Buffalo Soldiers' Assault on the Gothic Line

[V]

http://afroamhistory.about.com/library/prm/blbuffalo_soldiers1.htm

Story of the 92nd ID during the Italian campaign.

Pretty good article from WW2 Magazine.

What was the "Brazilian Expeditionary Force" mentioned in the last paragraph on page 1? I have never heard of such a force before.

[Schrullenhaft]

It was a division from Brazil. It fought exclusively in the Italian campaign and was attached to U.S. IV Corps of the Fifth Army.

Here's one website about the FEB.

[Alsatian]

What with the rainbow of nations fighting on the Italian front (don't forget the Poles, Indians, Anzacs, etc.), the geography and the terrain, it kind of makes you think of the Korean War. Then you throw in General Mark Clark to boot. Wasn't he allied commander for both?

[V]

Originally posted by Alsatian:

What with the rainbow of nations fighting on the Italian front (don't forget the Poles, Indians, Anzacs, etc.), the geography and the terrain, it kind of makes you think of the Korean War. Then you throw in General Mark Clark to boot. Wasn't he allied commander for both?

I thought Eisenhower was commander of Allied forces in Korea.

[V]

Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:

It was a division from Brazil. It fought exclusively in the Italian campaign and was attached to U.S. IV Corps of the Fifth Army.

Here's one website about the FEB.

Thanks for the link.

Now, if Brazil sent an entire division to Italy, how come they are not in CMAK?

Or are they?

-V (never plays as Allies)

[Schrullenhaft]

They had the same TO&E as the Americans to my knowledge. Thus for the sake of simplicity, time and space they weren't included. You can emulate them with American infantry, you just won't hear their Brazilian Portugese being spoken.

Admittedly a lot of unique units are not represented specifically in CMAK (we'd have to get language files for all of them too). As noted earlier, the Italian campaign had a huge variety of Allied nations involved, more so than NW Europe. This is also the theater where a number of American 'ethnic' combat units were deployed (and some were eventually shifted to France/Germany).

[Andreas]

Originally posted by V:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alsatian:

What with the rainbow of nations fighting on the Italian front (don't forget the Poles, Indians, Anzacs, etc.), the geography and the terrain, it kind of makes you think of the Korean War. Then you throw in General Mark Clark to boot. Wasn't he allied commander for both?

I thought Eisenhower was commander of Allied forces in Korea. </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alsatian:

What with the rainbow of nations fighting on the Italian front (don't forget the Poles, Indians, Anzacs, etc.), the geography and the terrain, it kind of makes you think of the Korean War. Then you throw in General Mark Clark to boot. Wasn't he allied commander for both?

I thought Eisenhower was commander of Allied forces in Korea. </font>

[Andreas]

Err, yes. Just googled up what sounds about right. Ridgeway succeeded Walker when Walker was killed. Clark came in in 1952, succeeding MacArthur.

[V]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alsatian:

What with the rainbow of nations fighting on the Italian front (don't forget the Poles, Indians, Anzacs, etc.), the geography and the terrain, it kind of makes you think of the Korean War. Then you throw in General Mark Clark to boot. Wasn't he allied commander for both?

I thought Eisenhower was commander of Allied forces in Korea. </font>

[Firefly]

I'm not going to argue about Korea, but the Allied commander in Italy and the rest of the Med was Alexander. Clark was his subordinate, or more correctly given his behaviour, insubordinate.

[gunnergoz]

MacArthur was fired because his conduct threatened civilian leadership supremacy over the US military. An enormously popular figure, MacArthur had the ego to go with it. He had the backing of influential members of Congress and for many, could do no wrong. Truman saw MacArthur's posturing and belligerence in Korea as the sort of thing that could launch a full-scale war with China and the Soviet Union. IIRC, MacArthur was all for droppin nukes into China and for more aggressive actions to cut off Soviet support of the N.Korean/Chinese forces. When MacArthur was unresponsive to hints and signals from the Executive Branch to tone it down and get in line, Truman went over there and personally fired the general. You have to hand it to Truman, he did it himself and didn't just send a messenger boy to take care of business.

