19

Dwight D. Eisenhower "Ike", graduated from West Point in 1915 ranked 61st in a class of 164 better known for his abilities on the football field than in the classroom. Upon graduation from West Point he seriously considered a civilian life, rather than pursuing a commission. He spent WWI in the United States in a logistics position, and was not sent to Europe. In the interwar period he again considered leaving the military and a career which he considered at a dead end.

At the beginning of WWII his rank was lieutenant colonel. When his friend George Patton was given a field command, Eisenhower asked for a position on Patton's staff which was denied by United States Army Chief of Staff George Marshal.

The position George Marshal ultimately appointed Ike to was Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Eisenhower was appointed December 1943), an advancement over nearly 400 more senior officers.

My question is: Why was Ike, with no combat experience, chosen to lead? How had he transformed his career from logistical support to the fast track during peace time? Were their any specific postings, commanding officers, personal decisions which were instrumental in this transformation? Where had he first come to the attention of George Marshall?

From Jos in the Comments:
The idea that (in the above question) a mediocre ltn-col is told he's in the running for the 5 star general position is preposterous.

There were actually two occasions where Eisenhower was nearly placed on Patton's staff. Both times Marshal interceded. The first time was Sept 1940 the second time was April 1942.

The first occassion, Patton asked Ike if he would be interested in a subordinate command position.

General Ike: A Personal Reminiscence by John Eisenhower page 46-47
Patton had no intention of remaining a brigadier general, however, nor did his friend George Marshal, Chief of Staff, intend that he do so. By Sept of 1940 Patton was daily expecting to take command of the entire 2d Armored Division, not just a single brigade. In the process of finding officers to staff his new command he wrote to Ike, his old friend from twenty years earlier, suggesting that the latter request transfer from the Infantry to the Armored Corps, specifically to Patton's 2d Armored Division.

Ike was pleased and flattered. At the time his sights were set only on commanding a regiment in the coming war, and an armored regiment sounded even more exciting than the 15th Infantry. He responded immediately and enthusiastically. "I suppose it's too much to hope that I could have a regiment in your division," he (Eisenhower) wrote, "because I'm still almost three years away from my colonelcy. But I think I could do a damn good job of commanding a regiment."

two weeks later Patton followed up with word he would request Ike as chief of staff. Patton finishes his letter with the flourish: "Hoping we are together in a long and BLOODY war."

The exchange, of coarse, came to nothing, because Ike's services were considered too important at other, higher echelons--successively as chief of staff at 3d Infantry Division, IX Corps.

The Second Time was in April of 1942

Two Generals Apart: Patton and Eisenhower
Patton and Eisenhower's next meeting came in April of 1942. Prior to this meeting, both men competing for the same position as commander of the European campaign, a position which Eisenhower later received. Before he received this position Eisenhower wanted to do something different. He wanted to join his old friend, who was to go to war while Eisenhower was sitting in a desk job. Eisenhower wrote to Patton, "Maybe I'll finally get out of this slave seat, so I can let loose a little with you. By that time you'll be the ‘black jack' of the damn war." Eisenhower wanted to join Patton on the front lines. He was hoping he would be sent there by Army Chief of Staff, George Marshall (1880-1959), however, he was given the rank of Major General and the position of the United States Commander of the European front (June of 1942).

Eisenhower would be advanced to Supreme Allied Commander Europe Dec 1943.

