Unity!

This is coolbert:

"'Nothing in war is more important than unity of command. Thus when war is waged against a single power there must be but one army, acting on one line and led by one chief…Better one bad general than two good ones.'" - - Napoleon.

Well, this says it all, doesn't it? NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN UNITY OF COMMAND! And if Napoleon said it is so, generally speaking it can be assumed to be so!

Dwight David Eisenhower as overall commander of allied forces in the European theater [ETO] during the Second World War [WW2] often criticized for his alleged "timidity", not seen as an active or competent combat commander not able to act in a decisive and bold manner to bring the conflict to an expeditious close.

Good combat commanders subordinate to Ike such as Bradley, Montgomery, Patton and even Jacob Devers each and every one offering their own plan for quick, overwhelming offensive action and maneuver the result of which guaranteed to bring the war in Europe to a sudden and dramatic climactic end!

Eisenhower rather preferring and insisting on the dual axis attack [often referred to as "broad front" approach], harmonious coalition warfare that "unity of command" most important, rancor and dissension held to a minimum.

NOT to suggest that Ike a "bad general" or even correct in being described as "timid". More properly seen and understood as PRUDENT, CAUTIOUS, averse to committing a serious or calamitous mistake.

Ike also in that period prior to WW2 acknowledged as the foremost expert in the U.S. Army on the campaigns of Napoleon, Eisenhower undoubtedly familiar [?] with the adages and maxims of the Emperor!

As for the accusations of "timidity", consider the comments of Ike himself, as found in the David Irving book "War Between the Generals":

"'It wearies me to be thought of as timid,' . . . 'when I've had to do things that were so risky as to be almost crazy.'"

You the devoted reader to the blog take it from there!

coolbert.