[V]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

MacArthur was fired because his conduct threatened civilian leadership supremacy over the US military. An enormously popular figure, MacArthur had the ego to go with it. He had the backing of influential members of Congress and for many, could do no wrong. Truman saw MacArthur's posturing and belligerence in Korea as the sort of thing that could launch a full-scale war with China and the Soviet Union. IIRC, MacArthur was all for droppin nukes into China and for more aggressive actions to cut off Soviet support of the N.Korean/Chinese forces. When MacArthur was unresponsive to hints and signals from the Executive Branch to tone it down and get in line, Truman went over there and personally fired the general. You have to hand it to Truman, he did it himself and didn't just send a messenger boy to take care of business.

I remember his nuke ideas.

Did the Soviets have ICBM's at the time?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by V:

Did the Soviets have ICBM's at the time?

Sputnik I was launched in 1957, so I don't think so. But they certainly didn't use them on Gothic Line!

[DevilDog]

Actually, Truman did not fire McArthur in person. You're probably thinking of the visit he did a short time before McArthur was fired. The first McArthur knew he was fired was when he read it in the paper (or maybe he heard it on the radio, I forget which).

I don't particularly like what I know of McArthur, but that was a particularly low way to relieve someone of command - not even through the chain of command. Of course it was no suprise to McArthur since he forced the issue.

[V]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:

Did the Soviets have ICBM's at the time?

Sputnik I was launched in 1957, so I don't think so. But they certainly didn't use them on Gothic Line! </font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by V:

From whitehouse.gov:

After the war, he became President of Columbia University, then took leave to assume supreme command over the new NATO forces being assembled in 1951. Republican emissaries to his headquarters near Paris persuaded him to run for President in 1952.

Do you know why he was fired?

Okay, that is Eisenhower, who never had anything to do with Korea. Ridgway did succeed Walker on Dec. 23rd 1950 as commander 8th Army.

[Kitty]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Eisenhower was never officially involved with Korea until he became President . . .

And I'm thinking this was a good thing. Except for the part where he eventually was involved.

Kitty

[V]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:

From whitehouse.gov:

After the war, he became President of Columbia University, then took leave to assume supreme command over the new NATO forces being assembled in 1951. Republican emissaries to his headquarters near Paris persuaded him to run for President in 1952.

Do you know why he was fired?

Okay, that is Eisenhower, who never had anything to do with Korea. Ridgway did succeed Walker on Dec. 23rd 1950 as commander 8th Army. </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Kitty:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Eisenhower was never officially involved with Korea until he became President . . .

And I'm thinking this was a good thing. Except for the part where he eventually was involved.</font>

[Kitty]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Why? I'm not a huge fan of his presidency, but he seems to have gotten things moving to end the war a little quicker.

Michael

I hope you mean Korea here. You're too much of a grog to think he was a great General. =)

Kitty

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Kitty:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Why? I'm not a huge fan of his presidency, but he seems to have gotten things moving to end the war a little quicker.

Michael

I hope you mean Korea here.</font>

[gunnergoz]

I'm with you on this one, Michael. Eisenhower was no strategic/operational genius by any means. He had virtually no battlefield or unit command experience to speak of. What he did do masterfully, was to bring the various elements of an unbeatable coalition together and keep them functioning despite their differences. Eisenhower was uniquely capable in that regard. He was like the coachman, never pulling the wagon himself or riding one lead horse, but instead getting the Allied horses to pull together in the direction he wanted them to go. I find it hard to imagine a war fought as successfully as was the ETO, without the likes of Ike around to orchestrate his various prima donna generals and doing so in spite of often competing national interests.

In short, the genius of Ike was that he got people to work together towards a common goal.

If you ask me, the real unsung hero of the war (for the US) was George C. Marshall, who knew brilliance when he saw it and made sure that the key players were in the correct assignments when it came time to play ball. Ike was one of these choices, obviously. And Marshall understood his own role well enough to turn down the command of Overlord when was offered to him by FDR. IIRC, FDR breathed a sigh of relief when Marshall elected to turn down the supreme command in Europe, since FDR knew that Marshall was absolutely essential in his role as overall military coordinator for US forces.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

I'm with you on this one, Michael. Eisenhower was no strategic/operational genius by any means. He had virtually no battlefield or unit command experience to speak of. What he did do masterfully, was to bring the various elements of an unbeatable coalition together and keep them functioning despite their differences.

