AD) " On December 24, 1943, General Dwight Eisenhower was named Supreme Commander of all Allied forces during World War II. He led the allies to victory in Europe beginning with the D-Day Invasion. After the war, Eisenhower was courted by both political parties to run for president. He ended up serving as a two-term Republican president from 1953-1961. " Churchill was the Prime Minister of England, FDR and Truman were Presidents of the United States. Eisenhower DID become President, but not until later.

AThe first part of your question is correct, what are you asking? What is gramer? Sv Svo. Do you mean grammer and SAC (Supreme Allied Commander?)

AHe hails from the good old USA

ASome good responses, but it seems that most are looking at a post 'D-Day' time line. I think that if Patton had been SACEUR he would have planned the invasion for Calais. The Atlantic wall was finished at Calais, and the German army was ready to respond to a forced landing, unlike Normandy. This, in my opinion would have resulted in two things. The first would be be a much higher casualty rate. The second would be the probable failure of the invasion. The paratroops would have been annihilated (like what happened to the Brits in Operation Market/Garden) by the time Allied forces managed to clear the beaches, if they cleared them at all. Reinforcements would ahve very likely contained and destroyed what elements were able to push inland.Continuing with the Calais invasion, but assuming it succeeded, I think Patton would have driven fast and hard into Germany, leaving his flanks exposed, making him vulnerable to counterattack and encirclement. Allied forces would have had to attack westward giving Germany time to reorganize, and we end up with much the same situation of 'real history' in Dec 1944. As the war draws to a close, Patton would try and fight to occupy every inch of ground before the Russians. Many Americans and Brits would have died for nothing as they captured land that would be turned over to the Soviets under Potsdam. Now if we start with a post 'D-Day' time, I think Patton could have finished encircling the retreating Germany Army in France, leaving the front door to Germany wide open. Patton would have raced in, ending the war maybe a month of two earlier. There is also the possibility in this scenario that Patton 'turns' several influential German Generals and the German Army lays down to the Americans and Brits, letting them seriously walk alway the way to the far east border of Germany before the Russians cleared Warsaw. Unlikely, but possible. All this is assuming a great deal. First that Patton could be diplomatic enough not to completely alienate his superiors, allies and sub-commanders and be relieved. As i also beleive that casualty rates would be significantly higher, and Patton's response would be cavalier enough to anger the home front that they would result in Patton's dismissal.That being said, it is possible that being in the role of "King", Patton would have been more magnanimous and been able to weather the hazards associated with commanding a large coalition force. He was a superb commander, and getting his way could have gone a long way to minimizing his ego.If you're interested in alternative history check out "Wolf on the Rhine", I forget the author, but its right up the ally of this question.

AYes. Marshall wanted to direct the invasion of Europe. Roosevelt considered him to indespensible to allow him to leave Washington and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

AIt was a political decision. While fighting in North Africa was still going on, after the "Torch" invasion, it became clear to the British leadership than while they were senior, in terms of combat experience, it would be the Americans who supplied the vast bulk of the manpower, airpower and firepower of the Western Allies from that point on. As such, the Americans naturally would want at least parity in the command structure. Because it is very important in any military structure to have a single man at the top, Churchill and others faced the fact that the top man was going to have to be an American. Marshall was Roosevelt's choice, but the British complained some, and Marshall was also doing a fine and critical job as the Army's Chief of Staff, tasked with building the Army and allocating resources.Eisenhower was a fairly popular choice. He was diplomatic, unassuming and easy to work with, and not given to the self-aggrandizement of Monty, or the temper tantrums of Patton. He'd shown that he could work well with the British in the Desert, and that he was adroit enough not to be captured or pushed around too much by his subordinates.Personally, and again considering the massive shift in terms of who was shouldering the burden of the war, I think Ike was a most admirable choice.

AD - EisenhowerMy god, the other three weren't generals.

AActually the Pacific Theater was divided between MacArthur and Fleet Admiral Chester W, Nimitz, so there were two supreme commanders.

ADwight D. Eisenhower.Bernard Montgomery.

AGeneral John Craddock!!