Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days! Play Call of War for FREE on PC or Mobile: 💥 callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/qxtaf2eg
This video is ridiculous. You paint Montgomery as some misunderstood genius who only rubbed people the wrong way but was always right as you crap all over the American generals as only a Brit would. Ive read Montys book. He is media obsessed. He cares nothing for the ideas of others and actively undermined his superiors, subordinates and peers claiming credit for the work of others time and time again. You claim Bradley wanted the limelight? Are you daft? Thats clearly false and you give no proof of your ascertation whatsoever. Bradley liked the limelight least of all. Montgomery was furious about Patton taking Messina because he wanted the limelight and accolades. He went on and on about it claiming he should have been allowed to take it first. When he went behind Bradleys back about Market Garden he should have been relieved not rewarded. If Ike hadn't been so obsessed with maintaining Churchills good graces he probably would have. Market Garden was stupid and Monty took great pains to ignore and supress any intel that painted the German troops in the region as anything other than old men and kids. There are reems of evidence to that effect. The signs were all there but he wanted the glory of crossing the Rhine first. As to Caen, he sent commonwealth troops to slaughter and ignored his subordinates who begged him to listen to them and allow them to attack the flanks or fix then bypass it to cut off their supplies. Caen didnt need to go down that way. He wanted the glory of taking Caen and couldnt be dissuaded. It didnt take 6 weeks because he was whittling down the Germans. It took 6 weeks because he insisted on idiotic frontal assaults against dug in forces holding superior positions with excellent fields of fire. He only dressed it up as attrition warfare later as if losing tanks and troops in a mindless slugfest was the only way to win. Patton bypassed German troops endangering their flanks which forced them to withdraw and eventually rout. He then destroyed them in good order taking far fewer casualties. Monty objected to Pattons plan. He didnt support it. Had Montgomery done the same he would have made the German positiom untenable and they'd have had to withdraw becoming easier to handle elsewhere where they didnt have positional advantage. Caen was wasteful but he didnt care because they werent British troops. Monty was not some genius commander. He attacked only when he thought he had a massive advantage or when he believed he could make a bigger splash than Patton or Bradley and he politicked behind the backs of his peers and his superiors at every opportunity. You blame others for the fractuous nature of the alliance but he was the biggest cause of these fractures. Patton had Montys number just right, Monty was a snake and a primadonna obsessed with his own image and willing to throw everyone else under the bus if he could make a big splash in the papers.
Patton rushed forward & his troops did war crimes against the local Italian civilians. Montgomery was not autistic but an Englishmen. Yanks trying to think like a Limey is like a cats thoughts vs a octopus thoughts. Montgomery didn't underestimate the USA but knew their nature & tendencies better then they knew themselves. Typical fashion Montgomery mistook Patton & the USA as soldiers thinking they would follow ''orders'' but that never happens with yanks as they do as please being a Hollywood trope like cowboys or an action man. Montgomery was not seeking fame like Patton or any USA General inflecting on Britain what they did but Montgomery was carrying out his job & damn appearances or sentiment as that is not the role or position of a man in commissioned service. Montgomery greatest only mistake was for thinking USA troops were a professional standing army but really they were militia armed with everything under the sun. Why yanks are as dangerous to themselves as the enemy as friendly fire statistic have shown. My father to my Great grand father would always say roughly ''any front with Yanks is of more danger then any enemy'' it is like watching a force of nature as if a storm rather then well ordered machine like the Germans. America's Greatest strength is also it's greatest weakness like a double edged sword for they have no idea what they are doing with no clear orders so the enemy has no idea what the USA is doing. The USA is very unconventional militarily & no other nation could afford such a method of attack with chaos & supremacy of firepower throwing money at any problem.
