Hi all

I was surfing the net and i found a site Military History Forum and there was a section on Monty,i would not say that iam an expert on the subject but i have spoken to many 'Battle experienced Vets' and on the whole THEY feel he did a good job,his tactics were very often i feel influenced by his experiences of the first World War,and the huge loss that occured because they were all to often 'Lions led by Donkeys".
The comments seem to all to often go back to Operation Market Garden, there were many people who had a role to play who made collective mistakes, and have a collective responsability i.e wrong intel, the wrong chrystels in the radios,quite important that, radios battle field communication, anyone know the name of the person persons involved in that,i am quite sure as my uncle fought for his life i dont think he blamed Monty for the radio not working same for the intelagence corps, any mention in the ref books?.
It is a big machine war fare with many moving parts but sadly people not just Monty are the ones that are ear marked for constant critisisum,What about the so called officers who failed to get 5th Brigade off the Navel Support Ship Sir Galahad during the Falklands any names in the ref books ? i will respect comments and read with interest any opinion but remmember who wrote the book what was their military service and if so where and what, i think i will stick with the ones who were on the sharp end and read with interest with and with an open mind the scholars armed with the sharpe end of a pen.
Tango 20 Chris

I've certainly never met a veteran that had a bad word to say about Montgomery. By all accounts the troops loved him.

Hi Dave
Yea thanks for the reply it really ticks me off when some arm chair Generals get going they forget very often the Political B--- that goes with these situations and forget any thing about collective accountability,did we win the war? and my my we beat and yes we did beat all those wonderfully turned out German Generals.
Tango20 chris

Speaking as an American, I can say that most all the negative comments I've ever seen concerning Monty were from other Americans. Many times their knowledge of history begins and ends with the movie Patton, that did put Monty in a pretty bad light.

Was he perfect, no. Was he the best the British had? I'm not even 100% sure I'd say that. Was he a much better general than many Americans give him credit? Absolutely.

Two things about Monty really seem to have ticked the Yanks off. One was his entire manner. He was very much a prima donna, and being a non smoker no drinker he rubbed some the wrong way. He was also very cautious, being very mindful of the number of losses Britain had already taken. In this regard perhaps if the Americans had been at war for as long as the British had, and had taken as high a percentage of their population in losses, they would have been just as cautious.

Monty had very little to do with Market-Garden other than the initial ideas based upon Operation Comet. He himself admitted that his biggest error with regards to that op was to not take a greater role in the planning. Had he done so the op may have been different. Certainly the op was somewhat riskier than usual but it should be viewed in the light of what was supposed to be going on at the time.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing for Historians... Sadly battlefield commanders do not get the ability to use it!

Hi Rodger,

He had at least one "friend" ... hehehe

Hi Rodger, Red Baron,
Thank you both for your objective responses, and please excuss my some what disjionted first post but i really do get ticked off with a very one sided at times attack on Monty.
True he did not smoke and did not drink and did tend to keep himself to himself, does that make him a bad general i dont thinkso was he egotistical iam sure he was ,no more than the many German commanders of which came from a long linage of Prussian military familys, who when they should have done something to stop the wanton distruction of their army did nothing,except for the ones who did attempt to make a change and paid a heavy price both personally and their familys
Many of which field commanders crept back into the lines of the inlisted soldier looking well fed, with out the 1000 yard stare very clean and sporting the full length leather coat and often when captured would show an arrogance that make no mistake they would pay a very dear price for,did Von Paulus of the 6th army fight to the end no his troops sufferd a far worse fate .
I am sure that if things had been different Monty would have fought and died along side his troops not smoking not drinking flying jacket 2 cap badges, not take his life away from it all and iam sure not try and slink off,he understood his troops and would have died with them.
Tango 20 chris

Nice one
Yea he had a lot of friends .......most of them where his troops..... did he slap any ?. Whats Patton wearing lol ,lol
Tango 20 chris

Actually HP I've read at least one account that claimed Patton and Monty weren't nearly the bitter enemies so many people think they were. From several things I've read it seems like the big animosity came from Bradley, not Patton. I do NOT mean this about you, but I really do think many people, especially Americans, get their history from the movie Patton. That movie was based in large part from Bradley's memoirs, and it may well have picked up some of his prejudices.

ALL successful leaders have a very strong ego.

I thnk you are right on this one. From what I've read, they were more like "competitors" than "enemies." Neither one liked to lose -- either to the enemy or to an Ally.

Hm, I can't resist to step in on this one.

Granted he was a great commander and yes he did some excellent stuff (El Alamein among one of them...)

But and here there is a big but... he **** (fill as you like) on 4 occasions. And these aren't American or other biased views, even some of his British collegues admit these.

1. In Sicily he kept on banging head on into the German defences to stuborn to listen to advices from others (including Alanbrooke).

2. Goodwood same case, to get hold of Caen he kept pouring man and material in to the meat grinder.

3. Falaise pocket. Due to his hesitating the pocket was closed to late, giving the Germans a chance to get out men that otherwise had been trapped and captured (including some crack ss-troops). True, he was concerned for his men because of the loses at Caen, but...

