World War Two Politics and Command (2 Viewers)

[OzDigger]

As most of you know my earlier 'Historical Thread' was a temporary measure pending a separate 'Historical Forum' which we now have. In the earlier thread I noticed that much of the discusion revolved around the different personalities in World War Two, including the Generals, Presidents and other leaders. Therefore I thought that now would be a good time to start a specific thread on the subject in our new forum.

Politics is sometimes a 'no go' area in forums together with sex and religion. However I feel we can have a 'reasonable' discussion about it (politics) if we confine the arguement to military areas and don't get to carried away with our own personal beliefs and passion.

World War Two remains the largest and most dynamic war to date. Where Generals, on all sides, often had a tenuous excistence based upon their success or failure in battles fought. However more often than not politics was often placed ahead of military necessity. In my opinion a prime example of this occured when Eisenhower was appointed Supreme Allied Commander for the Invasion into Western Europe instead of Sir Alan Brooke. Churchill had always wanted Brooke for this important position but pressure from the US, that was providing most of the material and men, meant Eisenhower secured the position. I mean no offence to Eisenhower but his military capacity was no match for Brooke. For example, many of the American Generals such as McArthur, Patton etc believed Eisenhower was more suited to administration than military strategy and tactics.

Eisenhower wanted advancement on a wide front following D-Day. Which was against the opinion of most of the Allied Generals who wanted direct thrusts towards Germany, although they differed on the direction of those thrusts. In any event two main thrusts evolved following the broad front stalemate and both subsequent thrusts (Montgomery's and Patton's) suffered as neither received the resources required to secure the objective(s). Many of the lost opportunties can be traced back to Eisenhower attempting to plan military strategy as well as playing politics.

US and UK relations were somewhat shakey before D-Day, the Americans rarely listenening to British advice obtained from past experience in the war. The alliance grew progressively worse as the Allied Forces advanced closer towards Germany. To increase newspaper sales, the newspapers in both countries seized on these differences. The articles promoted half truths, myths and even lies to support their country's Generals and Leaders, while denegrating the others. It can be no wonder that Hitler believed the alliance was going to collapse before it reached Germany.

Following misquotes of Montgomery's speech regarding the Battle of the Bulge which included comments made a Nazi sympathiser things came to a head. To protect his own position Eisenhower issued oders to sack Montgomery and was only talked out of this course after some discussion. One could imagine the fallout if that sacking had occured as despite his personal problems, Montgomery was a better General than most people recognise and well regarded in the Commonwealth countries.

Of course the conflict between Eisenhower and Montgomery escalated further after the war in the famous 'Battle of the Memoirs'. Where the antagonists caused disagreement and resentment between the American and British camps that continue to this day.The conflict caused many people to choose sides despite their personal opinion of both authors. One of the few Generals that saw both sides of the story and remained objective was General James Gavin, and I can recommend his book 'On to Berlin' for anyone interested in the late WWII battles.

Here are some articles about Monty, the misunderstood General.
Part 1:http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?p=2240&page=1
Part 2:http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?p=2271&page=1
Part 3:http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?p&p=2293&page=1

 

[jazzeum]

Oz,

Thanks for posting that. I have never heard of that magazine but I have bookmarked it. However, I have heard of Carlo D'Este and his Decision at Normandy, which I have referred to previously, is one of the best history books I've read: a very balanced work on D Day and Montgomery. I'm planning on printing out this article and all the other articles D'Este has written for Arm Chair General.

 

[OzDigger]

Hi Brad and a late thanks for your comments.

Btw guys, I've noticed the historical section has been quiet lately which is a shame considering how popular it was initially. I guess it does take time to post here because you need to read reference material to get your facts right so others don't pick holes in it Actually I was expecting Louis to make some more comments about Monty.

