WI Eisenhower captured at Faid/Maizila 1943

Shaby

Well, reading the Liveblogging WW2 I found the entry for yesterday interesting.

Apparently, Dwight D. Eisenhower inspected US Army positions at Faïd and Maizila passes mere hours before 21st and 10th Panzer brushed off US 1st Armored in battle of Kasserine. With a slightly different timing Allied supreme commander might have been captured by Rommel. Obviously, unless the Allied campaign in Tunisia devolved into chaos (a very slight possibility) this changes very little in the correlation of forces. However, Ike's personality was indispensable for smooth functioning of disparate personalities involved at various sides. So, what the effects would be for the Allied campaign in North Africa, Italy and ultimately Normandy had Ike been captured?

Furthermore, what effects would this have on his presidency later on? Or would he be a viable candidate after all?

One more possibility - what if the Germans decided he was too important and put him on the airplane to Germany. Suppose the plane is shot down by the Allies. What would happen?

IMHO, the immediate command of the theatre would devolve on Alexander? Am I right? But obviously, in the long term, Americans would have wanted American general in overall command... Who would give in first? Patton or Anglo-American alliance? :D

Again, I agree that long-term, there is no changing of the ultimate outcome of the campaign. Allies are too strong for that. However, could the slower pace of the battle affect the other theaters of war?

I tried searching for this, but the results came empty.
 

Devolved

It pretty much ends any chance of being President of the United States a decade later. He would only be famous for being a POW.

I doubt the North Africa Campaign is affected much since Alexander was responsible for ground operations and I'm sure Montgomery and Patton would be able to cope with the loss.

After that it probably means someone like George Marshall is made Allied Supreme Commander for Overlord:eek:.

It also means Bradley doesn't get over promoted.
 

ranoncles

General Alexander would indeed be the most likely (temporary) commander of the allied forces. Sooner or later, an American would be appointed as American forces increased proportionally compared to the Commonwealth efforts. Patton would be the ranking general but quite likely Washington would send a more senior and diplomatic officer, probably Devers.

As for the further conduct of the war, especially D-Day, it is quite likely that General Marshal will assume overall command of the allied forces, as originally planned.
 

Ancientone

Banned
Devolved said:
It pretty much ends any chance of being President of the United States a decade later. He would only be famous for being a POW.

I doubt the North Africa Campaign is affected much since Alexander was responsible for ground operations and I'm sure Montgomery and Patton would be able to cope with the loss.

After that it probably means someone like George Marshall is made Allied Supreme Commander for Overlord:eek:.

It also means Bradley doesn't get over promoted.
Click to expand...

Marshall had expressed a desire to be Supreme Commander before Eisenhower's appointment and Patton was obviously unsuited to such a role. But surely Mark Clark had seniority over Patton and had a track record of being a planner--although his subsequent performance suggested inadequacy in performance.
Another candidate may have been Hap Arnold. He outranked both Patton and Clark and Eisenhower for that matter in Early 1943. Although Arnold did not get on with his Navy counterparts, neither did any other Army chief, he did get on very well with his British counterparts, a little too well according to some American Generals at the time. The fact that he was an aviator rather than an infantry or artillery man should have made no difference at that level.
 

Blackfox5

Patton was historically senior over Mark Clark. I do think Clark was promoted above Patton as a result of his negotiations with Vichy, but that is only because he was a crony of Eisenhower and only a matter of a few months. Clark was unsuited for the level of that command (if he was given a division to lead in combat and then a corps, he might have been competent as an army leader, but he was promoted way too early). There is no way he would have been given the top spot for Overlord.

Hap Arnold also won't be given command because he is an air officer. They are not going to give him command over ground troops.

Marshall is really the only American officer who would have been given the position of Supreme Allied Commander.
 

Aber

What about the other US Army Group commander Jacob Devers?

US theatre commander in London in May 1943 (succeeding Frank Andrews who died in an air crash IIRC) until moving to the Mediterranean in 1944 as part of the reshuffle that followed Eisenhower leaving the Mediterranean.

Would seem a sensible choice if Eisenhower disappeared earlier in 1943.
 

Ancientone

Banned
Blackfox5 said:
Patton was historically senior over Mark Clark. I do think Clark was promoted above Patton as a result of his negotiations with Vichy, but that is only because he was a crony of Eisenhower and only a matter of a few months. Clark was unsuited for the level of that command (if he was given a division to lead in combat and then a corps, he might have been competent as an army leader, but he was promoted way too early). There is no way he would have been given the top spot for Overlord.

Hap Arnold also won't be given command because he is an air officer. They are not going to give him command over ground troops.

Marshall is really the only American officer who would have been given the position of Supreme Allied Commander.
Click to expand...