4. Pushed his plans for Market-garden (ok he didn't plan it , but he wholeheartedly supported it) instead of the original orders of fully liberating the port of Antwerp, which was badly needed for supplies. Now this all ended up with 2 times lot of losses. One time at Market-Garden and secondly the huge Canadian, Polish, British and Dutch resitance losses to clear the Scheldt estuary.

I also recently learned that in fact Monty was even first choice as Land forces commander for D-day, but Alexander. It was due to subtle intervention from Eisenhower (!), Marshall (!) and Alanbrooke that Churchill eventually was persuaded to give the command to Monty. True he then did a great job at D-day and the planning of it. But he did mess up from time to time because of his personality.

Again this isn't a biased view this is just a general conclusion. If you want some deeper insights into this there is some interesting reading about this, the biography of Alanbrooke, Eisenhower and quite a lot of (British) literature is available. If you are interested I'll compile a list and post it here.

Kris

Being a VMI graduate....................... I think MOnty had an ego that his record didn't justify. Had his Market Garden been ignored and more material and supplies been sent to Georgie-boy...we'ld of achieved a quicker end to the war. After Patton crossed the Rhine in say December, the Russians would not of sat back and watched but would probably of pressed much harder on Berlin. Perhaps the war in Europe would have ended a month or so earlier.

One man's opinion

as had been said, much of the criticsm of monty is unfounded, as egotistical etc as he was.

however just wanted to make one point, monty was not responsible for the victory in the second battle of alemain, he was only given command shortly before the battle and all the planning and preparation had been done by auchinlech(one of the most under-rated commanders of WW2) monty is often remembered by veterans for his stirring speeches before the battle, and in reality this is about all he contributed prior to the opening shots.

and on daves point about veterans not having a bad word for him, my grandfather fought with the 14th army in burma, and he isnt much of a fan. he considers Slim to be the best commander we had(a bit of a personal bias granted)

regards

joe

On the point about Alexander he was not to be Land Force Commander but was Eisenhowers choice for deputy supreme commander instead of Tedder, a man who did not know much about land warfare and disliked Monty intensly. Alexander probably would have been a better choice as he was a very good commander and had a much better grasp of combat than Ike did. Ike was a great politician but was now Army commander and made his own mistakes.

Monty's greatest problem was he always liked to think that things went the way he planned things and as such had a tendencies to re-write things post war to that effect. this is where much criticism has come from as they tend not to much up with his operational orders of the time. For example El Alamein did not go completly to plan but Monty wrote that it did, but what certainly did happen was that Monty did adapt to the changing factor involved in combat and managed to consistently win battles which was what Britain needed. As such he was a good commander. He never stuck ridgedly to a plan, something that is inherent in british military ethos, and was willing to adapt.

Crossbow, I agree with all your points except possibly number 3, about Falaise. I only know what I've read elsewhere that makes the point it wasn't Monty, but Bradley who was to blame for not closing the gap. The reason Bradley gave is that he was afraid of friendly fire losses if the allies approached each other from other sides.

I suppose it comes down to who you read and believe.

One thing about Monty, he wasn't as great as he thought he was, but not as much of a idiot as some Americans like to make him out to be.

Goodwood depends on whose view you take...

Some see it as a failed attempt to breakout others see it as a further attempt to reduce the panzerwaffe in the west. In this respect it did achieve some success, although at some loss to the forces involved. IF you view the British/Commonwealth actions in Normandy as a holding, attrional campaign to facilitate a US breakout then it worked rather well.

As for Market-Garden the actual idea, regardless of ANtwerp and the supply situation was sound. It was let down by some poor planning and poor use of intel among other things. Had a number of factors been different, one being the weather, the operation may well have succeeded and put the Allies in a position to cross the German plains. Whether this would have ended the war any sooner or made any difference is open to conjecture.

On the whole MOnty performed reasonably well, better than most, and was an excellent orator and leader of men. He was also well publicised among the British public and his sacking would have caused mass outrage at home in GB. HE was also conscious of his mens lives, a trait not always found in commanders.

Martin Blumenson in his "Battle of the Generals" takes the position that Montgomery and Patton were competitors who were both more imbued with the offensive spirit than others. Debatable point in my opinion. However, Blumenson does review the wisdom of having a land force commander run operations in Europe. This was probably a sound idea and worthy of more study that it is given by most historians. As for his role in Market-Garden, I am shocked by some of the comments I just read. It was his idea and he should have put everything and evrybody into getting the results he promised. His failure to become more involved doomed the project. It was a brilliant idea and one which should have succeeded in all aspects. He walked away and washed his hands of it. That is the sign of a terrible leader.
DJ

Why are you shocked?

Most commanders in WW2 had very little to do with operational planning, Monty was an exception. HIs failure did not 'doom' the operation. I have studied Arnhem for the last four years as part of my MA on Airborne Effectiveness and MOntys lack of input had little to do with it.

