Supreme Commander (59 page)

But even the Supreme Commander in the European Theater had a limited outlook, as the ANVIL debate was to show. For just as Patton never understood why Eisenhower would not give him everything he wanted, so Eisenhower could not understand when the CCS would not give ETO all that SHAEF asked for. And just as Montgomery later would urge Eisenhower to gear the movements and operations of all other armies to help his, so would Eisenhower ask that the CCS arrange world-wide strategy to fit the needs of OVERLORD. This desire extended to resources; at one point in the ANVIL debate Eisenhower was asking that all surplus landing craft, along with vessels already scheduled for operations elsewhere, be transferred to ETO from the other two principal theaters, the Mediterranean and the Pacific. On his own level, in short, Eisenhower could be just as narrow as the men he criticized, he could fight just as hard for ETO as MacArthur did for Southwest Pacific.

In the particular case of the ANVIL debate, Eisenhower’s attitude contributed to an already great strain on the alliance, a strain brought about for many reasons: because the resources were limited; because the Americans were suspicious of the British and their intentions; because the
British were irritated at what they regarded as the bullying attitude of the Americans; and most of all, because it did make a significant military difference where the major Allied forces in the Mediterranean operated, whether in southern France, Italy, or the Adriatic.

Eisenhower wanted the debate to center around the question of which operation would most help OVERLORD. Marshall wanted to retain world-wide balance and keep the British from dragging him into any more adventures in the Mediterranean, especially in Italy or even farther to the east. The British doubted that there was much the forces in the Mediterranean could do to help OVERLORD, felt that what they could do they were already doing in Italy, and sensed that operations in Italy or to the east could be pushed with great profit. And these differing positions were only the beginning of the complexities in the debate.

The world-wide shortage of landing craft colored the entire situation and made all events related. At one point Churchill growled that “the destinies of two great empires … seem to be tied up in some Goddamned things called LSTs.”
¹
The shortage stemmed from these sources: a failure earlier in the war to put landing craft at the top of the production priority list; the U. S. Navy’s (and MacArthur’s) insistence on assuming the offensive in the Pacific; and the unexpectedly determined German resistance in Italy.

There was little Eisenhower could do about the U. S. Navy except complain, and he did a lot of that. On January 25 he said that Admiral King was keeping all information as to the number and location of landing craft in the Pacific a secret. Army planners were forever in the dark. No one but King and his immediate subordinates, Eisenhower moaned, knew how many craft there were in the Pacific. “He spoke of action in the Pacific as ‘the Navy’s private war.’ ”
²
Two weeks later Eisenhower wrote, in a memorandum for the diary, “The fighting in the Pacific is absorbing far too much of our limited resources in landing craft during this
critical
phase of the European war.” To him this was a major error, for he thought OVERLORD should have every resource available until the invading force was firmly established on the Continent. “But we are fighting two wars at once—which is wrong—so far as I can see from my own limited viewpoint.”

Eisenhower had no control over events in the Pacific, and he was equally helpless with regard to developments in Italy. In January the Allied forces in the Mediterranean had made an assault at Anzio, hoping to drive inland and cut off the German forces facing Clark’s Fifth Army. Von Kesselring had decided to fight rather than retreat and nearly drove
the Anzio forces back into the sea. By early February it was obvious that they were stymied. Since there was no good port at Anzio, the troops there had to be supplied over the beaches by landing craft, which tied up ships previously counted on for ANVIL. When ANVIL was planned, it had been thought that there would be no need for landing craft in Italy after the end of January. It was on that very basis that the British had agreed in principle to ANVIL. Eisenhower recognized that the requirements at Anzio (which would continue until May, although no one knew that at the time), could not be ignored, “no matter how much we shout ‘principle and agreements.’ ” Even before the Anzio stalemate Smith and Montgomery had argued that ANVIL ought to be abandoned in order to free landing craft for OVERLORD; now the BCOS joined them. Eisenhower was being forced into that position. On February 7 he noted, “It looks like ANVIL is doomed. I hate this.”
³

