Tango01 | 17 Feb 2020 10:07 p.m. PST |
"Love him or detest him, there has rarely been a middle-ground when it comes to opinions about one of World War II's most controversial and misunderstood generals: Field Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery. He has been the subject of gossip, endless articles and a number of biographies, as well as portraits and assessments in books about the battles, campaigns and theaters of war in which he served. Overall, historians have been unkind to Montgomery. In this article I intend to make the case that these judgments are mostly superficial and as often as not, wrong. He had a personality we love to hate and a record of accomplishment few could claim. Monty was married to the British Army and was a dedicated officer whose entire existence was geared to preparing for war and to fighting that war to win. To that end, he demanded the highest standards of conduct, training and performance. Those who failed to live up to his standards were ruthlessly replaced by men who could. In the disastrous wake of Dunkirk in 1940 Montgomery began training the men under his command with both relish and a hardnosed insistence on performance. "His first priority was fitness," notes historian Alastair Horne, "'physical and mental,' quoting with relish his favorite lines from Kipling;…" Main page link Amicalement Armand |
Jeffers | 18 Feb 2020 3:27 a.m. PST |
|
deephorse | 18 Feb 2020 5:07 a.m. PST |
Yep, it's time for this. Again. |
robert piepenbrink | 18 Feb 2020 7:02 a.m. PST |
I'm not going there. It's back out now, or write an essay. |
Blutarski | 18 Feb 2020 8:04 a.m. PST |
10 … 9 … 8 … 7 … 6 … 5 … 4 … 3 ….. :-) B |
Windy Miller | 18 Feb 2020 10:12 a.m. PST |
I've just read the whole thing. It's an article in three parts by Carlo d'Este and is a very fair and balanced assessment I thought. Doubtless others will disagree. |
mkenny | 18 Feb 2020 11:01 a.m. PST |
a very fair and balanced assessment I thought. Doubtless others will disagree. Possibly but I suspect those with an irrational knee-jerk hatred of all things Monty will not be too keen to parade their ignorance given how badly they fared in the previous 1,579 outings of this same topic with the very same link from mainly the same poster. |
Tango01 | 18 Feb 2020 11:50 a.m. PST |
I enjoyed it too… and you must have more faith in your fellow members my friend… (smile) Amicalement Armand
|
Blutarski | 18 Feb 2020 2:37 p.m. PST |
"Historians of World War II have proven remarkably incapable of judging Montgomery on his merits." "Historians Williamson Murray and Alan Millett have come the closest in recent years to an accurate assessment of the most controversial British soldier of the war." What a humble individual Mr D'Este must be to bless us with such wise insight and guidance. B |
Marcus Brutus | 18 Feb 2020 2:46 p.m. PST |
I have found previous conversations on TMP helpful in modifying my estimation of Montgomery. I have a greater appreciation for his many gifts and generalship. Sometimes we don't really appreciate the strains and limitations put on someone in leadership. A complicated figure for sure. |
Northern Monkey | 18 Feb 2020 9:35 p.m. PST |
Carlo D'Este is very much yesterday's man as a historian. In serious history circles his work is seen as extremely flawed. |
Keith Talent | 19 Feb 2020 3:18 a.m. PST |
Was Montgomery a better General than than D'Este is a historian? Bit of a change from dragging in Patton and Mainstein. |
mkenny | 19 Feb 2020 5:01 a.m. PST |
Carlo D'Este is very much yesterday's man as a historian. In serious history circles his work is seen as extremely flawed. His 'Decision In Normandy' is a complete hatchet job on Monty and the Commonwealth forces. However it appears it is only when he walks back those views that anyone complains……….. |
Tango01 | 19 Feb 2020 10:55 a.m. PST |
|
Lee494 | 19 Feb 2020 12:01 p.m. PST |
I've defended Monty here several times before. Also the Russian contribution to winning the war. The problem is the American point of view held by many is that we won the war single handedly. We had to rescue our allies from their many and varied shortcomings. In fact we would have won the war in 1943 if not for their timidity and incompetence. REAL history is a bit different! Cheers! |
Marcus Brutus | 19 Feb 2020 2:16 p.m. PST |
There is much to dislike mkenny about how Montgomery handled the post invasion battle of Normandy. That doesn't necessarily mean we have to translate justified criticism into a blanket slag against his overall performance as a commanding general. Isn't that your basic point? |
mkenny | 19 Feb 2020 3:55 p.m. PST |
There is much to dislike mkenny about how Montgomery handled the post invasion battle of Normandy Such as? |
tribunemike | 19 Feb 2020 4:00 p.m. PST |
I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed his book on "The History of Warfare." Read it several times when in high school over 40 yrs ago. |
Marcus Brutus | 19 Feb 2020 9:29 p.m. PST |
Many of the British offensives in late June and July of 1944 are insufficiently conceived and poorly executed. Goodwood is the classic example of this but there are several others. How much to this falls on Montgomery is difficult to say. It is possible that many of execution problems stem from lack of experience. Putting all that aside, mkenny, do you have criticisms for Montgomery as a commanding general? |
mkenny | 19 Feb 2020 10:17 p.m. PST |
