Unexplained: Eisenhower had no combat experience whatsoever before being put in charge of the biggest amphibious operation ever attempted so, either experience was not a requirement or there was someone hiding behind him calling all the shots, or none of the above.
It's true that he hadn't been on the field of battle as a soldier, but Eisenhower did have tremendous knowledge regarding military tactics and organization. He was a US Military Academy/West Point graduate, and his entire career was in the military after graduation until 1948. He served stateside during World War I, including as battalion commander of heavt tanks which was assigned to go to Europe. They didn't make it over, due to the 1918 flu pandemic and the war ending. Eisenhower was greatly disappointed that he didn't make it to an overseas deployment for World War I. Some time later, he and Douglas MacArthur both served in the Philippines, with Eisenhower working for MacArthur. In the Philippines the two strongly disagreed with each other regarding military philosophy, which was problematic, but did give Eisenhower valuable experience dealing with big egos and strong opinions. He did also lead the campaign in North Africa, for Operation Torch, then he lead troops in Tunisia prior to leading all Allied forces for Operation Overlord. He wasn't exactly inexperienced with war.
@@paigetomkinson1137 I said combat, I just thought this was a very unusual situation, Marshall, MacArthur, Bradley would have seemingly been better choices. I think he crossed the US with a car and no roads for a job, he hated it. As for managing the whole thing, Montgomery and Churchill who wanted to lead, Paton who wouldn't behave and called the Russians ass... at the worst time possible, Zhukov who wanted Berlin all to himself... not an easy assingemt at all, still, he had no combat experience, being half Jewish like Churchill, Stalin and FDR they hated the Germans profoundly and so he had millions murdered after the war had ended, mostly women and children and many from starvation SO, an intolerable hypocrite, a vicious liar and a bloody murderer but in the end, a good leader of men.
Unexplained: Eisenhower had no combat experience whatsoever before being put in charge of the biggest amphibious operation ever attempted so, either experience was not a requirement or there was someone hiding behind him calling all the shots, or none of the above.
It's true that he hadn't been on the field of battle as a soldier, but Eisenhower did have tremendous knowledge regarding military tactics and organization. He was a US Military Academy/West Point graduate, and his entire career was in the military after graduation until 1948. He served stateside during World War I, including as battalion commander of heavt tanks which was assigned to go to Europe. They didn't make it over, due to the 1918 flu pandemic and the war ending. Eisenhower was greatly disappointed that he didn't make it to an overseas deployment for World War I. Some time later, he and Douglas MacArthur both served in the Philippines, with Eisenhower working for MacArthur. In the Philippines the two strongly disagreed with each other regarding military philosophy, which was problematic, but did give Eisenhower valuable experience dealing with big egos and strong opinions. He did also lead the campaign in North Africa, for Operation Torch, then he lead troops in Tunisia prior to leading all Allied forces for Operation Overlord. He wasn't exactly inexperienced with war.
@@paigetomkinson1137 I said combat, I just thought this was a very unusual situation, Marshall, MacArthur, Bradley would have seemingly been better choices. I think he crossed the US with a car and no roads for a job, he hated it. As for managing the whole thing, Montgomery and Churchill who wanted to lead, Paton who wouldn't behave and called the Russians ass... at the worst time possible, Zhukov who wanted Berlin all to himself... not an easy assingemt at all, still, he had no combat experience, being half Jewish like Churchill, Stalin and FDR they hated the Germans profoundly and so he had millions murdered after the war had ended, mostly women and children and many from starvation SO, an intolerable hypocrite, a vicious liar and a bloody murderer but in the end, a good leader of men.
@@paigetomkinson1137 No he did not but he led to victory.