Cause Monty a Brit used the allies (ANZAC’S) mainly & resources that he had making a plan that would work. By doing this he done what the yanks said couldnt be done he beat the desert fox rommel in the desert where the yanks couldnt get a break
Both Generals O'Connor and Auchinleck won in the Desert with a lot less men and material - monty got thrown out of Europe before. Pay attention school is in session EVERYTHING was already in place to win in the desert. Montgomery had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any of the actions below. He reaped the benefits of them and others who came before. The the brandy soaked Churchill removed the wrong guy and stuck with a mistake rather than dare admit he made one. *Churchill wrongly removed General Auchinleck who argued that his men had not regrouped and needed reinforcing. Several military analysts accused Churchill of misunderstanding desert warfare tactics, saying he placed too much emphasis on territorial occupation Auchileck/Dorman-Smith stated they needed 6 weeks to refit,reinforce and resupply. Made perfect sense attrition on men and materiel took it's toll. So what does Monty do - took 10 weeks(Aug-13-Oct 23) to advance - much more time than Auchileck and Dorman Smith insisted on and got fired for in the 1st place.* 🔶The Torch Landings - forces included 60,000 troops in Morocco, 15,000 in Tunisia, and 50,000 in Algeria. Claude Auchinleck called over two fresh divisions from the Nile Delta after winning 1st alamein.Both of these troop deployments forced Rommel's hand as now there would be more enemy troops to deal with. And he wasn't getting either reinforced or resupplied 🔶Monty didn't defeat Rommel in Africa. The British Navy did by starving Rommel of resources. 🔶Monty didn't build up the arms/men/tanks/materiel - the allies did -Dorman-Smith had engineers and infantry plant the massive mine field on the Alam Halfa ridge , that Bernard attempted to take credit for. 🔶ULTRA became fully operational in August 1942 after the Germans had changed some wheels/gears on Enigma 🔶The RAF and Royal Navy completely strangled the Afrika Korps supply lines. Sweeping the skies and seas in/over the Mediterranean 🔶Montgomery had 1500 miles and every conceivable advantage - BIG ADVANTAGES in men/materiel/air cover/intelligence/tanks/artillery and still Montgomery never captured Rommel 🔶Mongomery never opened ports or captured Air Strips for them in return this would continue into Sicily and Normandy where Monty's deficiencies would be exposed - Rommel in his memoirs credited complete Air superiority by Conningham's RAF that they could hardly sleep in the heat and battle of the day and could only move at nite 🔶 *Masters and Commanders by Andrew Roberts p.282-83 On 12 September 1942 Churchill had cause to thank Roosevelt telling him the 317 Sherman tanks and 94 self propelled 105 mm guns "which you kindly gave me on that dark Tobruk day in Washington" and arrived safetly in Egypt and been received with the greatest enthusiasm - as these tanks were taken from the hands of the American Army*
A famous yarn about Monty. Eisenhower was having dinner with King George VI, the king asked Ike. "How are you getting on with Monty?" Ike replied "Well.. I think he wants my job." "That's a relief." replied the King. "I thought he wanted mine."
I knew an australian company commander who reminisced how montgomery insisted 8th Army officers did five mile runs daily in the lead up to Alamein. His judgement was that the time would have been better spent planning than being wasted on basic training carry on. I should point out that he had fair reason for that judgement, his company took 60% losses attempting to cut the coastal road to draw off the panzer reserve to allow the breakout. The brit armour supporting them turned up late and stayed hull down out of range, their integral AT guns, Mortars and Vickers guns were held up on the minefields, and the battalion's closest support was near a thousand yards away...the only thing that saved them was the germans and italians let them carry out their wounded after the two forward companies were overrun by panzers.
@@Desdichado-vs8ls That I agree with. He really never got out of the trenches of WW1. Coincidentally, one of Rommel's desert staff officers observed that Rommel was still the junior officer who fought and won his fame in italy in WW1. The reality for Rommel was that by british standards, he did show outstanding generalship, but by germam standards he was average, and was propped up in the desert by a staff picked for him specifically to strengthen his weaknesses...Rommel was never selected for general staff training, which is a fair indicator of his professional standing. He was lucky he was a hitler favourite, which makes the british hero worship of him rather tasteless. The brits have always shied away from confronting the issue of Rommel's and DAK's support for the einsatzgruppe operating in their rear area.
Being able to handle generals with such great egos makes me think that perhaps Eisenhower was America's greatest gift to the European theater in WW II.
Him knowing when and how to use Monty, Patton, and Bradley, among many others with fewer stars, is why I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with you.
Yeah especially since he never had frontline action some wouldn't respect him as much. I believe he was mainly a logistician so some would question if he knew what he was doing. He didn't just have to deal with certain generals egos, but the competition between American and British generals. Look at the invasion of Sicily, the race between patton and Montgomery.