Firstly the weather played a major part in derailing the drop schedule. Monty may have been good but even he could not change the weather.

Secondly the reason for not allowing two lifts on Day One fell to the American, Brereton, over fears of flak that in reality proved to be unfounded.

Thirdly the poor use of intel was in a major part due to the previous penetration of the Dutch resistance by the SD and Gestapo, it was an untrusted source.

Fourthly, Browning pushed to have his Allied AIrborne Army HQ arrive on Day 1 taking up 36 gliders and playing no part in the battle.

But perhaps the major failings are in the command at Arnhem. Frost after the war felt that the decision to advance on a three battalion wide axis into Arnhem was the biggest mistake. Had a narrow, one battlion front been adopted, with Frost leading the way (as would be likely given his reputation as a 'Pusher') then three battalions couls have reached the road bridge and possibly maintained a link with the drop areas. Also the inaction and decisions taken during the period of Urquharts 'dissapeareance' were not the best. There was also the charges of a lack of a sense of urgency among the junior commanders of XXX Corps and the lack of importance attached to seizing Nijmegen bridge.

It is unlikely that had Monty played a greater role in the planning it would have made much difference, all in the British high command felt the Germans were a spent force in the West and greatly underestimated the GErmans ability to recover and defeat a major Allied offensive.

Was Monty to blame for the failure of Market-Garden? possibly but it is unlikely to that any actions he could have taken would have made much difference. He would not have overrulled Brereton and insisted on the 'two lifts on Day One' which is the only real way to have given some insurance of victory. This would have allowed the entire 1st Airborne to have arrived on Day One and allowed it to advance enmasse into Arnhem without the need to guard the drop areas for subsequent lifts. Of course had the British taken up more aircraft on Day One this would have left fewer for the US airborne and this may have had further effects on the operation.

The operation remains one of the great 'What if's' of WW2 and perhaps the Allies greatest missed opportunity in ending the war early.

Regards

RED

Red-- while I appreciate your insights. I stand by my statement. Think about what would have happened if Patton had said "I can get to Bastogne" and then let others monitor and manage the battle. He was personally involved and did not micro manage. He knew the balance point. Montgomery as the Army Group commander should have done more in terms of compensating for the bad weather by the use of more artillery and ground troops. Why did he and Browning allow the 1st British Airborne to go the farthest distance? That was and is still plain dumb. Urquart (spellling?) was a new division commander taking an airborne unit into combat with parachuting with them. Whereas Gaving and Taylor were experienced combat airborne commanders. The British 1st Airborne should have been dropped where they could make contact with XXX Corps quickly. They had compatible equipment and supply needs. Placing a more experienced commander at the Arnhem bridge complex would probably have secured the bridge system with a larger force quicker . A disaster from the start and one in which Montgomery should have been a major player. Instead, he sat and drank tea. Terrible waste of manpower.
DJ

DJ - Taking Urqhuart out the equation 1st Airborne was a very experience unit having as much combat experience as the 83nd Airborne, having fought in N. Africa, Sicily and Italy before being used in NW Europe. Urqhuart himself was an experienced commander and his subordinate brigade and battalion commanders were amongst the best in the british army not to mention in the allied order of battle. i don't think it would have made much difference it if had been one of the US division or 1st Airborne.

Ross-- is my recollection correct in that once the division commander, Urqhuart, disappeared that the brigade commander could not agree on what to do next? Seems to me there was a major dispute on the landing zone that totally paralyzed the unit. I am right here?
thanks
DJ

I have read with great interest the posts regard my first post and the wealth of information and knowledge really is fantastic, and it is wonderfull to see the discussion develop into factual exchanges,and not like i have seen onother sites the bashing of Monty due to the fact that he was cautious, non smoker,non drinker,and that in any situation of planning operations in war there must be a level of collective responsability,when things go wrong,like the sgt yesterday that got 8 years i dont think for one moment he got up that morning and came up with the idea of doing what they did at the prison in Iraq on his own.
Tango 20 cheers chris

DJ - that is true but it was mostly borne out of the position that they did not know what they were up against. I think the same would have happened to the american divisions. The most major problem for the brit was the position of the landing sites, something that was the choice of the air force commander who were worried about losing transport commanders. i think this would have paralysed the american commanders as much as the british brigade commanders. they aslo had a lack of communiction about what was occuring ahead of them. so to advance into the unknown would have been foolhardy.

Ross-- let's discuss those drop zones. I am sure you have been to the area. Holland is a paratroopers dream. The gliders for the American divsions must have had a n easy landing. Now, switch to Arnhem. Selecting drop zones south of the bridge would have been more advantageous. (They put the Poles there. ) The challenge remains how do you capture that massive bridge structure? I would have advocated dropping right on the town itself and south of the bridge--absorb the losses, but the capture of the bridge was all important. Capturing both ends of the bridge would have allowed the British to more easily defend themselves. What do you think? Also, can you comment on the actions of Horrock?
thanks
DJ