Eisenhower dies in '44/'45: who becomes Supreme Allied Commander in Europe?

[CalBear]

Lets say Patton gets it. Then he invades Russia while McCarther invades the Far Eastern Coast. They meet up half way in Siberia while Curtis Lemay is having his wet dream. A-Bombs everywhere!

Huh?

Where would either one of them get the troops? The U.S. was (as we have discussed) close to the bottom of the manpower barrel as was. If the Soviets don't declare war on the Japanese it is 50/50 that the U.S./Allies have to invade Japan. Once that bloodbath was done, and the U.S. had used up 150-200,000 men in the effort there would have been even less personnel available to try something this hare-brained. Patton or MacArthur even considered it and they would have been arrested.

 

[usertron2020]

Alan Brooke is a more likely candidate than Montgomery. Even Churchill was getting fed up with Montys personality.

Except that just as FDR couldn't stand the thought of Marshall being out of Washington, Brooke couldn't stand the idea of HIMSELF being out of London. Just in case Churchill suddenly got the bright idea of invading Norway the day Brooke stepped out of Number 10.

The few French commanders with the ability to lead a coalition were unknown outside the French military.

I WAS BEING FACETIOUS

When did Montgomery hold that "title"? Alexander did serve as Ikes deputy commander for ground forces during most of 1943. Monty's role in Overlord was as 21st Army Group commander.

Its splitting hairs to say there was a difference between "Allied Ground Forces Commander" and "21st Army Group Commander" before 12th Army Group was activated.

Alexander ceased oversight of Montgomery when the latter got orders to for 21st AG command and departed the Mediterranean. Alan Brooke was the man who could make or break Monty without reference to any one else.

If Monty was to be removed while Ike was still alive and serving as SACEUR, Ike could do so. If as Chief-of-the-Imperial-General Staff, Brooke wanted to remove him, I believe he also could. Are these both true?

Hodges was relatively unknown in early 1944. There were several other candidates with broader experience and reputation.

A sensible observation. Problem: I don't think the OP was very strict on the timimg of TTL's death for Ike. 1944-45, I believe it was. So if Ike dies in early 1945, Hodges' elevation to 12th Army Group command becomes less eyebrow raising.

Collins had at least a couple months combat experience vs the Japanese, tho as a division commander. Unlikely he would be elevated to army command so quickly. Later after a few months as a corps or a army deputy it could happen.

See Hodges above. By early 1945 the pressure to promote Collins had gotten very strong.

 

[Vice President Mike]

Huh?

Where would either one of them get the troops? The U.S. was (as we have discussed) close to the bottom of the manpower barrel as was. If the Soviets don't declare war on the Japanese it is 50/50 that the U.S./Allies have to invade Japan. Once that bloodbath was done, and the U.S. had used up 150-200,000 men in the effort there would have been even less personnel available to try something this hare-brained. Patton or MacArthur even considered it and they would have been arrested.

I was joking, come on its almost Friday and Jimmy Fallon gets the Tonight Show

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

I WAS BEING FACETIOUS

Humor carries so poorly on discussion boards

If Monty was to be removed while Ike was still alive and serving as SACEUR, Ike could do so. If as Chief-of-the-Imperial-General Staff, Brooke wanted to remove him, I believe he also could. Are these both true?

Less so with Ike. He had permission from Brooke to dismiss any Brit commander he found unfit. They had a private conversation about this and related matters during preparation for the Overlord Op. By 1944 Brookes political position seems to have been secure enough he did not need permission for removing a army or AG commander.

 

[King of the Uzbeks]

I was joking, come on its almost Friday and Jimmy Fallon gets the Tonight Show

Wah!?????????

 

[Kung Fucious]

I was joking, come on its almost Friday and Jimmy Fallon gets the Tonight Show

Cool story bro.

As for the OP, it's easy to say who WOULDN'T have gotten it (obvious picks are Patton, Monty, etc.). Marshall would have been a good pick, he had the clout (Churchill was a big fan, adviser to FDR, etc.) and he knew how to organize. There are worse qualities for a SACEUR to have.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Leslie McNair would be high on the list

 

[bsmart]

I think it depends on when Ike dies. If before July of '44 I think it might be McNair. After that (when he was killed by 'shorts' in Normandy) looking at the campaign was very active I think Roosevelt may have to learn to live without Marshall, at least for a while.

It will be an American and although Devers or Bradley would be reasonable choices it may be that there would be too much baggage that the Brits would have to swallow and it would be more politic to bring in a very high candidate.

 

[usertron2020]

I think it depends on when Ike dies. If before July of '44 I think it might be McNair. After that (when he was killed by 'shorts' in Normandy) looking at the campaign was very active I think Roosevelt may have to learn to live without Marshall, at least for a while.

It will be an American and although Devers or Bradley would be reasonable choices it may be that there would be too much baggage that the Brits would have to swallow and it would be more politic to bring in a very high candidate.

Put that way your point may well be inarguable. Plus, if Ike is killed by say a V-1 it would be seen as a combat death, crowning him with a halo, and making the change to another American easier. Probably everyone this side of Monty would be satisfied. IMVHO I think Monty found Ike much more malleable than any other American commander he was likely to ever get.

