Just curious what people think if Churchill didn’t change his mind and decided to keep Alan Brooke to be in overall command of the Normandy invasion and. Would it have gone better or worse? I think it went off pretty well except for Omaha Beach of course. However, so many things went wrong there that I’m not sure if having Brooke in charge would have made a difference.
As for after Normandy until the end of the war, I’m still reading his war diaries and haven’t gotten that far yet. However, my overall impression so far is that he seemed much more on the ball than anybody else in regards to the strategic planning so maybe having him as the supreme commander might have worked out better in the long run.
Alan Brooke found his right place as CIGS. Someone had to be the Churchill-wrangler, and I doubt anyone else could have handled that formidable task better then he managed.
Yes, some interesting conversations between the two. It’s hard to believe that Brookes was told 3 times he would be getting the job plus Churchill even told his wife that her husband was going to be the supreme commander and then the final decision comes down saying otherwise. I don’t know how often this type of thing goes on at that level with high officials and military personnel but it’s no wonder Brookes had such a dim view of politicians.
Churchill realized it wasn’t his decision to make. The majority of troops and resources were going to be American so an American commander was inevitable. If Churchill had tried to fight it, Roosevelt would have just overruled him.
Eventually. Not initially. Eisenhower was surprised to get it, he thought Brooke was a shoo in.
Technically it would have been a demotion for Brooke.
He would have done a good job. There would have been no problem with the Hedgerows, since he mentioned them approximately a million times only for his advice to be ignored.
What’s often forgotten is that Ike wore two hats, as SACEUR and Commander Land Forces. If Brooke does get the top job, then I expect Ike or some other American to get charge of Land HQ.
That would have caused problems. Brooke absolutely despised Americans and didn’t think any of them were competent to lead troops in battle. For political reasons, he muted his feelings in public but his diary and private conversations display an astonishing amount of contempt. It’s hard to see how he could have effectively led a joint operation with that attitude.
Yes, although I think it was more of a condescending attitude then “despised”.
But, if Brooke was good at any thing, it was suppressing personal feelings in favour of the larger mission. I do not see that changing.
Operation Overlord was largely planned out according to the logical application of Allied capabilities, geography, weather, and the known disposition of German forces. Whether the supreme commander was Brooke, Eisenhower, or someone else, the invasion would have proceeded in more or less the same way and probably come to the same result at about the same time.
I am not sure Brooke would have bene as good as Eisenhower at managing the personalities under him, but who knows? Maybe he’d have done better. Either way, the Germans would probably still have been smashed to pieces at Falaise and would have scurried across the Seine around August 30, as in fact they did.
As to Brooke’s unfavorable attitude towards Americans, I think it is important to note that Brooke had unfavorable attitudes towards everyone. He was one of the first British commanders to (correctly) predict that the French Army was hopelessly unfit to resist a German attack, and he ripped into his fellow Britons as well. Almost all of his negative attitudes, though, he did a pretty good job of keeping private, and it’s not that he disliked the men he worked with, he was just the kind of person who felt his job was to disagree.
But would Brooke, a man who thought American generals and American troops were worthless, have approved of a plan like the Cobra breakout? I find it very doubtful. Brooke was also opposed to the landings in southern France. He might well have cancelled those. Brooke was, in fact, opposed to whole idea of invading France; he felt we should be attacking Germany in the Mediterranean and the Middle East.
So if Brooke had been in charge of Overlord, it’s very possible the campaign would have bogged down into holding a defensive position in Normandy.
And the landings in S France accomplished fuck all, except complicate the supply and communication situation in TWO theatres, so he was pretty right about that.
And having been raised in Normandy and having fought in the region in two Wars, he knew the land and told the Americans just how bad the hedgerows were.He was ignored. If he had been SACEUR, there would have been a lot more thought given to that problem.
There would have been no broad front strategy. He would have concentrated attacks on the low countries, basically Market Garden on steroids.
I skimmed ahead a bit with his memoirs and one thing I learned is that the V1 attacks when they started, ended up being much more of a problem then I realized. Some serious concerns about morale and the effects on production are mentioned by him. The efforts to take the launch sites out with bombing were not very successful so I can only assume that the only effective method was by ground attacks. I don’t think it’s prudent to say the Normandy landings accomplished anything “except complicate the supply and communication situation in TWO theatres”. Obviously, he and others underestimated the potential of this new type of weapon.
Fair point. I guess I should have said I’m surprised at Churchill’s indiscretion regarding hinting a selection was already done when it obviously wasn’t fully made by those involved. However, I’m not so sure about your comment about the number of troops and resources involved. Here’s a quote from a fella that goes by the handle “TheVilla Aston” on youtube. I’ve seen him often argue with Americans about this topic and he always seems to come out ahead so there must be something to what he says. Must admit as a Canadian, my knowledge about Englands WW2 war production and manpower contributions is pretty lacking. Anyway the quote:
"D-Day
The air forces involved were 55% each from the RAF and 45%USAAF. Allied air operations were commanded by Trafford Leigh-Mallory of the RAF.
The land forces comprised 39.5% British, 14% Canadian and 46.5% US.
All land forces were under the command of General Montgomery.
Britain supplied 79% of the warships involved and just over 67% of the landing craft of all types. Allied Naval operations were commanded by Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay of the Royal Navy.
A few things I could add regarding Britain’s role in D-Day and the whole Overlord undertaking would be (in no particular order):
The dominant role of SOE in co-ordinating allied liaison with the various French resistance movements.
The monitoring of the German Enigma and Geheim-schreiber (Secret writer) messages by Bletchley Park which involved the construction of Colossus the world’s first programmable electronic digital computer.
The British lead role in Operation Fortitude.
The design and construction of two artificial harbours – one each for the British and US armies. As we all know, the destruction of the American harbour was partly caused by the shoddy installation of the harbour by American engineers.
The design, construction and installation of the PLUTO pipelines.
The provision of geological surveys of the landing beaches, weather forecasting, search and rescue services at sea, most of the medical facilities for the allied armies in Britain, air traffic control and so on…"
I haven’t had a chance to verify any of the stats. The rest seems pretty accurate including the Americans ignoring advice on how to secure the Omaha Beach Mulberry harbor in the case of a storm as mentioned in the book “Code Name Mulberry: The Planning Building and Operation of the Normandy Harbours” by Guy Hartcup.
This is a huge exaggeration. Brooke ripped everyone in his private letters but this statement is not literally true.
It is also not true Brooke opposed the invasion nof France. He opposed invading it too soon, and wanted the attack in the Meditteranean in the meantime, which of course is in fact what the Allies did.
Had Brooke chosen a defensive posture in Normandy he would have been rather promptly fired, and he would not have wanted to be fired.
The landings in southern France captured the port of Marseilles intact, at a time when no significant working port in northern France was in Allied hands. So it was a major benefit for the Allied supply situation.
Google “bocage”. A huge help for the German defenders, Then google “Cullen device” as an ingenious counter to it. Still, the nickname “hedgerow hell” is certainly appropriate.