"January 7, 1945: Managing Montgomery" Topic

On this day in History, Monty holds a press conference on Jan 07, 1945. … he all but claims complete credit for saving the Allied cause and American Army in the Battle of the Bulge. …

"On Saturday, January 6, Montgomery cabled Churchill that he planned to summon reporters to explain "how [the] Germans were first ‘headed off,' then ‘seen off,' and now are being ‘written off.'" He also intended to rebut any suggestion of American failure in the Ardennes. "I shall show how the whole Allied team rallied to the call and how national considerations were thrown overboard.… I shall stress the great friendship between myself and Ike." On the same day, he wrote a confidant in London, "The real trouble with the Yanks is that they are completely ignorant as to the rules of the game we are playing with the Germans."

When Brigadier Williams, the intelligence chief, asked why he intended to hold a press conference, Montgomery explained that Eisenhower's generalship had been impugned, and "I want to put it right." Williams offered two words of counsel: "Please don't." Others in his headquarters, smelling condescension, also sought to dissuade him. Alan Moorehead pleaded with De Guingand to muzzle Montgomery, lest he "make some bloody awful mistake." "That's a funny position for a newsman to take," De Guingand said. "I want to win the war," Moorehead replied.

In a double-badged maroon beret and a parachute harness—"dressed like a clown," in Moorehead's description—the field marshal appeared before a gaggle of correspondents in Zonhoven on January 7. No doubt he meant well. Praising the American GI as "a brave fighting man, steady under fire, and with that tenacity in battle which stamps the first-class soldier," he also saluted Eisenhower as "the captain of our team," declaring, "I am absolutely devoted to Ike. We are the greatest of friends." No mention was made of Bradley, and an assertion that British troops were "fighting hard" exaggerated their role as reserves very much on the fringe of the battlefield…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Obvious lie number one:

He (Monty)also saluted Eisenhower as "the captain of our team," declaring, "I am absolutely devoted to Ike. We are the greatest of friends." No mention was made of Bradley,

So what is this then?

From NYT Jan 8th 1945

As usual lies and fabrication.

How would the war have turned out if Montgomery had a twitter account?

Any truth to the rumor Monty went on to become a spokesmodel for United Airlines?

Must be 'bash Monty Week'. What about all the other useless commanders? (doghouse prevents me naming them).
At least Monty had been up the sharp end and 'seen the rabbit'. Lieutenant in trenches in WWI, divisional commander in 1940.
Let's have a modicum of balance please.

I have not found articles abour them… yet… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

I think it is less a case of bashing Montgomery and more like letting a little air out of his balloon.

I think it is less a case of bashing Montgomery and more like letting a little air out of his balloon.
Perhaps then you could share the location of this Monty 'balloon'. I am constantly being told all the criticism is a reaction to endless adoration of Monty but I have never yet managed to find it. I have not found any Monty-adoring threads anywhere and I have been actively looking for years.

LOL.

After describing Eisenhower as "captain of our team" and Monty further stating that he was "absolutely devoted to Ike", his passing reference to an incidental contact with Omar Bradley is supposed to represent praise.

Just more ridiculous demagoguery from mkenny – who BTW generates quite a respectable amount of fervent Montgomery adoration all by himself.

Every military leader in history, whether great or small, has been critiqued and criticized for one thing or another. If Mkenny wants to open a thread about, say, Fridenhall or Ghormley or Patton or Callahan or MacArthur or von Rundstedt, I would have a good deal to say. But apparently, Montgomery must be exempted from any discussion, scrutiny or criticism. Sorry, but I'm not buying that sort of foolishness.

B

This forum does not reflect the entire universe of information on Montgomery.

One of the trends I find refreshing of the last 50 years has been the re-examination of past "great" commanders. Montgomery isn't the only great commander who has been subjected to this. Sure some is just scholars making names for themselves. Some also is showing how much the success of "great" commanders is owed to the efforts of their subordinates, or how much that success was due to logistical and other factors. Some has also unmasked contrary contemporary opinions of these great commanders.

After describing Eisenhower as "captain of our team" and Monty further stating that he was "absolutely devoted to Ike", his passing reference to an incidental contact with Omar Bradley is supposed to represent praise

If a source (quoting an author) states 'A' as a 'key' fact and I prove that 'A' is in fact a lie then said source/author's credibility is shot.
End of story.

Just more ridiculous demagoguery from mkenny – who BTW generates quite a respectable amount of fervent Montgomery adoration all by himself

Thing is mkenny deliberately refrained from giving any opinion on Montgomery. Did so absolutely convinced that it would make no difference to the critics. Critics who without exception portray anyone who does not agree 100% with their calumny as a slavishly devoted admirer of Monty. That is how the blinkered mindset works.

This forum does not reflect the entire universe of information on Montgomery.
Which is why I specifically said 'anywhere ' when asking for an example of the claimed 'rah rah version of Monty's career. The whingers were claiming their criticism is just the normal reaction to this view of Montgomery which they claim is 'the norm'
This is fiction. There is no such 'normal view' I know because I take the trouble to look for it.
The whingers are making things up to excuse their behaviour.

One of the trends I find refreshing of the last 50 years has been the re-examination of past "great" commanders. Montgomery isn't the only great commander who has been subjected to this.
The last 50 years (which I know you plucked from thin air) is 1967. Montgomery was singled out in the immediate post-war by mainly US authors for quite disgaceful character assasination. There was no 're-examination' involved and it was a knee-jerk settling of percieved wartime slights.
It is true that some authors (D'Este among them) have decided to adjust their previous works and have become more balanced in their judgement but the books written whilst the wounds were raw still contaminate the atmosphere.

Every military leader in history, whether great or small, has been critiqued and criticized for one thing or another. If Mkenny wants to open a thread about, say, Fridenhall or Ghormley or Patton or Callahan or MacArthur or von Rundstedt, I would have a good deal to say. But apparently, Montgomery must be exempted from any discussion, scrutiny or criticism. Sorry, but I'm not buying that sort of foolishness.

Your 'critique' is easily deflected. Only recently in the other Monty thread you made a 15 day pause into a 52 day one so you could (try and) explain away why the Army you said was 'beaten' and should have been 'easily destroyed' by Monty suddenly walloped the first TORCH Army it bumped in to. Must be the reason why you later edited it out of your original post!