The buck stopped with 'Ike'

Some time ago I mentioned that I had bought a Kindle edition of Robin Neillands' history of "The Battle for the Rhine 1944".  I haven't yet finished it but already it is bringing back the genuine shock I experienced in the mid-1950s when I read "The Battle for Europe" by Chester Wilmot.  I was a young teenager then, brought up during and after a war which was presented to us as an example of two great democracies working together, hands across the sea and all that sort of thing, to defeat the common foe.  I was stunned to learn from Wilmot's book that almost as much energy was expended 'fighting' each other as was deployed against the Germans!  Well, I was young at the time so I suppose you could say it was part of the growing up process.

Since then, of course, there have been numerous histories detailing the vicious in-fighting between the Brits and the Yanks which went to the very top in Downing Street and the White House.  Reading about it now, as an adult, I suppose it can be said that it is rather surprising that the 'alliance' worked as well as it did.  Whatever the circs, you can never get round that damned, awkward thing called human nature!  At the top of an allied military alliance with historical fame and glory beckoning to all the Generals involved the worst character faults were bound to show themselves - and they did!

Even so, and as the historical quarrels continue even today, it must be stated quite clearly and without evasion that the buck stopped with 'Ike'.  He was the Supreme Commander - end of!  It was, of course, an horrendous job and attempting to control the likes of Montgomery and Patton must have been like trying to herd a couple of wild cats, but that said, he failed, particularly in respect of Patton who was both a despicable man and a poor General.  Omar Bradley, one of the Army Group commanders, also deserves much of the blame because, strictly speaking, Patton was under his immediate control but he connived with him to deliberately avoid 'Ike's orders.  Montgomery, too, must take his share of the blame for being both insufferably egotistical and antagonistic.  However, he deserves some credit for pushing the militarily correct idea of a single massive blow against Germany rather than 'Ike's naïve notion of a broad advance from the Swiss border to the North Sea, and also the fact that, no doubt through gritted teeth, he volunteered to serve under Bradley if the advance was in the north.

It was not definite - nothing in war ever is! - that the allies could break into Germany and end the war in '44 but it was possible and the fact is that under Ike's leadership the chance was lost at the cost of uncountable lives.  An example, I suppose, of Wilfred Owen's famous phrase, "The pity of war".

ADDITIONAL:   Oh no, it's that creepy 'coincidence-thingie' all over again!  No sooner had I written all the above on the nature of Allied leadership during WWII than the distinguished and learn-ed Mr. Victor Davis Hansen at The National Review writes a similar review of American leadership through the ages.  It's worth reading if only as a corrective to my opinions above concerning the military leadership in Europe during 1944.  About halfway through I began to suspect where it might be leading and, indeed, in due course 'The Donald' made his appearance.  In essence, I think, Mr. Hansen's opinion is that there are 'different strokes for different folks' and that each leader in their different ways may or may not be useful depending on when they arrive on the national scene.  Or, to put it in my words, 'as in sex and drumming (and running a nation or army), timing is everything'!

 

Comments

[Whitewall]

Egos. They prevent that one elusive thing-a well run war. If ever the Egos of the day become good at orchestrating well run wars, we should all live in fear.