Community
  • 1
  • 9
    You seem to miss the fact that Ike was number one at the Army Command and Staff College. West Point isn't the end all and be all of officership for the US Army. (Patton had some academic problems, among others ...) Ike is someone who grew in his abilities over the course of his service. Class Standing at West Point (or Annapolis) is hardly a guarantor of high level success. (See Senator McCain as a case in point ...) – KorvinStarmast Dec 05 '17 at 21:17
  • Yes @KorvinStarmast. That's a piece of it. But between 1918 and 1942 there were 24 people who finished first at the Army Command and Staff College. –  Dec 05 '17 at 22:08
  • First in his class at Army War College 1928... yet 61st in his class at West Point 1915? Why or Who facilitated that? And then what did he do next which caused eyebrows across the US military to go up, including George Marshall. Oh and that US Army official biography credits Patton.. Patton 1909 (46-103) who finished worse off than Ike.. It wasn't Patton. –  Dec 05 '17 at 22:22
  • 1
    The idea that (in the above question) a mediocre ltn-col is told he's in the running for the 5 star general position is preposterous. – Jos Jan 04 '18 at 00:20
  • I agree that would be preposterous. But that’s not asserted in the question. –  Jan 04 '18 at 00:53
  • Read the first paragraph again. ;-) – Jos Jan 04 '18 at 04:37
  • I reread the question again and I don't think it says that. It doesn't say Eisenhower was considered mediocre in the 1930's or 40's. Nor does it say Marshal told Eisenhower he would be in charge of Europe in WWII. But it does say that's the Job Marshal had in mind for Ike in early 1942 when he had Ike transferred to his staff. –  Jan 04 '18 at 04:59
  • In December 41 just after Pearl Harbor Colonel Eisenhower is transferred to Marshals staff at Marhall's request. In April 1942 he's made Marshall's assistant chief of staff in charge of operations. In March of 1942 Ike was promoted to a two star (Major General). In July his third star, Patton wasn't sent to North Africa until Late 1942. –  Jan 04 '18 at 05:23
  • 1
    I had a very mediocre to bad university entrance diploma. I failed my studies in one field. After a stint of stop-gap employment, I finished studies in another field at the top of class, and am working as professional in that field ever since (ca. 20 years). Things happen; vita aren't always arrow-straight, and sometimes one's priorities change. – DevSolar Jan 05 '18 at 08:38
  • 4
    As supreme commander, his job was largely political, not military tactics. He had to keep a coalition together and counterbalance strong and ambitious personalities... Montgomery at one point tried to usurp him. So the lack of combat experience wouldn't have been as much a factor as a reputation for being able to get fractious military personalities to work together. – tj1000 Jan 05 '18 at 18:44
  • It might be a better question to ask why he was Supreme Commander in the Mediterranean starting at the end of 1942. He was reasonably successful in that role. – David Thornley Nov 12 '18 at 18:50
  • @DavidThornley, In November 1942, Eisenhower is appointed Supreme Commander for the Allied forces in North Africa. In this position Eisenhower commands the invasion of Sicily. I think the distinction was that North Africa and Sicily were relatively minor operations compared to Normandy. Normandy was always meant to be the real push to defeat Germany. That command was the coveted one which would decide the war. That position carried the title of Supreme Allied Commander with no caveats. –  Nov 12 '18 at 20:40

4 Answers4

26

I may be wrong, but I don't think George Marshall ever spoke about his reasons for promoting Eisenhower (although he did prepare a series of biennial reports for the Secretary of War between July 1939 & June 1945.

Holbrook W. Yorke, a librarian at the United States Military Academy Library, compiled a bibliography for Eisenhower in 1990. This was one of a number of commemorative activities carried out for the centenary of Eisenhower's birth.

Another document produced for that anniversary was a biography written for the US Army. Most of what follows has been extracted from this document, supplemented with information from Eric Sixsmith's Eisenhower as Military Commander.

In 1930 Eisenhower was appointed as special assistant to General Douglas MacArthur, who was then Chief of Staff. He wrote MacArthur's speeches, lobbied politicians and prepared a number of studies of military mobilisation, and especially of the development of air power in relation to land battles. Eisenhower accompanied MacArthur to the Philippines from 1935 to 1939, and continued to impress his commander.

On his return to the United States, Eisenhower briefly commanded a battalion of the 15th Infantry and later became Chief of Staff of the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Lewis.

We know Eisenhower was appointed Assistant Chief of Staff in charge of the Operations Division under General George C. Marshall who was Chief of Staff. We know that Marshall explicitly requested Eisenhower for his staff in the immediate aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Eisenhower accompanied Marshall to the Arcadia Conference in Washington from 22 December 1941 to 14 January 1942. At the Arcadia Conference,

"... the United States and Great Britain confirmed their "Germany first" strategy and created the Combined Chiefs of Staff to direct the war. Winston Churchill, who met Eisenhower at the conference, was impressed by his trenchant assessment of the European situation."