do you have criticisms for Montgomery as a commanding general The poor performance of the troops assigned to take Cherbourg? The tardy advance to St Lo? Many of the British offensives in late June and July of 1944 are insufficiently conceived and poorly executed. Can you list all the sufficiently conceived and excellently executed US offensives so we can see how it could be done. Note I only introduced the 'US' bit because you used the term 'British' I always thought it was an Allied Army but if you want to draw distinctions then I will bite. |
gamershs | 20 Feb 2020 2:24 a.m. PST |
I am not a fan of Montgomery but the most important thing that can be said about him is that he didn't lose any campaigns. Many of his predecessors did. |
Marcus Brutus | 20 Feb 2020 5:55 a.m. PST |
mkenny, you have this interesting habit of diverting the conversation away from the question at hand. Take another look at the subject title. We are not talking about American leadership effectiveness (or lack thereof.) We are talking about Montgomery and his leadership. I would remind you that Montgomery had many critics in the British military in WWII so we don't have to move this into a British vs American argument. |
Legion 4 | 20 Feb 2020 8:30 a.m. PST |
Also the Russian contribution to winning the war. So many in the West forget this. E.g. 70-75% of the German and their Allies losses were inflicted by the USSR. Monty, Patton, Bradley, Clark, etc., etc., as generals they all had their own styles, strengths, weaknesses, etc. It has been said, "It is not the Leader that does the most things right in combat. But the least things wrong." I'd go with that generally. And as always hindsight is 20/20 … |
Lee494 | 20 Feb 2020 10:01 a.m. PST |
Focusing on Monty let's try and remove hindsight. The Brits had been in the war two years longer than the Americans and by Normandy they had been at war longer than during WWI. In fact they had been at war longer than anybody but the Germans. And just as the Germans were scraping the bottom of the manpower barrel by the summer of 44 so were the Brits. By Normandy it was pretty much a forgone conclusion that the Allies would win. Eventually. The trade-off was time for casualties. Given the British global situation and manpower shortage in 1944 to me it's perfectly understandable why Monty executed his offensives the way he did. I give him a lot of credit for tailoring his tactics to his country's needs rather than his personal glory. Similar to Bradly but in stark contrast to Patton. Cheers! |
mkenny | 20 Feb 2020 10:58 a.m. PST |
We are not talking about American leadership effectiveness (or lack thereof.) We are talking about Montgomery and his leadership. You made claims about 'insufficiently conceived and poorly executed…….British Offensives' I asked you for a measuring stick so we could see for ourselves how far the 'British' lagged behind the US Offensives'. Where are all the 'successful' US Offensives that put the British Offensives in the shade? |
Blutarski | 21 Feb 2020 8:28 a.m. PST |
Hi Marcus, To deem it an "interesting habit" is certainly polite. "Annoying habit", "disingenuous habit", "sophistic habit" might better describe the phenomenon. Whatever the term preferred, the underlying intent is always to divert attention away from the issue. B |
mkenny | 21 Feb 2020 11:43 a.m. PST |
the underlying intent is always to divert attention away from the issue. The 'intent' is to expose the myths. Note that as soon as I ask for specific examples for the latest round of disparaging remarks about Monty/the British no one can provide it. I want to draw attention to this issue so give it your best shot. Be the first to back the claims………….. |
Blutarski | 21 Feb 2020 1:00 p.m. PST |
In order to save time, please enumerate all the myths that you have already identified as circulating around Field Marshal Montgomery and his career. B |
catavar | 21 Feb 2020 1:36 p.m. PST |
Reading through this topic I was surprised by the post regarding -the American point of view held by many. I'm just curious as to how that assertion was arrived at? I don't see how anyone, even remotely, aware of the Russian Front could deny the Soviet Union's contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany. Has anyone seriously asserted otherwise? With that aside, I do believe that without the USA's involvement the war would have dragged on much longer and with no guarantee that it would have concluded in the manner that it did. I'm not even considering the USA's military contribution. I'm referring to American convoy protection and lend lease (or, I believe, in some cases free) that I think brought enough food, steel, ships, tanks, trucks, etc. to help keep the allies supplied long enough to defeat the Germans. If that is the widely held belief alluded to earlier then I guess I agree. |
mkenny | 21 Feb 2020 2:11 p.m. PST |
In order to save time, please enumerate all the myths that you have already identified as circulating around Field Marshal Montgomery and his career. That is a new trick-get someone else to post the myths for you! Why can't those claiming 'British' failures in Normandy support this view with the contrasting successes in the US sector? Perhaps examples where 6+ Panzer Divisions are engaged etc. |
mkenny | 21 Feb 2020 2:13 p.m. PST |
and lend lease (or, I believe, in some cases free) Only after the gold had run out. It is difficult to extract cash up-front from someone whos pockets you have already emptied. |
Blutarski | 21 Feb 2020 2:42 p.m. PST |