Eisenhower is sometimes derided for not being a battlefield general, and there is some limited justice in saying so. But Eisenhower did so incredibly well in the political aspects of being a general, that for that specific aspect of being a general, he is probably the best in the history of the world.
That's why he went from a Colonel to General of the Army in three years. Patton outranked Eisenhower at the beginning of the war. General Marshall (then Chief of Staff of the United States Army) had worked with Eisenhower in the past and knew him to be a diplomatic man and excellent judge of character. When the time came for an American General to work alongside and coordinate with allies, Marshall knew who to send. General Marshall is criminally underrated in history, in my humble opinion.
I give everyone an even shake, but 40 years of reading WWII history books has led me to one conclusion: Monty was an overrated stooge propped up for PR purposes.
@onastick2411 A marginally competent, narcissistic prima donna. Whose lack of action and failures, probably prolonged the war by at least six months. In the end, no better than De Gaulle.
There's a story that Truman was in a conversation and Wake Island came up, which was where he had a meeting with MacArthur. Truman's comment was "Ah, Wake Island. That's where I met God." Quite similar to the anecdote about Monty, Churchill and King George.
A little known fact is that MacArthur was actually forbidden from travelling on board any vessel smaller than a battleship. This is due to the fact that the overwhelming weight of his ego would cause any smaller ship to begin to sink.
To my knowledge Patton and MacArthur got on very well if I’m remembering correctly they were in the same class at West Point and worked directly with each other in WWI
Some guy on Drachinifel's video on Admiral King joked about putting Monty, MacArthur, Beatty, Patton and King together in a lfe raft and you're stuck with them. For the sake of the scene, everyone has the same rank : Flag Officer. One replied they'd rather their chance in the water because too many egos. Another joked about shooting being on the table. Beatty and MacArthur end up with two bullets each, Patton and Monty one, and you'd en up with a slighty less angry King. Then a third added LeMay and Halsey into the mix... Which prompted a fourth to say that Halsey would somehow find a way to sail them into a typhoon.
That was exactly his job .. Supreme allied commander .. not American.. or anyone else.. Allied. I don't thinking anyone else could have done it half as well. He had to fight a war against the enemy and a battle against his commanders. He succeeded. uh-rah, I don't pity him.. but i couldnt do it. Credit where it's due eh ?
A curious analogy to use, as Eisenhower was well known as a cat-hater. He even had his groundskeepers kill them if they found them on his property. (I suspect it's because he knew cats were connected to the alien greys! LOL)
He had the rare skill of being able to get along with basically everybody and get them to work on a single project. People like Monty and Patton couldn't even agree on the time of day or the weather, so getting them to even vaguely work together when fighting the Germans was a miracle.
I'm an American. It seems to me that Monty understood that while the Germans needed to win the war they had started, he only had to not lose it. He would attack a weakness that he saw, but otherwise he would prepare for the inevitable attack and how best to counterattack. Meanwhile, Patton was of the school that the judicious application of constant maximum aggression was the quickest way to victory. Neither was necessarily wrong, but seen this way, it is easy to understand their dislike of one another.
@@TheIntelReport Truly. However, I think that doctrine was flawed. The way to win is to.... if I might quote Heinlein... "We are the boys who will go to a particular place, at H-hour, occupy a designated terrain, stand on it, dig the enemy out of their holes, force them then and there to surrender or die. We're the bloody infantry, the doughboy, the duck foot, the foot soldier who goes where the enemy is and takes them on in person. We've been doing it, with changes in weapons but very little change in our trade, at least since the time five thousand years ago when the foot sloggers of Sargon the Great forced the Sumerians to cry Uncle." That's how you win wars. You Go to where they are and make them cry uncle.
With the huge resources available Patton in men and armour he could afford to make assaults that were costly in men and materials, Monty however used the limited resources he had as efficiently and effectively as possible, just a clash of personalities that's all.
Monty was irrevocably shaped by his experiences in WWI which demonstrated to him that the only way forward was a detailed, coordinated and meticulous combined arms effort. Patton saw much less than a year of combat in WW1 - much of this during the 100 days which led him to believe in aggression and the attack to keep the enemy off balance and to work inside their OODA loop. I'd personally say that their approaches were irrevocably shaped by this difference of experience and that each has their strengths and weaknesses. However I would posit that seen 80 years later, in the context of the Ukraine/Russian war which is the closest analogue to WW1&2 since those wars, I'd say that Montgomery was the more correct of the two.
