I have read loads of books on WW2 and one thing that really stands out is how some of the allied generals were so loathed by some and loved by others. 2 that come readily to mind are Montgomery and Patton, but there are many others. Whilst the high esteem these guys are held in by many is justly deserved I cannot help but wonder why they were so villified by others. Granted they may have been egotistical or abrasive but they were ultimately successful in beating arguably the most professional army of the 20th century with what were in the most cases soldiers who were not of the same calibre or military efficiency as their opponents. [This is not to denegrate the Allied soldiers, simply that they did not have the same millitary ethos as the soldiers of the Axis]. Surely they don't deserve the acrimony that surrounded them than, and to some extent still continued long after the war was over.
Any comments or opinions on this?

There is a quote ( forgot by who) that goes something to tune of: I am like Montgomery, give me enough men and enough time and I can do anything!

As for commanders , the best by far the British Messervy was the best, ever heard of him? Read his biography by Henry Maule, called Spearhead General.

(++)

Martin:
I think I know what your trying to say here, so let me see if I can answer in the context or what you asking.
I'll take Patton for an example due to his high profile and the fact my father served under him during the European campaign.
Yes he was an SOB and hated by some, but he never and I have been told never left his troops left hanging out to dry. He would drive them, motivate them and give them what they needed to get the job done. If someone was incompetent he would tell them so and if bad enough relieve them and get someone who would get the job done.
I think the reason that the Allies were able to beat the " Most professional Army of the 20th century" was the fact that once those leaders and soldiers got their orders they didn't question them they just went ahead.
Where as the Allies would be able to change and adapt their plans on the fly as the battle or situation changed.
For Example: The Air drops before the Normandy Invasion were a Disaster. Noone hit the drop zones and there was no organization, but the leaders on the ground adapted to the situation and made it a success.
Now if the roles were reversed and the Germans were in the same situation and with their military mentality of receiving orders and carring them out to the letter would they have been able to adapt to that kind of situation?
Generals are judged by the Armies they lead. Their success, failures and accolades are judged by the performance of their troops.
Hope I got the gist of the question
Paul

There are lots of good generals during the war. Montgomery unfortuanatly gets bashed around a bit, especially by american historians who for some reason do not like hem. He was not the best british commander but just happened to be there at the right time. Probably the 2 greatest british generals was the CIGS Alanbrooke, who commanded an army that was fighting all over the globe as well as controlling Churchill. Another great commander is Slim. He is second to none in operational commander he had a grasp of all thing from admin and logistics to startegic planning. He also had an affinity for his men.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. MacArthur is another example. His ego and mannerisms were such as to invite scorn and derision from subordinates and superiors alike...."Dugout Doug" and "his lordship". But, the man was greatly concerned about combat losses and undertook projects to minimise them. His military genious is unquestioned (Inchon). MG Terry Allen who commanded the 1st IN Div at beginning was beloved by his troops, but Bradley and Ike both disliked him and in fact caused him to be sacked for no good reason after Sicily. Luckily he was given the 104th Div shortly after that and was back in action shortly after Normandy until the end.

I just cannot understand the enormous bad feeling that was felt towards many of these leaders. It seems to me that there were a lot of "political" manouverings going on behind the scenes in many cases. For the most part they were excellent commanders who were supremely loyal and protective toward the men under their command. Another instance is the way that Dowding and Park were unceremoniously dumped after winning the Battle of Britain. They were using a revolutionary new air defence system that was completely untried in comat, vastly outnumbered and could have easily suffered massive losses. Yet they were criticised in many quarters for their tactics. I suppose they made the mistake of being proved 100% right.

what you find is that if a general doesn't fit into a political way of thinking they tend to fall by the wayside, as was the case with Dowding. Also a general needs to show results, like monty did. Monty had his failing, most notably he was far too vain for his own good, but at the end of the day he won battles and this was what the politicians and people need. therefore, he gets kept on.