mkenny wrote "That is a new trick-get someone else to post the myths for you!" No trickery! Inasmuch as you have established yourself as the exclusive central authority for judging the degree of mythological status to be assigned to any Montgomery-related criticisms, It only makes sense to go directly to the official source. Why guess when you, the official source, are within such easy reach. Perhaps the query can be re-phrased. Is there any aspect of Montgomery's military career that you yourself might deem worthy of legitimate criticism? B
|
mkenny | 21 Feb 2020 3:02 p.m. PST |
you have established yourself as the exclusive central authority for judging the degree of mythological status to be assigned to any Montgomery-related criticisms, No great feat given the appalling low standard of the the criticism. Given the claim Many of the British offensives in late June and July of 1944 are insufficiently conceived and poorly executed. you would think it easy to provide examples that contrast sharply with this inept performance. Where can these 'many' successful Normandy offensives be seen? |
Blutarski | 21 Feb 2020 7:21 p.m. PST |
I'm not sure you have answered my question and I just want to be sure that I understand your position clearly. Is it your position then that Montgomery's military career was faultless? B |
mkenny | 21 Feb 2020 10:00 p.m. PST |
I'm not sure you have answered my question I am quite sure no one has answered my question: Given the claim Many of the British offensives in late June and July of 1944 are insufficiently conceived and poorly executed. you would think it easy to provide examples that contrast sharply with this inept performance. |
Fred Cartwright | 22 Feb 2020 3:07 a.m. PST |
I am sympathetic to mkenny's position. There is lots of vague criticism of a Monty's performance in Normandy, but whenever you ask what he could have done better, you get nothing back. Given the position the allies found themselves in, which was essentially a WW1 type battlefield with the Germans well dug in, the opportunity for fancy manoeuvres was very limited. Personally I think Monty's tactics of alternating punches up and down the British and Commonwealth part of the front was superior to the American tactics of attacking all along the line, all the time. Monty used classic British bite and hold tactics which worked so well for the British in the later half of WW1. He did try and mix things up too. Operations like Goodwood where the tanks lead in an attempt to limit infantry casualties didn't go well. The infantry were supposed to follow on and consolidate, but we still weren't good at infantry tank cooperation. But overall I think his performance was fine and ask yourself this question. Where was the bulk of German armour written down and destroyed? |
Andy ONeill | 22 Feb 2020 3:50 a.m. PST |
I am also interested to hear about these superior american performances. |
Murvihill | 22 Feb 2020 6:28 a.m. PST |
Goodwood was an expensive lesson. Falaise could have been handled better. But whenever I hear criticisms of Monty's performance during the Normandy campaign I go back to his initial timeline. He may not have met every intermediate goal but he exceeded his plan overall. He deserves credit for that. |
Marcus Brutus | 22 Feb 2020 7:19 a.m. PST |
Honestly Fred, I don't have the time to collate all the criticisms I have come across of Monty's conduct in Normandy. It is exhaustive. I recently read Keegan's 6 Armies in Normandy. I would suggest that Keegan is reasonably friendly towards Monty and certainly balanced in his approach yet there is still a considerable critique against his leadership. But I agree also that there is much to appreciate and salute in Monty's leadership as well. One aspect that I had never considered before in accessing Montgomery's leadership in 44/45 was the growing shortage of manpower in the 21st Army Group. I think this goes some way in explaining Montgomery's caution. Thanks to mkenny for this bringing this forward in past TMP discussions. Overall it is a mixed record just like most major figures in WWII. |
mkenny | 22 Feb 2020 9:05 a.m. PST |
I would suggest that Keegan is reasonably friendly towards Monty and certainly balanced in his approach Keegan and Hastings are 'old school' chroniclers of WW2 and both share the same fault-an inflated opinion on German performance in WW2. Hastings seems to be more afflicted than Keegan but both are of the post-war generation who believed there was only one way to do things and that is 'the German way'. I would never use either as a source. D'Este was the same in his 'decision In Normandy' which again is from someone over-awed by the German way. I see very little 'balance' in this area until at least a generation after the war had ended. The mood-music was set by the memoirs of the bitter Generals who felt Monty stole all their thunder. Bradley was one of the main culprits as he never got over the fact one of his armies was transferred to Monty after he (Bradley) lost control of it during The Bulge Campaign. The lies these bitter people committed to print are still being parroted by those who prefer that version of reality and feel no need to revise their opinion. |
typhoon2 | 23 Feb 2020 10:21 a.m. PST |
Given that Monty was Ground Forces commander in Normandy, and in France generally until 1st September 1944, surely ALL offensives were his, not US or British/Canadian? Whether COBRA or GOODWOOD, he had the overall responsibility. When it comes to offensives and their success or failure surely we should be looking at Dempsey and Bradley rather than Monty. |