Shortly after the Arcadia Conference, Eisenhower was appointed as chief of the War Plans Division (which would become the Operations Division). His role there was to draft the basic strategy for the war against the Axis. He was tasked with producing a memorandum outlining the general strategy that the Allies should pursue, for the benefit of the President and the Combined Chiefs. The document that Eisenhower had produced:

"... was in effect a precis of the next three years of the war."

Although the report contained nothing new,

"The cumulative effect of Eisenhower's staff work in the War Department and his dealings with the British convinced General Marshall that this was the man to take command of American forces in the European Theater. On 25 June 1942, he designated Eisenhower Commanding General, European Theater, with headquarters in London."

However, it's not quite true to say that:

"The position George Marshal had in mind for Ike was Supreme Allied Commander Europe"

since that position didn't actually exist when Eisenhower was posted to London.

Another critical factor was that Eisenhower was also extremely good at working with people. He:

"... persuaded the British to accept it in lieu of the committee system to which they were accustomed. His personal qualities played a large part in gaining acceptance of a much more centralized and powerful Allied command than had existed in World War 1. Men instinctively trusted him, and his measured approach to command reinforced a conviction that he was an honest broker whose central purpose was the defeat of the enemy, rather than the pursuit of any national agenda."

In essence, he had the trust of General Marshall in the United States, and also of Winston Churchill and the senior Britsh military staff. He had the political skills that he had acquired while working for MacArthur in Washington, and a clear understanding of the strategy that should be pursued (after all, he had drafted it!). He was the logical choice for Supreme Allied Commander Europe when the need for that role was recognised.

Sources

sempaiscuba
  • 77,519
  • 15
  • 303
  • 356
  • 1
    I don't think that "and continued to impress his commander." is quite justified in light of Macarthur's famous disparaging comment about Eisenhower: "Best clerk I ever had" – Pieter Geerkens Dec 06 '17 at 03:43
  • I can't locate the source just now, but I read not long ago that Eisenhower was deliberately kept out of combat in World War One; already recognized as "too valuable to risk in combat". – Pieter Geerkens Dec 06 '17 at 03:45
  • 5
    @PieterGeerkens According to Sixsmith, he was kept back during WW1 because of his abilities as an instructor. As for MacArthur's (much later) remark, I suspect that was sour grapes after Eisenhower had been promoted over him. According to the US Army biography, at the time MacArthur considered Eisenhower "the best staff officer in the Army" and said that "his principal strength was an ability to look at problems from the point of view of the high command". – sempaiscuba Dec 06 '17 at 11:38
  • 7
    @PieterGeerkens Perhaps also worth remembering Eisenhower's response to MacArthur's "Best clerk ..." quote: "I learned dramatics under MacArthur". :) – sempaiscuba Dec 06 '17 at 11:39
  • Yes Eisenhower was sent to London to be Supreme Allied Commander. Yes the position did not exist yet. Yes the Brits had not agreed to have an American serve in that role. Marshal as the Architect of the new American Army being assembled to combat the Nazi's knew the US forces would be greater than the UK's forces; and as such it was always the US Military's position an American should fill that top military role. The only alternative to Eisenhower from the American perspective was Marshal himself. –  Jan 04 '18 at 03:45
  • 1
    In WWI the French and British lobbied for American troops to be broken up and distributed to fill their own depleted ranks. The United States refused and insisted American forces would only fight under American leadership. Still the US declared war in WWI April of 1917 only 14 months before the Allies won. France and Britain had been fighting nearly 3 years before the US entered WW!. US supreme leadership in WWI was never asked for nor considered. It wasn't a similar situation to WWII. –  Jan 04 '18 at 03:53
  • 3
    @JMS: In WWII the US entered the war two years after it started in Europe, and didn't employ ground troops there in any significant numbers until well after the high tide of German operations. Just saying... – DevSolar Jan 09 '18 at 08:53
  • 1
    @JMS: Although, both the French and U.S. command were content to assign black combat regiments to French command, easing both the French concern over depleted replacement capability and the U.S. Command concern over race issues. Those black divisions more than distinguished themselves in Spring 1918. – Pieter Geerkens Jan 20 '20 at 22:26
  • 3
    @JMS: It was just to point out a single, but notable, exception to the general refusal by Pershing to farm out troops piecemeal to the British and French. That the 93rd also performed admirably, arguably gloriously, north-east of Paris that spring undoubtedly also advanced the slow integration of U.S. military one more tiny step.. – Pieter Geerkens Jan 20 '20 at 23:18
  • 1
    @DevSolar WWI went from July 1914 – November 1918 (52 months) The first of the 4.8 million Americans who would serve over sea saw combat Battle of Cantigny, end of May 1918 5 months before the war concluded. When the US finally got involved both sides had punched themselves out and were depleted. Those who say the US role was decisive refer to the millions of fresh men coming in against the depleted central powers. The US economy really didn't play a significant role in WWI it was over so early for the US. The US used mostly European equipment in WWI beyond small arms. –  Jan 20 '20 at 23:28
  • 1
    Generally I don't think Eisenhower had distinguished himself prior to WWI. He wasn't poorly thought of nor was he on the fast track yet. His lack of WWI combat experience was thus just a fluke. It was a short war (5 month) from the US perspective and many veteran officers were more preoccupied with training and logistics than fighting. Ike was one of those. Like I said, Ike got on the fast track in the 1920's after finishing first in his class at the Army war college, –  Jan 20 '20 at 23:37
  • 1
    @JMS: My comment referred to your last three lines before that. You pointed out that the US came late to WWI. I pointed out that they came late to WWII as well. Nothing to do with Eisenhower (of which career I know very little). – DevSolar Jan 21 '20 at 06:53
3