Marshall disagreed. When Eisenhower hinted that he was ready to drop ANVIL, Marshall replied that he still strongly favored the operation and expressed a fear that the BCOS were influencing Eisenhower’s views. “I merely wish,” the Chief declared, “to be certain that localitis is not developing and that pressure on you has not warped your judgment.” He also asked the British not to discuss strategic matters with Eisenhower before Eisenhower had had a chance to give Washington his opinion. Marshall pointed out that canceling ANVIL would have the effect of losing a number of divisions because they could not be employed either in Italy or northwestern France due to inadequate port facilities. He did admit that the whole question would become academic if Rome had not fallen by early April. If the Allies were still south of the city at that time, ANVIL could not go concurrently with OVERLORD. But if Alexander’s armies were north of Rome, there would be many divisions available and ANVIL could be mounted. This conclusion was based on the assumption that the offensive in Italy would end when Rome was taken.
⁴

In any debate, Eisenhower’s practice was to seek agreement. Brooke, for one, felt that this often meant the Supreme Commander was susceptible to the influence of the last person to whom he talked. Marshall evidently agreed. But the Chief also realized that he was the single most influential person in Eisenhower’s life, and was usually careful not to state his views too strongly, for fear of unduly swaying the Supreme Commander. But ANVIL fit in very closely with Marshall’s over-all view of how to defeat Germany—through a power drive on the Continent. In addition the Chief had so determinedly set himself against any extension
of the Mediterranean campaign that in this case he very definitely did want to influence Eisenhower.

He was successful. Eisenhower bristled at Marshall’s charge that he was letting the British influence his views and on February 8 sent a long, defensive answer. After a discussion of the background, in which he emphasized his own insistence on beefing up OVERLORD to five assault divisions, Eisenhower pointed out, “I felt so strongly that ANVIL should be preserved while we were achieving the necessary strength for OVERLORD that [when Smith and Montgomery advised dropping ANVIL and adhering to a May 1 date for OVERLORD] I replied we would accept a date of 31st May in order to get an additional month’s production of every kind of landing craft from both countries” so as to make both operations possible. Eisenhower insisted that only after he had formed his conclusions about dropping a simultaneous ANVIL to make OVERLORD strong enough did he learn that the BCOS themselves wanted to abandon ANVIL. Then, in a ringing defense of himself, Eisenhower declared, “In the various campaigns of this war I have occasionally had to modify slightly my own conceptions of campaign in order to achieve a unity of purpose and effort. I think this is inescapable in Allied operations but I assure you that I have never yet failed to give you my own clear personal convictions about every project and plan in prospect.” He was not aware of being “affected by localitis,” and protested that his overriding concern was to make sure OVERLORD worked. He was, in short, responding to different pressures than Marshall. As commander of OVERLORD, he saw it as his responsibility to fight for all possible support for it; beyond that, living in London made him more aware than Marshall of the requirements of the alliance.

Eisenhower then gave Marshall his thoughts, based on a month of intensive study of OVERLORD. First, the initial assault had to have five divisions heavily reinforced with armor. Second, it had to be preceded by two months of intensive air preparation. Third, at least one full airborne division would have to be dropped inland. Fourth, at least two reinforced divisions should land on the second tide of D-Day. Since landing craft would be needed to carry them, OVERLORD would in fact require enough craft for seven, not five, divisions. Last, “we must have the strongest possible support from the Mediterranean,” which meant ANVIL. Eisenhower did warn Marshall, “From D day to D plus sixty this thing [OVERLORD] is going to absorb everything the United Nations can possibly pour into it,” but the implication was that, having
given Marshall a long defense of his proposal to drop ANVIL, he would bow to Marshall’s wishes and continue to fight for the operation.
⁵

Marshall was satisfied with Eisenhower’s response, and on February 11 he got JCS permission to give Eisenhower authority to represent the JCS in ANVIL discussions with the BCOS. The British had been pressing for a conference of the CCS in London to settle ANVIL; the JCS did not want to come because the members were involved in an internal debate over strategy in the Pacific. Marshall’s decision to make Eisenhower the JCS executive for ANVIL discussions meant that Eisenhower became in effect a member of the CCS when southern France came up. The British were amazed that the Americans would delegate so much authority to a commander in the field, but happily accepted the arrangement since dealing with Eisenhower was easier than dealing with Marshall. The JCS may not have realized it, but the grant of authority made Eisenhower’s complex role even more difficult, for it gave him two responsibilities; as Supreme Commander, he had to fight for what he thought best for OVERLORD, while, as the JCS representative, he was obliged to present as strongly as possible the American strategic position.
⁶
It is also possible that Marshall’s motives were not altogether pure, that he realized that by making Eisenhower the JCS executive he was forcing Eisenhower to take the JCS position on ANVIL.