 

[zert]

I will join with others and say that Marshall would be the best after 44.

 

[Driftless]

AlanBrooke. If Ike were lost so late in the program, it would need to be the top guy in theater - Brooke.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Is there a British guy besides Monty would would be acceptable.

Lets say Patton gets it. Then he invades Russia while McCarther invades the Far Eastern Coast. They meet up half way in Siberia while Curtis Lemay is having his wet dream. A-Bombs everywhere!

and whislt we are at it. Pigs will dance. Horses wil;l learn to fly and a giraffe will learn how to sing.

 

[TFSmith121]

Short answer? GCM

Is there a British guy besides Monty would would be acceptable.

No. Not in a million years.

GCM is the obvious answer, but the question is if he goes to the ETO, who replaces him as CSA, and does that open up the whole March-Pershing issue?

More likely answer is that GCM remains as CSA, and either:

McNair goes to the ETO from AGF, or;
JL Devers comes up from the MTO; or
Bradley moves up from the AG level; or
Handy goes to the ETO from DCSA; or (remote)
DeWitt moves over from WDC.

Best,

 

[LestWeForget]

Move MacArthur over from the Pacific, or Harold Alexander.

 

[Geordie]

I think FDR may have to cope with losing Marshall. The only person from Britain I could think about is Brooke, but (As Usertron has pointed out) he was scared to leave Churchill alone for the amount of time it took to run a bath, let alone the SACEUR!

"Ah, Brooke, there you are. Had a cracking idea while in the WC. How about we invade Norway? And Greece? Why not Turkey, while we're at it?"

If he isn't there to sit on some of Churchill's more ludicrous ideas, the midden will hit the fan. Actually, if Marshall did take SACEUR, there'd probably be a lot less bitterness between those below him. Put simply, I can't see Marsgall putting up with Monty's shenanigans, nor can I see Monty thinking he can get away with them. If he bahaves himself, and Marshall can convince Bradley he's actually Patton's superior, and is allowed to act like it, things should be somewhat more harmonious than in OTL.

Would there be any major negatives to Marshall not being in Washington from June '44 onwards? Were there any major Charlie Foxtrots that he had to clear up that may otherwise have gone unattended?

 

[The Red]

"Ah, Brooke, there you are. Had a cracking idea while in the WC. How about we invade Norway? And Greece? Why not Turkey, while we're at it?"

This made my Morning.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Actually, if Marshall did take SACEUR, there'd probably be a lot less bitterness between those below him. Put simply, I can't see Marsgall putting up with Monty's shenanigans, nor can I see Monty thinking he can get away with them. If he bahaves himself, and Marshall can convince Bradley he's actually Patton's superior, and is allowed to act like it, things should be somewhat more harmonious than in OTL.

Would there be any major negatives to Marshall not being in Washington from June '44 onwards? Were there any major Charlie Foxtrots that he had to clear up that may otherwise have gone unattended?

who would replace Marshall in Washington?

 

[Nytram01]

I think Patton has a good chance, but the Joint Chiefs and FDR would want Bradley. The Americans would never accept this but maybe Montgomery?
So top choices......
-Patton
-Bradley
-Monty

FDR wanted Marshall in Washington, that's why he didnt get the job in the first place.

Patton has no chance. He's below Bradley and Devers in the pecking order for one thing, and is known not to be a team player or to possess a delicate touch diplomatically for another, not to mention that he was an Anglophobe and his open derision for the British forces and the commanding officer of 21st Army Group - Montgomery - would mean he would only bring discord to role and risk breaking the western alliance apart.

As far as Bradley goes, Marshall likes him, the Americans would support him above any Brit, but Alanbrooke doesn't think that much of him. The Combined Chiefs of Staff would thus have another argument over it and would hardly be united in their support of his appointment. It might still happen given that America is gaining the clear upper hand over the British in terms of influence on Allied campaigns, and if it did Alanbrooke would do nothing to undermine Bradley, but it would not be a smooth promotion.

Monty has too many enemies in the American forces and in SHEAF HQ itself for him to get the job. Plus, Marshall doesn't think much of him anyway.

Marshall wont get the job because he's needed more in Washington, and while Alanbrooke would fancy the job now that the role of CIGS is not as important as it had been he wont get it because he's a Brit and the Americans are suspicious about his intentions and motives.

In my opinion, Devers is probably the best bet.

 

[Nytram01]

Oops. I forgot about Devers. Yeah, good choice. But had Devers even ever handled an army command, much less an army group?

Why would any lack of experiance in Army or Army Group command be a stumbling block for Devers getting the SHEAF job? It didn't prevent Eisenhower getting the job in OTL.

 

[Nytram01]

Is there a British guy besides Monty would would be acceptable.

The American commanders like Alexander. Though Alex doesn't think much of the yanks as soldiers, he's a push-over who doesn't take charge of events and prefers to stick to the issue of keeping alliances together rather than dealing the military situation at hand. Monty would also like Alex because he'd either bully him into getting what he wants or ignore him completely and get on with doing his own thing.