The comment that a General should be judged by the Army they led - hit the nail squarely on the head!!!!! In this Patton, Montgomery, Slim, MacArthur, Nimitz (an admiral, but we can let him in), etc., jump to the front. Many German commanders, based on this fall out: for example, Rommel was an outstanding leader at the tactical and operational level, but had little understanding of logistics and medical aspects of war - The Afrika Korps had a terrible problem with disease, simply due to poor sanitation practices among the troops. MG Terry Allen was fired as commander of the "Big Red One", because his soldiers were undisciplined!! They got drunk on duty, comiited rape, pillage, etc., in North Africa, and Allen did nothing to stop the unmilitary actions of his troops. Many German generals failed to control the actions of their soldiers, so in my mind, they too, fall out. Forget the Japanese - their military culture was primitive and their tactics were archaic, and once the Allies figured them out - were highly ineffective.

I'm finished now!

the one general that no one has mentioned is Guderian his accomplishments in Italy are very well known and he was a luftwaffe general.

the only reason i mentioned Guderian was ranger74 very slightly opened the door with Rommel. but as for allied generals it has to be Slim very few if any could accomplished what Slim and his forgotten army did.and very few inspired the kind of loyalty Slim did.

MLB63 has an excellent candidate in Field Marshal Slim. He knew his enemy, he knew his troops, and he knew the terrain. I defeated the Japanese on the Indian Frontier by getting them to fight him where he could get them massed in the open against his firepower. Once he destroyed the attacking armies. He harrassed them relentlessly back to Burma and on from there. Outstanding officer, leader and man. You nailed that one

Here in my country, MacArthur is well-loved by the people here. He led the liberation forces in 1944 and he kept his promise to the Filipinos, "I shall return." And return he did, that is why he is endeared to a lot of Filipinos even though (from what I heard) others in the US find his personality a turn-off.

Going back to the topic at hand, Patton is probably one of the great military leaders of the 20th century. While it's true he may be flamboyant and rather ornery. He's a man of action. He just didn't want to play the game of politics. Trailing him would be Bradley. A soldeir's soldier. Makes you wonder why they named an IFV after him. :-)

Another general who deserves recoginition would be Gen. Anthony MacAuliffe, the acting DC of the 101st Airborne. He'll forever be remembered for his famous reply to the German ultimatum (Nuts!) at Bastogne.

As for Monty, give him credit for stopping Rommel at El Alamein.

And then there's Eisenhower. He had the biggest responsibility ever for a general, considering he commands the armed forces of 4 nations.

actually it was Auchinleck who stopped Rommel at El Alamein.unfortunately he was dumped when he told Churchill he would'nt be ready to attack in (if memory serves me right)september?anyway Churchill sacked him and replaced him with Monty setting the stage for the second battle.

When you get a chance take a look at the map of the North African campaign. The Quattara Depression forms a natural bottleneck to movement from the west to east. Regardless of the general in charge, a look at the map tells you to defend their and rob Rommel of his ability to out flank your position. The British were slow to learn that maneuver was all important in the deseret. The earlier fortified box system failed because Rommel manuvered between the stationary forces and essentially surrounded them. Monty's placement of troops and fire power won the battle, as did his very tight control over moving out of defensive positions to go after the Germans. If the British had pursued Rommel (IMHO) they would have playing into Rommel's hands and he would have turned the defeat into a major victory. Thank God, he did not.
DJ

You mean Kesselring. Kesselring had in fact been a Wehrmacht officer in World War I and knew and understood ground combat and logistics.
He joined the new Luftwaffe when it was re-formed in the 1930s.
In my opinion if it had been he rather than Goering in charge ofthe Luftwaffe, the Battle of Britain would have been a German victory.

As for all the others, they were human, and being so had their faults. Patton tried to act within his, Monty didn't that's one reason for the acrimony,
For pure brilliance on the battlefield I have to go with Gudarian and Manstein. It is to the Allies' advantage that one was shunted off to "retirement" because he dared to tell Hitler the truth,and Manstein was forced to do more and more with less and less.

your right.i can't believe i did that,the wife's right i must be getting old.by the way is anyone else getting the dreaded red x or is it just my bloody computer?