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Guys,

I guess I will go ahead and take a stab at Monty. Here is what I think of him he would not have done as well for himself if General OConner had not been captured. Now that said he was probably one of the best logisticians/planners the British Army fielded during WWII. Although I wish Slim had been in Europe and not Asia but I guess you have to play the hand your dealt right.

As for Eisenhower he was more than capable because he managed to survive working for Dugout Doug who was a total tyrrant to work for from everything I have read so he had to have something going for him.

Dave

 

[binder001]

We could go on all day (and then some!) about the "broad front" versus "narrow thrust" strategies. I think Eisenhower was one of the best leaders of any country during the war. He had to balance national prides and interests, prima donna generals and supply shortages, to say nothing of dealing with De Gaulle! He tried to stay flexible during success (the rapid pursuit after the Normandy breakout) and during reverses (the early Ardennes offensive). Rather than caving in to constant political pressures he stayed focused on his mission - the destruction of the German Army. That focus did lead to one of the more controversial decisions, the decision to turn the bulk of the US Army south from Berlin to a reported "National Redoubt". He was chasing the military objective instead of the political with long term results for the German people as well as the western Allies.

One point to ponder - if Ike had followed the narrow thrust idea of stabbing into German, Monty probably would not have led it. With the US providing the greatest proportion of men and material to the ETO, the US public would never have stood for a British general commanding the main thrust. It probably would have gone to Bradley. Another point to ponder - in the east the Germans were pretty well practiced at dealing with deep thrusts, things could have ended up like an oversized "Market-Garden".

 

[OzDigger]

We could go on all day (and then some!) about the "broad front" versus "narrow thrust" strategies. I think Eisenhower was one of the best leaders of any country during the war. He had to balance national prides and interests, prima donna generals and supply shortages, to say nothing of dealing with De Gaulle! He tried to stay flexible during success (the rapid pursuit after the Normandy breakout) and during reverses (the early Ardennes offensive). Rather than caving in to constant political pressures he stayed focused on his mission - the destruction of the German Army. That focus did lead to one of the more controversial decisions, the decision to turn the bulk of the US Army south from Berlin to a reported "National Redoubt". He was chasing the military objective instead of the political with long term results for the German people as well as the western Allies.

One point to ponder - if Ike had followed the narrow thrust idea of stabbing into German, Monty probably would not have led it. With the US providing the greatest proportion of men and material to the ETO, the US public would never have stood for a British general commanding the main thrust. It probably would have gone to Bradley. Another point to ponder - in the east the Germans were pretty well practiced at dealing with deep thrusts, things could have ended up like an oversized "Market-Garden".

My Dear Binder, I'll have to disagree with you completely.

Broad thrusts are basically a carry over from World War One. Montgomery, unlike Eisenhower and Bradley, actually saw active service in WWI and he knew that broad thrusts were rarely successful, and if so, only at a great cost of human life and material. After several years of war (since 1939) the British-Commonwealth Forces had been nearly exhausted and did not wish to waste more lives and material uneccessarily. Which is the main reason they appeared to advance slowly comparred to US Forces, the Brits also usually faced better German troops and weaponry.

The Germans had proved on many occassions that several narrow frontal attacks (some were feints) deep into enemy lines, which they called Blitzkreig, were the most efficient method of attack. I don't think there has been a case of broad frontal attacks in warfare since the US did it in WWII. For example in the Gulf Wars the US basically used Blitzkreig tactics. If you race behind enemy lines with enough force and enough logistical support you will defeat the enemy asap every time. If you muck around with a broad front you had better be preparred for a long and bloody war. Of course you often have to hold a broad front, but it is foolish to attack that way.

Dugout Doug said Eisenhower was the best clerk he ever had and he turned into an exceptional political leader and president. However he had no combat experience and a poorer grasp of strategy and tactics than many of his subordinates - but he was the boss. On the other hand Montgomery was almost the opposite in that he had virtually no political ability.

