What if Patton, not Ike, had been made Supreme Allied Commander in Europe?

Question

Alternative history is tricky, but I'd like to see some theories. Please, never mind the "he wouldn't, because..." Assume that he had.

Answer 1

Some good responses, but it seems that most are looking at a post 'D-Day' time line. I think that if Patton had been SACEUR he would have planned the invasion for Calais. The Atlantic wall was finished at Calais, and the German army was ready to respond to a forced landing, unlike Normandy. This, in my opinion would have resulted in two things. The first would be be a much higher casualty rate. The second would be the probable failure of the invasion. The paratroops would have been annihilated (like what happened to the Brits in Operation Market/Garden) by the time Allied forces managed to clear the beaches, if they cleared them at all. Reinforcements would ahve very likely contained and destroyed what elements were able to push inland.

Continuing with the Calais invasion, but assuming it succeeded, I think Patton would have driven fast and hard into Germany, leaving his flanks exposed, making him vulnerable to counterattack and encirclement. Allied forces would have had to attack westward giving Germany time to reorganize, and we end up with much the same situation of 'real history' in Dec 1944. As the war draws to a close, Patton would try and fight to occupy every inch of ground before the Russians. Many Americans and Brits would have died for nothing as they captured land that would be turned over to the Soviets under Potsdam.

Now if we start with a post 'D-Day' time, I think Patton could have finished encircling the retreating Germany Army in France, leaving the front door to Germany wide open. Patton would have raced in, ending the war maybe a month of two earlier. There is also the possibility in this scenario that Patton 'turns' several influential German Generals and the German Army lays down to the Americans and Brits, letting them seriously walk alway the way to the far east border of Germany before the Russians cleared Warsaw. Unlikely, but possible.

All this is assuming a great deal. First that Patton could be diplomatic enough not to completely alienate his superiors, allies and sub-commanders and be relieved. As i also beleive that casualty rates would be significantly higher, and Patton's response would be cavalier enough to anger the home front that they would result in Patton's dismissal.

That being said, it is possible that being in the role of "King", Patton would have been more magnanimous and been able to weather the hazards associated with commanding a large coalition force. He was a superb commander, and getting his way could have gone a long way to minimizing his ego.

If you're interested in alternative history check out "Wolf on the Rhine", I forget the author, but its right up the ally of this question.

Answer 2

If Patton had been made Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in World War II, the British, under the command of General Montgomery, would have had the delightful experience of getting all of the crap assignments, while Patton would have forged ahead into Nazi Germany like a giant fist. Montgomery's cautious approach to battle would give way to Patton's bold attacks on the enemy. However, I fear that Patton's boldness may have gotten him into some trouble with supply lines, especially fuel supplies, and he could have pushed his armies too hard, allowing the Germans an opportunity to counter attack, similar to the Battle of the Bulge experience.
Would this scenario allow the war to end before Christmas?
Possibly. Conversely, the war may have continued longer into 1945 if Patton had foolishly expended his supplies and men into a head-long rush into Germany. This postponement of the end of the war would have let some of the newest German weapons out of the factories and onto the battlefields, perhaps continuing the war well into 1945.

Answer 3

Patton had a way of pissing everyone off. He would not have been able to get the various nations to work together effectively.

However, the biggest difference in how he wanted to fight the war vs Ike was Patton wanted to come from North Africa and up through the Balkans to cut the Russians off. He felt they were as bad as the Germans. Had we done that, Eastern Europe would not have been under the thumb of the USSR and the USSR would have been limited to its own territory.

Long term, the EU would probably have formed earlier and it would be the equal to the USA today.

Answer 4

It would have been a disaster. Not only was he, to put it mildly, impolitic, but he was also terrible at the one thing a supreme commander needs to worry about most: logistics. The only saving grace would be that Marshall, who would have loved to demote himself to take the job, would have canned Patton in a heartbeat.

Answer 5

But Ike WAS made supreme allied commander in Europe.

Answer 6

The war wouldn't have lasted as long. Patton never would have went along with Montgomery's disastrous market garden plan, which did more for the continuation of the war than the German Ardennes offensive did the following winter.

Answer 7

Patton would have gone to war with Russia after the defeat of Hitler's regime of World War II.

Answer 8

Montgomery nearly refused to follow Ike. I'm sure he would have flat out refused to follow Patton and I can't see Patton being able to defuse the situation.

Answer 9

Lets face it. The job should have gone to Alexander-He had more experience than the other two put together.

Answer 10

Probably he would have made more mistakes because he was too impulsive.
Ike was more intellectual and won the respect of his generals.