have done what Ike did. Ultimately, I consider Ike "great" because of the challenges he faced and successfully overcame.

Alex.

Click to expand...

wrpgator said:

Ike...good not great in my opinion. He's the Henry Halleck of WWII (Halleck might have been the smartest general in the Union Army, but in field command was overly cautious. When he was taken out of the field and made chief of staff, he excelled in that capacity with Grant being general-in-chief.) Eisenhower had exceptional organizational skills but had no combat command experience. He was elevated above 400 more senior officers. He typically had a 'hands off' policy and allowed his subordinates to pursue their own courses at times when coordination and cooperation were critical. In Normandy, the Allies fumbled badly and acted too slowly closing the Falaise pocket where the entire German Army in Normandy could have been trapped in Aug '44. Much damage was done to the Germans, but enough escaped through the gap that Hitler was able to mount a substantial counteroffensive in the winter of 1944. Eisenhower and his subordinates looked past Overlord as the German Army escaped the pocket to fight another day. When trapping the German Army was still possible, two "stop orders" were issued, both involving Patton. The first stopped Patton's northern advance toward the Falaise. Patton had three scenarios ready to put into action. The second "stop" prevented Patton from completing a wider encirclement by pushing east.

Montomery's 'interallied boundaries' were restrictive operationally and confused flank protections. And old American - British animosities led to poisoned relationships between Monty and Bradley. Ike allowed these things to affect the progress of operations. Failures of command, and dithering gave the German Army time to withdraw from Normandy and extend the duration of the war. This was the campaign that should have won WWII and put the Western democracies in Berlin before Ivan got there.

Click to expand...

AlexDaGator said:

So glad you brought up the failure to close the Falaise pocket. DG and I were discussing that in the chat box a couple weeks ago. I asked if Market Garden was the biggest mistake in that campaign, was the failure to close the gap the second biggest and why weren’t we able to close it?

We know Zhukov would have closed it but he would have had Soviets on both ends of the pincers and he wouldn’t have cared about casualties (including friendly fire). Ike had Americans and Canadians (two completely different armies and two completely different air forces) with Monty and Patton to deal with and we were far more concerned with casualties (especially friendly fire).

You and I probably agree the lives saved by shortening the war would have greatly outweighed Monty’s hurt feelings and a few thousand allied casualties at Falaise but like it or not, there were political pressures Ike couldn’t dismiss as easily as we can.

Close Falaise and no Market Garden and we probably end up shaking hands with the Russians a lot closer to Poland.

Alex.

Click to expand...

AlexDaGator said:

Can’t agree with you on Ike as Halleck though. Halleck was jealous of Grant and actively held him back.

One of Ike’s great virtues (and one that really separates him from the likes of Patton, Monty, MacArthur, etc.) is his apparent lack of vanity. When Patton screwed up (Metz, for example) it was a result of his vanity and need for personal glory. Same with Monty and Market Garden.

When Ike made a mistake, it wasn’t hubris, it was more likely the result of erring on the side of good allied relations.

Patton wanted the glory of liberating Paris. Ike wasn’t interested in liberating Paris because he was concerned about his supply lines and he knew he’d have to feed those people. I always found that dichotomy fascinating.

Alex.

Click to expand...

gatorev12 said:

Ike is a case study in great leadership/overall command, but no one can or would confuse him for a brilliant field general.

It's the same way that the best QBs aren't always going to be the best coaches; and the best sales guy isn't necessarily going to be the best manager of other sales guys.

We can sit here and nitpick on things he got wrong--ie: failing to be more aggressive in closing the Falaise pocket is probably the biggest mistake IMO because of the long-term ramifications to both the war and to the post-war period...and unlike some of his decisions earlier in the war, he probably knew better by this point--but one can objectively understand why he wasn't more aggressive in the situation because alliance management is delicate and both the British and French had objections to moving too fast (some valid, most not--with the benefits of time and the total picture).

One of the most brilliant naval minds of all history is Mahan--who was an academic in all but name; but whose works are *still* studied today by every country out there for it's timeless relevance. Sometimes it be that way.

All I can say is that I'm glad he was on our side.

...and not to derail the thread, but I think Market Garden wasn't the abject failure many make it out to be. Different thread though! :cool:

Click to expand...

wrpgator said:

Good points all. My reference to Halleck / Eisenhower was more along the lines of organizational skills vs. combat command and what was best suited for their skills and experience. Both were cautious field generals. McClellan was similar in this regard.

Shared command with an ally was challenging for Ike and he did as well as can be expected with Montgomery's inbred disdain for Americans and their commanders, but he waited too long to replace Monty. By September '44 relations between Monty and Bradley had them pursuing uncoordinated objectives. Ike's mistakes cannot be easily compared to those by Patton, as his impact the entire theater. Errors made by an army / corps / div commander sting a sector or front, it's easier to quantify mistakes by field generals like Patton at Metz or Grant at Shiloh. As to Eisenhower, who can say with certainty what action taken or not taken may have shortened the war and by how much? I do like Ike and think he did a good job considering shared command and our later entry into the war.

Click to expand...

Detroitgator said:

I don't believe anyone other than Eisenhower could have done that job any better than he did, period. And as a fighter, I'm not an Eisenhower fan.

Politicians are cowards, period, and both Roosevelt and Churchill put their cowardice squarely on Ike's shoulders.

All that said, the Western Front was a mere sideshow, period.