They all knew Market-Garden was a gamble, but it may well have been a complete success if actioned earlier as Montgomery recommended. Therefore it is wrong to blame Montgomery completely for it's failure. The other consideration is that US and Commonwealth Forces rarely operated in close proximity during WWII because of friendly fire concerns etc.

Multiple thrusts are a better method, being the basic Blitzkreig tactic. Therefore two or more separate narrow thrusts with the different forces under separate commanders (near the fronts) would have been the ideal solution imo. However I understand they lacked the logistical support to accomplish this effectively in the early stages of the invasion.

I agree that the Germans were well practised in dealing with deep thrusts (by the Russians). They were able to hold these for a short time but they couldn't hold them for long, and or the Russians just attacked elsewhere.

 

[binder001]

Actually you could say that the Anglo-American operations really were three thrusts versus a WW1 style "broad front". Monty led one with 21st Army group, Bradley led the middle with 12th Army Group and Devers led the third with the Franco-American 6th Army Group. All three Army Groups operated as a thrust in cooperation with the overall plan. The gaps between were back-filled during operational pauses caused by outrunning their logistics.

I still take a very American view of Monty. Alamein was the actual high point in his carreer and spent the rest of the war trying to recapture that glory. I wonder if Allenbrooke might have been the better man o command in Europe? As far as Ike's lack of combat, I still don't see where that was a disadvantage after North Africa. He spent his time at strategic level and really didn't have to do tactical movements. If Monty was in charge, we would just now have troops approaching the Siegfried Line.

I'm sorry, but Market-Garden was Monty's show. He and "Boy" Browning came up with the plan and sold it to higher HQ. Poor intelligence and rushed planning led to a disaster for the British 1st Airborne Div. Where was Montgomery'y "full blooded" thrust when he had Antwerp and 1) failed to clear the Scheldt Estuary so the great port could be used sooner and 2) let thousands of Germans in the 15th Army escape - the very troops who would bog down XXX Corps during Garden.

Bottom line, there weren't any "perfect" commanders in WW2. Each one was a product of his background and the nation that trained him. They all brought a lot of "baggage" that sometimes cost many lives.

 

[panda1gen]

We could go on all day (and then some!) about the "broad front" versus "narrow thrust" strategies. I think Eisenhower was one of the best leaders of any country during the war. He had to balance national prides and interests, prima donna generals and supply shortages, to say nothing of dealing with De Gaulle! He tried to stay flexible during success (the rapid pursuit after the Normandy breakout) and during reverses (the early Ardennes offensive). Rather than caving in to constant political pressures he stayed focused on his mission - the destruction of the German Army. That focus did lead to one of the more controversial decisions, the decision to turn the bulk of the US Army south from Berlin to a reported "National Redoubt". He was chasing the military objective instead of the political with long term results for the German people as well as the western Allies.

One point to ponder - if Ike had followed the narrow thrust idea of stabbing into German, Monty probably would not have led it. With the US providing the greatest proportion of men and material to the ETO, the US public would never have stood for a British general commanding the main thrust. It probably would have gone to Bradley. Another point to ponder - in the east the Germans were pretty well practiced at dealing with deep thrusts, things could have ended up like an oversized "Market-Garden".

Binder

The sources I read suggested that whilst monty would have prefered to lead a narrow front he wasn't actually bothered who did, so long as someone did. I agree with Oz Digger that had the effort gone sooner it would probably have worked, or if the the info had been better or if they were able to drop in one go or if....or if....Ike's inability to make a clear decision was a factor?

 

[OzDigger]

Well at least you agreed that Eisenhower's broad front was in fact another WWII myth

No offence to yourself but I suspect most Americans base their pov of Montgomery mainly upon war movies rather than an objective study of the facts and the politics in WWII. For example, if the British had let the plans for Market-Garden fall into the hands of Model rather than the Americans I'm sure much more would have been made of that bit of 'bad luck' in the US. The Germans knew the 'where and when' of the entire plan including the reinforcements over the ensuing days.

