WI: Canadian SACEUR

Ming777

Monthly Donor
What if say during World War II, the Brits and Americans couldn't agree to let a Yank or Brit take charge of the Allied Invasion of Europe, or most Candidates were caught with some troubles. As a compromise, they decided to get someone who is a neighbour with America, working together to create the Devils Brigade, and also aember of the Commonwealth.

If a Canadian General was appointed SACEUR, what might ensue?
 
What if say during World War II, the Brits and Americans couldn't agree to let a Yank or Brit take charge of the Allied Invasion of Europe, or most Candidates were caught with some troubles. As a compromise, they decided to get someone who is a neighbour with America, working together to create the Devils Brigade, and also aember of the Commonwealth.

If a Canadian General was appointed SACEUR, what might ensue?

Why?

I mean the Canadians contributed even less in raw numbers and resources than the British, as brave and competent as they proved on the ground, on paper it wasn't enough to justify them commanding what was undeniably in terms of resources and funding an American invasion.
 
Why?

I mean the Canadians contributed even less in raw numbers and resources than the British, as brave and competent as they proved on the ground, on paper it wasn't enough to justify them commanding what was undeniably in terms of resources and funding an American invasion.

The Canadians were the elite shock troops of the Allied war effort in both World Wars and everyone knew it.
 
The Canadians were the elite shock troops of the Allied war effort in both World Wars and everyone knew it.

That doesn't mean the American public is going to accept a Canadian leading an American force many times his own nations commitment which also equipped and supplied with substantial amounts of US equipment.

I'm not belittling Canada's contribution but I just can't see it overcoming the sheer scale of American involvement.
 
well about the only possible candidate I could think of would be Arthur Currie...and he died in 1933:(
nobody else strikes me as capable.
so it's a moot point.
 
I have to agree with Deathscompanion. Why would the Americans accept anyone who isn't one of their officers as SACEUR? The U.S. was going to be the main force of the Western allies. That isn't a belittlement, it is simply a statement of fact that the US was going to contribute more men, money, and material than everyone else by a huge margin. The country that contributes the most is going to want final say in how much of that is used.
 
footnote: Arthur Currie was being considered as Haig's replacement for 1919......with John Monash as his chief of staff(Australian)
Now wouldn t that have upset the pom generals.:D:D
 
Top