At a meeting with Brooke on February 10, Eisenhower found that he had reached an impasse on the issues at hand. He finally accepted Brooke’s contention that the only reasonable approach to the problem was to decide what resources were required for OVERLORD and allot them, then to consider how best to use the remaining forces so as to make the maximum contribution toward the success of OVERLORD.
⁷
Four days later Eisenhower attended a meeting with Rear Admiral Charles “Savvy” Cooke, Jr., Admiral King’s chief war planner, and Major General John E. Hull of OPD. Both had come to London to discuss with Eisenhower the plans for allocation of landing craft to OVERLORD and ANVIL. The three Americans, together with members of the SHAEF staff, made a minute examination of OVERLORD’s needs. Their conclusion was that not enough landing craft had been allotted and that neither current production nor overloading of the craft on hand would be sufficient to complete OVERLORD’s requirements. More craft would have to come from the Mediterranean, Eisenhower warned Marshall on February 14, even though he added that “we have
not
reached final conclusion.…”
⁸

With Cooke’s and Hull’s help, Eisenhower then prepared a memorandum
to present to the BCOS, with whom he would be meeting on February 19. As the JCS representative, Eisenhower made a number of specific recommendations. The most important was a proposed trade; twenty Landing Ship, Tank (LSTs) and twenty-one Landing Craft, Infantry (Large) (LCI(L)s) from the Mediterranean for OVERLORD in exchange for six AKAs from England to ANVIL. The AKAs were large cargo ships that lacked tactical flexibility, and Eisenhower justified the exchange on the grounds that the cumbersome AKAs could more easily be used in the calmer southern waters, where there was much less tidal ebb and flow. If the BCOS agreed to the trade, Eisenhower wanted a directive sent to Field Marshal Wilson ordering him to prepare ANVIL. After making these proposals, Eisenhower put on his other hat and as Supreme Commander warned that the trade would still leave OVERLORD fifteen LSTs short. This could be made up by increasing loading and serviceability and by allocating seven additional LSTs to OVERLORD from current U.S. production. Still under these conditions, the operation would be risky.
⁹

At the meeting on February 19 the British made it clear that they were not going to slow the offensive in Italy, for ANVIL or anything else. This was the crux of the disagreement, for as always Marshall and the JCS were ready to shut down offensive operations in Italy, while the British wanted to increase them and even extend them into the Adriatic. Brooke told Eisenhower that, since Hitler had decided to fight in full force south of Rome, the main objective of ANVIL had already been met—German troops were being tied down. The British view was that Wilson “requires all the resources on which he can lay hands” and they feared that “the shadow of ANVIL is already cramping General Wilson.…” Eisenhower’s proposal, Brooke complained, meant that “both OVERLORD and ANVIL are skimped.” Eisenhower replied that his personal view was that the landing in southern France “might no longer be practicable owing to the developments of the situation in Italy,” but warned that if ANVIL were dropped he would expect to receive nearly all the landing craft in the Mediterranean. He felt that the British wanted to abandon ANVIL in order to expand operations in Italy and the Adriatic, rather than for the purpose of providing more landing craft for OVERLORD, and to this he would never agree.
¹⁰

After the meeting Eisenhower sent a long cable to Marshall. He summarized what had happened, then warned that the British might now argue three points: first, that Eisenhower could get along with the minimum requirements he had outlined for OVERLORD; second, that
this still did not leave enough for ANVIL; and third, that therefore the remaining craft in the Mediterranean should be used to step up operations in Italy. The fallacy was in thinking that OVERLORD could be mounted on a shoestring even without ANVIL. Eisenhower disagreed with Brooke’s statement that Italy was already tying down as many German troops as ANVIL would. In the Supreme Commander’s view, ANVIL would hold German troops in the south of France and make it possible for him to launch OVERLORD with a minimum of resources. But if there were no ANVIL, the Germans could swing troops in southern France to Normandy, and in that case OVERLORD had to be as strong as possible. This argument lacked force, for the German soldiers in southern France were almost exclusively garrison troops, incapable of rapid movement or active combat. Eisenhower nevertheless asked Marshall if ANVIL were to be called off to be immediately authorized to take from the Mediterranean whatever he needed. He also warned Marshall that his own feeling was that “ANVIL will probably not be possible.”
¹¹