The organizer of the American army was one George C. Marshall, a "civilian" General who was perhaps better known for his diplomatic achievements (e.g. the Marshall Plan as Secretary of State), than for his military prowess.

The one thing that the U.S. Army excelled in was logistics, that is, supplying its troops. That made the U.S. Army very good, even though its soldiers and officers were no better (and possibly worse) than anyone else's. American units won battles because they had more air and artillery support, and ammunition supplies than those of other armies, even though they didn't do that well on the (rare) occasions where they were only "equally" armed.

With the possible exception of George Patton, Marshall's appointments distinguished themselves on the logistical rather than tactical side: Dwight Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, Mark Clark, Lloyd Fredenall, and others. The last two proved to be tactically inept commanders, Eisenhower and Bradley were adequate in this regard, and Patton was the standout in this group; his Third Army advanced further and faster than any other American army.

Lars Bosteen
  • 107,936
  • 20
  • 483
  • 554
Tom Au
  • 104,554
  • 17
  • 253
  • 530
  • 1
    George C. Marshal was a career Military officer who graduated from Virginia Military Institute, fought in the Philippines, and WWI. Was mentored by Pershing. Finished first in his class at Army Staff College. Was in instructor at both the War College, and the Infantry College. During WWII he was the highest ranking officer in the United States Army, Army Chief of Staff and achieved the rank of five star general. How do you call him a civilian officer? –  Dec 21 '17 at 20:52
  • Also other than his initial posting in 1915, Eisenhower was not in logistics was he? –  Dec 21 '17 at 21:01
  • 2
    @JMS: "Amateur strategists think about tactics; professionals think about logistics." That's ultimately why we beat the Nazis. The interwar German commanders developed tactics, and the interwar American commanders developed logistics. The Germans nearly always had the advantage when they fought "straight up" (roughly equal numbers of men, supplies, equipment, etc.), but they almost never fought "straight up" against the Americans. – Tom Au Jan 09 '18 at 17:46
  • I'm missing your point. logistics are not a synonym for strategy, and tactics are not a focal point for amateurs. They are three different vantages of war which all feed each other. Logistics is a strength of the US army given the US army generally fights thousands of miles from home. The Germans biggest liability in WWII wasn't a lack of strategy, tactics, or logistics; it was they were overmatched, overextended, and had a madman amateur egomaniac dictating all three to their professionals. –  Jan 09 '18 at 19:27
2

Ike was selected because he was a good politician: he could work with the British well.

At the end of December 1941, for example, he accompanied Marshall to the Arcadia Conference at which the United States and Great Britain confirmed their "Germany first" strategy and created the Combined Chiefs of Staff to direct the war. Winston Churchill, who met Eisenhower at the conference, was impressed by his trenchant assessment of the European situation...

