Patton was self absorbed and hated by his men, he was humiliated when he was forced to apologise in public for striking a private, MacArthur, would have run away like he did in the Philipines and then blamed others for his mistakes.

Let me say this what would Generaladmirals Lutjens and Schniedwind have accomplished with the carrier battle groups that Halsey and Nimitz had.

Imagine this

Manstein, Rommel, Hoth, Guderian, von Vearst, Kesserling, Stumppf, Vietinghoff, Busch, List, von Leeb, Paulas, Rundstedt and nearly all of the German General Staff of the OKW, OKL, OKH and OKM under the allied command and conducted their military campaings without constant political interference from Roosevelt/Truman, Churchill and Stalin.

No Germany would still lose the war with the above mentioned allied generals because none would dare defy Hitler, if they did they would be either forced to resign or sacked, like Rundstedt over Rostov.

This would be a tough one to answer. The various Allied militaries were distinctly different in their mindsets and doctrine fromt that of the Germans. Let me start with the easy ones:

In the air the switch is distinctly in favor of Germany now. The Allied states are saddled with a raft of incompetents and technical illiterates starting with Göring and going down the list. Officers like Kesslering would go unappreciated. While an excellent ground commander, he is nothing special with air power.
On the flip side LeMay, Harris, or Kenney to name just a few, would have quickly changed Luftwaffe policies making that force far more coherent and effective than it historically was. At higher levels, the orgainzation of production and aircraft design would have quickly done away with many absurd and failed projects in a heartbeat. I could see the He 177 ending up with four engines, no dive bombing ability and being an actually effective aircraft to give one example.

At sea the narrow-minded hidebound conservatives of the Kriegsmarine would likewise be replaced by a better crop of far more aggressive and knowledgable Admirals from both the British and US Navies. While they would have far less material to work with they would know better how to utilize it than the now rich German admirals would with Allied naval units.

On land, the Germans would likely run circles tactically and operationally around most their Allied counterparts given the plethora of material they now have. However, they would most likely also be far less conservative with it and far more willing to trade casualties for victory than the Allies were. The only big advantage the Germans get is in now having far more genius for strategy and logistics than they had. I can't see the Allied generals in this situation getting themselves repeatedly pocketed and destroyed on an immense scale. Nor can I see them squandering resources or meddling with production like the Wehrmacht did so frequently.
For example, the Allied generals would have never reinforced the obvious defeat in North Africa as the Germans did.
And, Roosevelt and Churchill did meddle in strategy on a frequent basis. However, they, along with Stalin, did not do so to the degree Hitler did.
On the whole, I doubt that the changes on the ground would be world shaking but rather give the Allies a marginal advantage in operations they originally did not have.

The only way LeMay and his cohorts would get the Luftwaffe the way you say is to depose Goring in a takeover (yes folks mutiny) and i can assure you they would be executed for that. On the Heinkel He-177 the Heinkel Company asked for years to allow the decoupling of the twin engine configuration and allow the aircraft to be a traditional four engined heavy but Goring forbade it, and at one point threated Heinkel Company head with imprisonment if they defied his directive that the He-177 remain a two engined heavy and so they caved in.

On the Navy, you are forgetting one point "Hitler" he forbade any conditions that would put any capital ship in harms way after the sinking of the Bismarck, the German heavy units never again fought in the open sea after the loss of the Bismarck, so again the above mentioned cohorts you say would have to defy Hitler openly and put to see, outcome, immidiate sacking and most likely imprisonment at worst execution.

Oh you mentioned Kesserling, imagine Kesserling in charge of the RAF. Imgine Generalleutnant Adolf Galland in charge of RAF Fighter Command and say Generalfeldmarschal Hugo Stumpff in charge of RAF Bomber Command and has the Lancaster and Halifax strategic heavy bombers under his command, while on the other side of things Air Vice Marschall Sir "Bomber" Harris is lumbered with the obsolete Do-17's, He-111 making up the bulk of his Bomber Command.

It takes decades to train officers how to deal with with the bureaucracies and logistic systems of an army. A general is as much a product of the system as well as natural ability. They learn about how their troops will react and what they need for motivation. Any good general will learn the system, but not within the timeline of a war.

__________________
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

Very good point, sir. Since the feedback has been very interesting to read, I think I was very remiss for excluding the Russians. Including the Russians would make for better discussion.

If that happened then Germany would have just been destroyed faster. The Allied commanders would have been limited by Hitler and the German generals would have had free range to show off their skills which were hidden behind Hitler's stupidity.

Dear friend brilliance wasn't limited to the Germans, as Heer Hilter has shown.

__________________
"What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they're going to try to impose, I think doesn't make sense." Hillary Clinton

(Photo removed for humanitarian reasons.)

This brings to mind a question I'd raised elsewhere a year ago. In the mid 1800s a branch of the Rommel family emigrated to the US, a cousin of his father or grandfather, possibly some on his mothers side as well. There was in those days a fair sized group on emmigrants from Swabian (the Rommel familys home turf) settling in the midwest. (Nearly all my ancestors on my fathers side came from the Swabia area.)

Anway, lets imagine for a moment Rommels father had been convinced to come to the US with his bride, and young Irwin was born and raised in the rural Indiana or Illinois. Sometime between 1912 and 1915 achieving a commision in the US Army how might his career developed? Keep in mind Seadogs point about the influenece of the enviroment or culture on a development.

__________________
I forgot my password, can I use yours?

Interesting concept, but way too many variables. There is no way we can predict what influences he may be exposed to or how they would have affected him.

__________________
Best Regards,
Not Slipdigit

Slipdigit...you are being to anal. Dont worry about predicting and just think about the general possibilities.

I've noticed the US Army of the 1920s & 1930s emphasised skill at organizing, The ability to plan and execute tasks efficiently was prized. (The reasons for this are interesting & are important to understanding the performance of the US Generals in WWII.) Schools and academic performance were also important in those days. How did Rommel do in similar situations in the Reichswehr & the Wehrmacht?

__________________
I forgot my password, can I use yours?

Ike would be a good example of the US emphasis on planning. As for Rommel, I've read somewhere that he was bumped up and because of the hectic pace of the war, didn't had the time to attend or complete the German equivalent of advanced staff school.
Could anyone give more info on this. Their some sites on the web about it but with the conflicting info, I don't know which of the "facts" are really facts.
As for Patton being placed in the German side, again I'd say he'd fit right in.
I've just read more about Patton a couple of days ago (info based on his diary) and what I've learned about his personal beliefs really disappointed me.

Yes, there were in theory opportunitys for Rommel to attend the the General Staff school in the 1930s after it was revived. the pop historys usually remark on Rommel advancing to Generals rank and divsion command due to Hitlers favor rather than the Wehrmachts promotion system. The literature I have covers WWI & WWII, but the 1920s & 30s are rather thin.



Clark was another example. Like Eisenhower he fell under the gaze of a extremly demanding general and spent more than a few years as the mans key staff officer. MacAurthur in the case of Ike, Bowser for Clark. Bowser like Mac & many other had seen the US Armys incompetence at staff work its most serious defect in WWI. They appear to have been determined to raise a generation of officers who could at least be skilled at getting a army organized and ready. Reading though the biographys of Collins, Ridgeway, Patton, Krueger, & others this repeatedly stands out. No one got promoted to field grade ranks in the 1930s without proving multiple times their ability to organize efficiently any task they were handed.

__________________
I forgot my password, can I use yours?