Why has SACEUR exclusively been an American officer?

score:10

Accepted answer

Short Answer: Pragmatism.

Long Answer: Looking at the history, there does not appear to have been much resistance to the US "running the show." This is probably due to the fact that the US, UK, and Canada were the initial parties pushing for something like NATO. This desire was intensified by the Berlin Blockade. Not to mention the fact that at the time of formation, and up to today, the US had, and has, the most powerful military. One last preliminary point, there is no formal selection process codified by NATO for selecting SACEUR or DSACEUR.

When NATO was originally formed was there any resistance to the setting of the precedent that the President of the United States nominated SACEUR, and that SACEUR would always be American?

Looking through NATO's explanation of the formation of NATO nothing indicates that there was resistance to the US nominating SACEUR. In the context of post-WWII Europe this makes sense for a couple of reasons.

The first is that President Eisenhower, then General Eisenhower, was extremely popular in Europe after WWII, and had extensive experience organizing a large military in Europe from his time as Supreme Allied Commander.

The second reason is that most of Europe was still completely devastated from the effects of WWII. They simply did not have the resources to contribute on the same scale as the US, and accordingly probably did not think it would have been proper to insist that SACEUR wasn't an American. Indeed, when the Soviet Union and Finland signed their treaty the Norweigian Foreign Minister, Halvard Lange, asked the US and UK what they would do if the Soviet Union attacked Norway.

The third reason seems to be that during the initial years of NATO, from planning to its formation, high ranking military members of the member states were heavily involved in structuring the organization. These people were likely less driven by politics than elected officials, and more driven by the stark reality that if the US was not heavily involved in NATO the organization would fail.

Where there any political reasons for SACEUR being American beyond the Americans wanting to retain control of a force that heavily comprised of their troops and wanting to retain tactical control of their nuclear weaponry?

The reasons you mention definitely played a part, but as mentioned already, the US was contributing the bulk of the military force, had been one of the original parties pushing for NATO, and the other member countries wanted the US to be in charge.

Why is it that only British and German officers have served as his Deputy? and who chooses the Deputy SACEUR?

Again, this seems to be a function of custom. I could not find anything on a formal selection process for DSACEUR, let alone SACEUR, so I'm inclined to believe that the countries agree on a name. It has probably traditionally been someone from the UK, and then later on the occasional German, because those countries were the biggest contributors after the US.

It is worth noting that the Secretary General of NATO has always been a European. So, you have a bit of balancing going on. The US runs the military. The Europeans run the diplomacy.

Upvote:0

Because Europeans were the political leaders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_Secretaries_General

  • Hastings Ismay United Kingdom
  • Paul-Henri Spaak Belgium
  • Dirk Stikker Netherlands
  • Manlio Brosio Italy
  • Joseph Luns Netherlands
  • Peter Carington United Kingdom
  • Manfred WΓΆrner Germany
  • Sergio Balanzino (acting) Italy
  • Willy Claes Belgium
  • Sergio Balanzino (acting) Italy
  • Javier Solana Spain
  • George Robertson United Kingdom
  • Alessandro Minuto-Rizzo (acting) Italy
  • Jaap de Hoop Scheffer Netherlands
  • Anders Fogh Rasmussen Denmark
  • Jens Stoltenberg Norway

More post

Search Posts

Related post