The cumulative effect of Eisenhower's staff work in the War Department and his dealings with the British convinced General Marshall that this was the man to take command of American forces in the European Theater. On 25 June 1942, he designated Eisenhower Commanding General, European Theater, with headquarters in London.

Community
  • 1
sds
  • 26,987
  • 2
  • 88
  • 140
  • 2
    There's a little more to it than that. As Marshal's deputy, he also wrote "a document that was in effect a precis of the next three years of the war". The biography has a lot more detail. :) – sempaiscuba Dec 05 '17 at 20:57
  • Anyone can write a paper. Executing it while keeping a good rapport with allies is a different matter. However, you are right that the full biography is an interesting read. – sds Dec 05 '17 at 21:00
  • 3
    You're right than anyone can write a paper. But Ike actually did write it, and he wrote it for the man who would promote him to the post of Supreme Allied Commander Europe. :) – sempaiscuba Dec 05 '17 at 21:02
  • No, his fast track started in 1939. – sds Dec 05 '17 at 22:03
  • @JMS I'd suggest that his "fast track" (when viewed with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) probably began when he was appointed to MacArthur's staff in 1930. – sempaiscuba Dec 05 '17 at 22:08
  • 1
    @sempaiscuba I don't think you get to be a Major General's staff officer unless you are on the fast track already. –  Dec 05 '17 at 22:41
  • @JMS On the contrary. The fact that he had been an acting Lieutenant Colonel (from 14 October 1918) in command of Camp Colt, then returned to his substantive rank of Captain, briefly, before being promoted to Major in 1920, and then remained a Major until 1936, actually suggests that he had been somewhat sidelined until he joined MacArthur's staff. – sempaiscuba Dec 05 '17 at 22:53
  • 1
    @sempaiscuba, partially true. Ike was a major for 16 years, definitely sidelined. But MacArthur didn't end this slide. MacArthur appointment was the culmination when the slide ending. Major Generals don't pluck failed officers to be on their staff. They take rising officers. Eisenhower distinguished himself before 1930. There was an influential mentor, who helped him get into the War College. And helped him finishing first in his class in the war college(1928). Then there was a curious choice he made after he was in demand, between the war college and the staff appointment. –  Dec 05 '17 at 23:46
  • 2
    @JMS I'm guessing you haven't served in the military. Sidelined ≠ failed. – sempaiscuba Dec 05 '17 at 23:54
  • @sempaiscuba Ike had made Lieutenant Colonel during WWI in 3 years.. and then had spent the next 16 years, and still hadn't achieved the rank he was three years out of West Point. As he considered leaving the military for the second time, he considered himself a failure. –  Dec 06 '17 at 01:19
  • 2
    @JMS He contemplated leaving the army because he felt he has "missed the boat" for active service, and also because he had been offered a highly-paid job from an Indiana businessman who had served under him. Not because he considered himself a failure. Read Eisenhower as Military Commander by Sixsmith (link in my answer below). It seems that neither Sixsmith, nor the official US Army biography concur with your assessment. – sempaiscuba Dec 06 '17 at 01:30
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. –  Dec 06 '17 at 02:04
  • 2
    in the last of the allied summits before his appointment, where Roosevelt, Churchill and other dignitaries met with military leaders, it was noted that Roosevelt had spent more time chatting with Ike than it would be expected. One may infer that Roosevelt was trying to personally access if he was the right man for the job. [reference book The European Campain by the Strategic Studies Insitute of the USArmy] – Luiz Dec 27 '17 at 16:09
1

When in the Navy, we were told that up to the rank of Captain (Army Colonel) advancement was because of accomplishment. But once you became an Admiral (Army General) advancement was through politics.

Eisenhower's advancement seems to have been largely political all the way. Impressing Winston Churchill would certainly have been a BIG factor in Ike's promotion to the position. Also, in multinational operations, over-all command has traditionally gone to the country with the largest number of troops, so the Command would have to be an American General.

Steve Bird
  • 19,763
  • 11
  • 93
  • 99
C. Allen Doudna
  • 11
  • 1