I agree that Marshall was probably the best choice but Roosevelt had already vetoed the choice once. Surely Clark's shortcomings were not known until the invasion of Italy and, frankly not admitted until after the war--he was not sacked or moved, only his subordinates took the blame.
Regarding Arnold, I would point out that Tedder, an airman, was Deputy Supreme Commander, Mountbatten, a sailor, was Supreme Commander, SEAC and Nimitz (sailor) Supremo in the Pacific (OK it was a Navy war).
A General/Admiral is a General/Admiral and the Supreme Commander jobs were political and managerial not just technical--Arnold would have plenty of choice for an army Deputy Supremo--British or American.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The Marshall as leader makes sense, but I can also see Devers or Arnold. Now for the next question, do these Generals do better or worse than OTL? Or put another way, was Ike the best man for the job?
 

Shaby

No doubt Ike has done a faboulous managing and juggling act. Some of his decisions and choice of subordinates may have been less than ideal, but it all worked out in the end. Also, anyboy put in command of Torch instead of him, would probably build up a reputation similar to his. There is simply no way for the Allies to loose there.

I guess that interesting effects could also follow after war... Who would be a president instead of him in the critical period the Cold War? How would that work out?
 

Carl Schwamberger

I'm glad Devers name came up here. he has certainly become the forgotten 'marshall' of WWII. About the time of the Tunisian campaign he had been sent to the UK to command US forces there, and organized the continuation of Op Bolero. That was a major responsibility so he had a rep. as a capable leader then.

Some longer shots:

Krueger, might be diverted back from the Pacific. He was a bit older than Marshal liked, but he had a brilliant career that culmmated as one of the four 'mobilization barons' of 1940-41 in his command of the 4th Army. Tho he had never attended West Point or any other university he was probablly the intellectual superior of Brooke, and had the right combination of diplomatic skills and ability as a total prick to put Brooke, Patton, Monty, Fredenall, Anderson, and the others in their place.

McNair: sixteen months as chief of Army Ground Forces proved his organizational ability, and political skills. Maybe he could have 'led' Brits, I dont know, but he would have done well enough with the US generals.

Stillwell just might have been recalled from China, maybe.

Drum, Lear, and DeWitt were all aging and on the verge of failing health.

Maybe that guy who was in charge of Army Service Forces? He was the equivalent in responsibilty to McNair and Hap Arnold.

Devers was at least not unliked by the Brits. Brooke and the others had little negative to say about him during his tenure in the UK.
 

Know Nothing

This is one of the less easy WWII changes of command to predict IMO.

My guess is that, from greatest to least likely, the replacement would be either McNarney, McNair, Devers, Clark or Patton.
 

Carl Schwamberger

I wonder how McNarneys diplomatic/political skills were? In some ways he is even more obscure than Devers. Same question for McNair, as he another of the Anglophobes? Clark was as junior as Eisenhower, and lacked the Churchill connection Ike accquired. Patton was too valuable as a operational commander & I think Marshal understood that. Patton probablly would have been more important as a leading commander had he avoided any of several leadership or political screwups.

I am still intrigued by Krueger, but Devers, McNarney, Mc Nair, or a couple others are more likely.
 

tallthinkev

Donor
Who says it has to be an amercian in charge? Were there not more British and Empire troops in NA and then later in Italy? And more on D-Day.
 

Ancientone

Banned
tallthinkev said:
Who says it has to be an amercian in charge? Were there not more British and Empire troops in NA and then later in Italy? And more on D-Day.
Click to expand...
By 1943 a US Supremo was a sine na quon,something than Monty discovered the hard way when he aspired to the job. US public opinion, let alone military and political opinion would have allowed for nothing else.
 

Shaby

tallthinkev said:
Who says it has to be an amercian in charge?
Click to expand...

Americans were saying this a lot. They perceived it fair since they provided most arms, men and supplies. While Commonwealth forces were more numerous at early stages of war, they were mostly equipped with US made equipment. Thus, Americans felt they were entitled to name the supreme commander in joint operations.

Besides, British 'enjoyed' reputation of incompetent blunders. Quite unjustifiably, but it was there nonetheless.

Right, so far Marshall is out of consideration for Overlord commander. Devers seems the best bet to me.
 

Star Chamber

Is there any logical, non-ASB way, to get Patton to be Supreme Allied Commander for Overlord, following Eisenhower's capture?
 

Carl Schwamberger

tallthinkev said:
Who says it has to be an amercian in charge? Were there not more British and Empire troops in NA and then later in Italy? And more on D-Day.
Click to expand...

I agree for the short run. After all Wilson took over for the Med when Ike departed. But, where the Yanks might predominate then it must be one of them.

Shaby said:
Besides, British 'enjoyed' reputation of incompetent blunders. Quite unjustifiably, but it was there nonetheless.
Click to expand...

The Yanks enjoyed the same among many Brits. "Our Italians" as the joke went.

Star Chamber said:
Is there any logical, non-ASB way, to get Patton to be Supreme Allied Commander for Overlord, following Eisenhower's capture?
Click to expand...

Other than Patton himself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top