How good was Marshall at selecting commanders?

Now we have done a lot of general bashing ('scuse the punt).

But it leaves oen question:

Marshall selected:

Eisenhower (no strategic or tactical knowledge at all)
Vinegar Joe (maybe the most radical british-hater of all times)
Mark Clark (jeez)
MacArthur
... others?

I am not sure on King. Despite King not being greatly taken by the British, I do believe he was the right man for the job.

In essence, was Marshal good at putting the right commanders in place or did he just take what was there and hope for the best?

Ivan
 
IIRC he only made one monumental screwup, and that was the selection of Lloyd "Is my bunker big enough yet?" Fredendall.
 
What exactly have you read on this subject? So far your posts sound like you are dpending of television of third rate internet sources. i recommend you get back after reading at least all of Eisnehowers biographys, Pogues bio of Marshal, and the biographies of at least ten US generals of WWII. In reading all these pay particualr attention to the training opportunities, military education, and general experience of these men from 1900 to 1942.

One critical point anyone researching this subject will notice is how few of the US Army officers had any combat experience. A few remaining in 1940 had a few weeks or days combat experience in 1918. Clark was one of those. Combat is the only vaild test of a officers performance in combat. Aside from this problem Marshal was faced with a four year task of creating a eight million man army out of a wholly inadequately trained & prepared army cadre of 40,000 Regular Army officers & NCOs & the doubtfull skills of the Army Reserve and national Guard officers/NCO. What marshall needed before he send a single corps to combat were leaders who were superlative at planning, organizing and executing. That guided his selection & he put those with the best track record in those skills and training of soldiers a the top of the list.

Lest one hastily criticize this thinking note that it was the same philosophy that drove the selection of the elite of the German officer corps who got to wear the red stripe of the General Staff, or who were otherwise selected for senior command. Only the top in organizational ability were selected for the General Staff training, or for command with or without it. Of course the Germans had large pool of potiential general officers who had many months or years of combat experience, which the US Army absolutely did not have.
 
I am not sure on King. Despite King not being greatly taken by the British, I do believe he was the right man for the job.

You mean the admiral?

If you're saying he was selected by Marshall, I don't think that's right.

If you're saying Ernest King was better at choosing flag officers, well, Halsey is the only real bigtime USN rogue I can think of, and I gather his strengths as an aggressive commander outweigh his 'the world wonders' stuff.


If we're serious about assessing General George Marshall's abilities as a manager of senior personnel then surely the chief of staff's ability to downgrade Patton for the sake of army morale, and then rehabilitate him when the Second Front opened up, that must be taken into account.
 
IIRC he only made one monumental screwup, and that was the selection of Lloyd "Is my bunker big enough yet?" Fredendall.

Tough one. Up to that point Fredendall was more or less a clone to Patton. A loud commanding presence, tough disciplinarian, long running reputation as a trainer of soldiers, ect... exactly why he failed in Tunisia as II Corps commander is a understudied subject. Historians or authors like Blumenson or Atkinson dont dig deeply enough into how & why Frededall fell apart in the winter of 1943. Dig around and you may find a couple other from 'Marshals list' who did not do nearly as well as hoped.

Back when I was paid to do military leadership things I used to see the same things happen to my peers. Officers, or NCOs who one had complete confidence in would fall apart suddenly. You never saw it coming untill after they took command of a battalion, company, or detachment. Probablly a research opportunity for a group of psycologists & other human behavior specialists.
 
Pretty much above average by world standards.

Most modern armies (i.e. starting with a trained professional officer corps) seem to have a ~30% failure rate in higher commanders when wars start. The US army certainly for corps and higher (maybe for division as well in combat) both performed well and did not fire that many.

Says something about the pool he was drawing from and their training too.
 
Top