I stongly suspect that he had one other important trait that has gone largely unremarked. And that is that after Tunisia he had a very deep understanding of what kind of war the American army was capable of fighting and what it would not be so good at. (I think his grasp of the other Allied armies may have been less profound, but I think he recognized that and that is one more reason why he did not interfere with Montgomery's conduct of the war.) And based on that understanding, he rejected several suggestions for conducting the strategy in other ways. The prime example of this was the Broad Front vs. the Single Thrust, which latter was advocated by both Montgomery and Patton.

If you ask me, the real unsung hero of the war (for the US) was George C. Marshall, who knew brilliance when he saw it and made sure that the key players were in the correct assignments when it came time to play ball.

Absolutely. One of the strengths of the wartime Army that came out of the constricted budgets of the pre-war period was that in a small army, everybody knew who everybody else was, what their strengths were and their weaknesses. Marshall was keeping notes on promising officers and already had an idea of how he wanted to shape the Army when he became CoS. Another of his strengths was his ability to work harmoniously with Roosevelt, his boss, and his collegues among the Chiefs of Staff of not only the American armed forces, but of the Commonwealth and other countries. This was by no means always an easy job and not many men could have pulled it off as well as he did. Can you imagine what it would have been like if the Army had had a CoS like King? Brrrrr!

And Marshall understood his own role well enough to turn down the command of Overlord when was offered to him by FDR. IIRC, FDR breathed a sigh of relief when Marshall elected to turn down the supreme command in Europe, since FDR knew that Marshall was absolutely essential in his role as overall military coordinator for US forces.

Do you have a source for this version of the story? I've heard different versions. Mostly they go along the lines that Marshall definitely had his heart set on the top job in the ETO but Roosevelt politely refused to let him go because it was he who recognized Marshall's importance at the center of things, that he was in fact indispensible.

Michael

[CombinedArms]

The version I've read in John Eisenhower's recent memoir of his dad (I forget the title and it's now back at the library) has FDR asking Marshall to make the choice: does he want to command Overlord or remain CoS of the Army. Marshall probably would have preferred the Overlord command, but he refused to express a opinion, saying the decision was up to FDR, and he would do whatever his president ordered him to do.

FDR felt that Marshall "deserved" to be Overlord commander and thus reap all the glory, but he couldn't spare Marshall from the CoS job and the other Joint Chiefs wanted Marshall's muscle when they faced the Brits in the Combined CoS meetings. By refusing to express his real feelings on the subject, Marshall nobly left FDR free to do what was best for the war effort. And FDR made the right choice IMHO.

So, Ike got the nod for Overlord, and my guess is that the war effort benefited. I happen to agree with Michael E and gunnergoz that Ike was an excellent Supreme Allied Commander--he was perfectly suited to the job and it's hard to imagine any of the other prominent figures who surrounded it doing it as well. I also agree with Michael that "He avoided making a number of mistakes that others were urging him to make." British historians in particular still quote Alan Brooke's and Monty's denigrating comments about Ike as if they were gospel, but it seems to me that it was Brooke who really lacked a complete understanding of the nature of the ETO battle. I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted Brooke in Ike's job. And that goes for Monty, Patton, Bradley, Mark Clark or Alexander. Who else is there who might have taken it? I think Ike was right to insist on expanding the Overlord landing force; he was right about the Transportation plan; he was right about the broad front strategy; he was right about insisting on Anvil/Dragoon; he was right about the strength of the Bulge counteroffensive; he was right about strongly reinforcing the Remagen crossing and I even think he was right about letting the Russians take Berlin. He took a lot of heat for all of these decisions, but he stuck to his guns in each case. He did make some mistakes, but few generals in the war were more right in the essentials.

What the ETO needed at the Supreme Commander level was not an operational wizard but a manager and policy-level decision maker and Ike handled that job extremely well. He did it well enough to leave both the Brits and the Ami's annoyed with him most of the time while still busting their humps for the good of the team. Compare Hitler's management style and one sees how important it is to have a good manager in such a position. Hitler had a certain operational brilliance (unlike Ike) but he lacked just about every other needed quality for the job.

I agree with Michael again on Ike's presidency--he was a much better general than president.