I guess Market-Garden is now to entrenched in American folk lore to allow the failure of Market-Garden to a combination of several 'bad luck' episodes, together with some poor decisions - as is common in war. Instead they feel happy to blame its failure entirely on one person, Montgomery, which is untrue. There were so many 'what ifs', including several mentioned in the anti Montgomery movie 'A Bridge To Far', that it is wrong to deny them.

Speaking of Commanders and their background, that Patton sure was a 'colorful' chap. I recently 'found' the unedited speech he made to the Third Army prior to D-Day. Here it is (beware it is rather 'blue' colored): http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?p=45&page=1

 

[Combat]

The British had a tendency, no doubt based on their early war experience, to overestimate the ability of the Germans and underestimate the size and ability of the American and Russian allies. The central basis of disagreement between the American and Brits was the insistence of the British to fight in Africa and Italy prior to any invasion of Europe. These were needless and time consuming campaigns that played into the hands of the Germans. The war was basically over by the time the allies landed in France and any discussion of allied strategy from that point forward, while interesting, is largely superfluous to the outcome of the war. At that point, Eisenhower had two objectives (1) to minimize casualties among his troops and (2) to occupy as much of Europe as possible in order to have a role in post-war Europe. The American obsession with limiting casualties is well documented and played a large role in how the western campaign was conducted. For example, it become a standard practice to call in artillery and air strikes whenever any resistance was put up by the Germans - almost no matter how small. This became more acute as the war approached its end and the outcome became increasingly obvious.

 

[jazzeum]

Speaking of Monty, I know this is something Louis is dying to have, http://tin-soldiers2.netfirms.com/XX401.htm

 

[Louis Badolato]

You know Brad, in deference to my new friend Kevin (Pandagen) I have been studiously avoiding rehashing the whole Montgomery thing, no matter how often other participants in the forum seek to beat this dead horse. You just can't let go, can you? No matter how often we re-address this issue, it boils down to a matter of opinion. In my opinion he was an overrated gas bag who only serves to distract attention from the best allied commander of the war: Slim. If somebody, anybody, can give me one example of Montgomery sucessfully planning and executing a great tactical victory (and you can't take El Alamein, that was someone else's plan), maybe I will reassess my opinion, but so far, outside of El Alamein, none of his plans (Good Wood, Market Garden, etc.) resulted in any great tactical successes. All I seem to get is excuses as to why his underlings (like Boy Browning) let him down. Well, as Truman said, the buck stops here. If D-Day failed, Ike was going to take it on the chin, because ultimately, he was the supreme commander who made the final call on this joint effort. When Good Wood and Market Garden failed, I see fingers pointed down (at his subordinates like Browning) and up (at Allied High Command for waiting too long). Well, if Monty thought Market Garden was being launched too late and it could no longer work, he should have pulled the plug and saved a few thousand Allied lives. Oh, but then he would have lost a chance at glory. I forgot about how he loved to save his mens lives, except of course, when foolishly spending them gave him a shot at new laurels. Forgive me, but, like Patton it seems Monty was out for himself. How anybody can put Monty or Patton in the same league with Slim, who halted the Japanese wave at Meitkila and drove the Japanese back across Burma without, as Kevin puts it, a single cock up, is beyond me. There Brad, you made me do it.

 

[jazzeum]

Aw, come on, it was just a little joke. Should I cancel the order?

 

[Louis Badolato]

Not at all, Brad. We need something for target practice the next time we shoot at the club! Seriously though, the Monty gag thing is getting a little old. Can't we pick on Patton for a while or something?

 

[jazzeum]

Not at all, Brad. We need something for target practice the next time we shoot at the club! Seriously though, the Monty gag thing is getting a little old. Can't we pick on Patton for a while or something?