Falaise was a British failure, period. Churchill hated Monty, but could not fire him for political reasons. He repeatedly told Eisenhower, that Eisenhower could fire him and it was Ike's call. What a cowardly crock of sh!t that Ike had to "manage."

As for Market-Garden, I don't think most people realize the ENORMOUS pressure that was put on Ike, for YEARS, by Roosevelt/Marshal and Churchill, to use airborne forces in a massive drop operation. M-G involved at least 20 massive planning failures alone, all of which lie at the feet of the Brits (i.e., Monty and staff).

For almost all of Ike's big mistakes, he had very little political choice other than to make them, and again, as a fighter, I'm not a fan.

On top of all that, imagine being ordered to give de Gaulle a seat at the table... as an equal.

Click to expand...

Gator By Marriage said:

As for whether he acquiesced to the Brits too much, this is a matter of some debate among professional historians with no definitive consensus being reached.

Well Chatterers, what say you?

Click to expand...

Detroitgator said:

I don't believe anyone other than Eisenhower could have done that job any better than he did, period. And as a fighter, I'm not an Eisenhower fan.

Politicians are cowards, period, and both Roosevelt and Churchill put their cowardice squarely on Ike's shoulders.

All that said, the Western Front was a mere sideshow, period.

Click to expand...

deuce said:

Based on results only, Ike was a Great General............ but I believe he was a Desk Jockey and I would take a Patton led Army in any Brawl.

Enjoyed the depth of thought in the earlier comments. You guys amaze me, except for NV.........

Click to expand...

AlexDaGator said:

He made some mistakes (letting Monty try Market Garden is up there for me) but he had a real grasp of the situation and what he needed to do. He had an incredible logistical challenge and he understood it and overcame it.

Let's compare him to his contemporaries. The German generals get tons of credit, and there was plenty of innovation and tactical genius with them, but their invasion of Russia was a massive failure of logistics. Either way, they weren't prepared for the roads or the weather or the distances or the supply problems.

How much credit does Ike get for superior allied intelligence, superior allied strategic bombing, superior allied logistics? The Germans had bad intelligence, no strategic bombing, and weak logistics. On the other hand, he really proved a master of organization, of putting the right men and supplies where they needed to be to win the war.

Click to expand...

gatorev12 said:

You touched on am important topic here, the reason why the Allies won and what I'd argue is also Ike's biggest mistake: logistics.

Ike was superb at solving logistics and making sure the Allied armies remained supplied. DDay's success was in no small part due to the herculean efforts by engineering brigades making makeshift harbors and keeping the invasion armies supplied.

The Germans' entire defense plan once they couldn't stop the Allies on the beaches was: prevent the Allies from gaining a port where they could land more supplies.

And the biggest port in the area was Antwerp, which they surprisingly captured relatively intact ij early September; but, crucially, failed to secure the areas north of the port (which lies a few miles inland), allowing the Germans to mine and block it from being used. Ike and Monty both addressed it after the war in their memoirs as a mistake (Ike taking full responsibility for not ordering it). Market Garden failed in no small part because logistics lines were too extended and the catching tanks/infantry couldn't move as fast as they planned/wanted.

Antwerp wasn't fully "opened" until November. Had it been secured in September, the Allies would have been able to secure the Low Countries far sooner and/or push into Germany far sooner as well. While everyone realized the value of the port, they failed to seize the opportunity presented and to secure the entire area when they had the chance and the German armies were collapsing at the rapid Allied advance. Get Antwerp up and running and the Allies end the war likely by Christmas.

Click to expand...

gatorev12 said:

You touched on am important topic here, the reason why the Allies won and what I'd argue is also Ike's biggest mistake: logistics.

Ike was superb at solving logistics and making sure the Allied armies remained supplied. DDay's success was in no small part due to the herculean efforts by engineering brigades making makeshift harbors and keeping the invasion armies supplied.

The Germans' entire defense plan once they couldn't stop the Allies on the beaches was: prevent the Allies from gaining a port where they could land more supplies.

And the biggest port in the area was Antwerp, which they surprisingly captured relatively intact ij early September; but, crucially, failed to secure the areas north of the port (which lies a few miles inland), allowing the Germans to mine and block it from being used. Ike and Monty both addressed it after the war in their memoirs as a mistake (Ike taking full responsibility for not ordering it). Market Garden failed in no small part because logistics lines were too extended and the catching tanks/infantry couldn't move as fast as they planned/wanted.

Antwerp wasn't fully "opened" until November. Had it been secured in September, the Allies would have been able to secure the Low Countries far sooner and/or push into Germany far sooner as well. While everyone realized the value of the port, they failed to seize the opportunity presented and to secure the entire area when they had the chance and the German armies were collapsing at the rapid Allied advance. Get Antwerp up and running and the Allies end the war likely by Christmas.

Click to expand...

Gator By Marriage said:

Those who feel that had different decisions been made which would have enabled the western Allies to capture Berlin are overlooking the "London Protocol." In September of 1944, the US, the UK, and Soviets agreed to areas of occupation that were later pretty much adhered to (with a zone added later, at Yalta, for the French). While we could have gone back on the agreement with all of Germany in our possession, I doubt that we would have - especially as we were keen at the time for the Soviets to join the war in the Pacific. It should be noted that when given an opportunity to advance and capture parts of Germany in 1945 that were in the future Soviet Zone, Ike declined; he did not want to risk American or British lives for territory soon to be turned over to the Russkies.

Click to expand...