Agreed

 

[desert fox]

A Monty review ...... Louis brings out a very good point the overwelming disparity in material employed by the Allies in the second world war was disproprtinately lower in Burma (often called the forgotten war / theatre ) than other theatres of war . The Alies in Burma achieved victory with considerably less material than was employed N.W. Europe & Africa . I don`t reason how anyone can argue that after the intial landings & foothold on D--Day the rest of the war was just a matter of time due to the OVERWELMING disparity in men & material. Perhaps if we review it from this perspective , could the 8th army(under Monty) have fought as long & conducted as skillfull a retreat as did the D.A.K. under Rommle ??? Or how would Monty handled the retreat from s. Russia in the autumn of `43 , as well as Von Manstien ?? I think not....

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Guys,

I knew we would go down this road again but I have to stand up and tell you all to find some new commanders to beat on if we're going to do a slam fest then lets find someone other than Patton or Montgomery to do it too. Both had virtues and both had vices but Louis your bitter hatred of them seems sort of out of character. Of course I have not had the pleasure of meeting you personally but I have been on this forum for a long while reading what you have posted and this seems out in left field for you. I would love to debate the highs and lows of Patton but we'll never see eye to eye. So lets look at someother generals and discuss their merits or lack there of. Like Bradley who was a self serving as the day is long or we could discuss the American Caesar My personnal favorite for worst General we ever produced Dougout Doug himself. Or maybe we should take a look at some of the generals produced by other nations like Italy's Marshal Graziani who fought against Wavell in North Africa.

Ok I hope that maybe we'll be able to find someone to discuss from these or other suggestions.

Dave

 

[OzDigger]

Lol, I was wondering how long Louis could hold out from commenting on Monty, I really don't think he likes him It was good to see Pand1gen providing me and Louis some support, but it is old stuff, and I doubt anyone here is likely to change their minds about any of the leaders, so let's move on as suggested.

But where to?

Who wants to start a new historical discussion thread?

 

[Louis Badolato]

How about a thread on a pleasant subject upon which I think we can all agree, the successful and very economical campaign waged by the Fourteenth Army (Bill Slim always referred to it as 14th Army's campaign, never "my" or even "our" campaign) against the Japanese in Burma. The excellent British and Indian Army forces (including Gurkhas and Sikhs, both excellent jungle fighters), the logistical support provided by the RAF and USAF who flew "over the hump" (i.e. the dangerous flightpath over the Himalayas, which became known as the aluminum trail, due to all the crashed C47's along the route), American ground forces such as Merrill's Mauraders, and even the courage of the American Volunteer Group (Flying Tigers) who fought the Japanese Air and Ground fources to a standstill to assist the British, American and Chinese ground forces are all topics which should lead to intelligent discussion rather than argument. What do you guys think?

 

[OzDigger]

How about a thread on a pleasant subject upon which I think we can all agree, the successful and very economical campaign waged by the Fourteenth Army (Bill Slim always referred to it as 14th Army's campaign, never "my" or even "our" campaign) against the Japanese in Burma. The excellent British and Indian Army forces (including Gurkhas and Sikhs, both excellent jungle fighters), the logistical support provided by the RAF and USAF who flew "over the hump" (i.e. the dangerous flightpath over the Himalayas, which became known as the aluminum trail, due to all the crashed C47's along the route), American ground forces such as Merrill's Mauraders, and even the courage of the American Volunteer Group (Flying Tigers) who fought the Japanese Air and Ground fources to a standstill to assist the British, American and Chinese ground forces are all topics which should lead to intelligent discussion rather than argument. What do you guys think?

Good idea Louis, the European Theatre and African 'Campaign' often overshadows the other important battles of World War Two, especially those in the Asian-Pacific theatre. The trend appears to continue as I understand the K & C Marines and (especially) the Japanese Infantry sets aren't big sellers compared to the western front pieces. Perhaps it will take several more retired 'Pacific' sets before us collectors finally realise what we missing out on - we generally "don't know what we've got untill it's gone".