My WWII vet grandfather told me when I was a kid that Patton was a self aggrandizing prick. He said Monty was a condescending self aggrandizing prick. It drove me into a summer of reading that turned me in a history buff for life.
Monty was only condescending to incompetent officers. He got on well with competent officers, “Lightning Joe” Collins for a start. Thing was, there were an awful number of incompetent officers.
if that was true bernard would have been removed for yelling at himself. He should have been removed as he was the least essential, a positive impediment and a malevolent drag on American operations. Couldn't cross his crummy little channel until riding the GIs coattails. The Poor tommies deserved better
so monty looked down on himself then? When the odds were even Gerry drove brooke and Bernard into the the channel.That they didn't cross for 4 FULL YEARS - thanx to the GIs. If he was a Patton or Zhukov he wouldn't have RUNAWAY into the desert. Cross the channel and ask the Euros - they saw it
Indeed. Compared to the Imperial infighting, the allied commanders were practically bosom buddies. I’d no idea till this year how phenomenally bad the cooperation between the Japanese Navy and Army was
My father was a career U.S. Army officer. He served during WWII. He said of Montgomery that he would not move his army until he had every single gallon of gas and every tent stake he wanted.
@@haroldflashman4687 he did very well on the move as well as this gentleman points out,,,,,As Generalfeldmarschall Kesserling noted ‘even a victorious army cannot keep up a pursuit of thousands of miles in one rush; the stronger the army the greater the difficulty of supply. Previous British pursuits had broken down for the same reason.’ and rather admiringly pointed out, ‘the British Eighth Army had marched halfway across North Africa - and over fifteen hundred miles - had spent the bad winter months on the move and in the desert, and had had to surmount difficulties of every kind.’
@@johndawes9337 In Africa, after El Alamein (which was a set piece battle) the German Army was too broken and defeated to offer much resistance, so it was no great accomplishment to keep moving against it. They were unable to offer coherent resistance.
@@haroldflashman4687 no great accomplishment to chase a enemy over 1500 miles in 19 days against the weather and 7 battles on the way..go jump in the lake you sad fool next you will be saying patton was a great general.
In his personal diary, Chief of the Imperial Staff, General Sir Alan Brooke, wrote of Montgomery, “ he is liable to commit untold errors in lack of tact" and "I had to haul him over the coals for his usual lack of tact and egotistical outlook which prevented him from appreciating other people's feelings. “
@@johnfleet235 Better yet, put Montgomery and Patton in a room, lock the door, let them eat eachother. Saves the allies one badly incompetent typewriter general who hated his own troops (Patton) and one decently-competent general who was a liability because of his interactions with other commanders.
Montgomery stands out more because he was more prominent. I'd argue de Gaulle was "worse" but de Gaulle was comparably inconsequential while behaving as if he were equal to the likes of Eisenhower. And continued to be obnoxious after the war...
You should do a video about in my opinion the best British commander of the WW2 Bill Slim. He waged war against the Japanese with a shoe string budget and an Army composed of different ethnicities and religions which was a nightmare for the quartermasters. He did with much support from Whitehall since it was regarded as backwater. Despite all the handicaps he was victorious over the Japanese army in India and Burma.
It's all opinion who was the best. Different theatres, different enemies. There is no question, however, that Montgomery was the most successful. He took more ground through more countries winning more battles while facing more quality enemy units than any other.
Even many of the British resented him for taking all of the credit for Al-Alemaine, when in fact the Royal Air Force played a key role, without which victory would not have been possible. He didn't even mention them. Moreover, the Americans were not the only ones that resented his high handedness. If you think Patton resented him, he ignited incandescent rage in General DeGaulle, for whom Monty had little regard and didn't have enough sense to even pretend to respect him. It led to chilly relations between DeGaulle and Britain's chilly relations, and contributed to the French decision not to integrate their forces directly into NATO after the war.
@@jacqueslefave4296 1. Who told you Montgomery never mentioned the Royal Air Force? 2. Who cares about DeGaulle? Even Eisenhower couldn't stand DeGaulle.
Interesting presentation. Two comments. When I think about Monty, I cannot help but remember Winston Churchill's statement on Monty - "In defeat, unbeatable; in success, unbearable." Second, according to Cook (a very well-known Canadian historian who specializes on Canadian military history in 20th century), the major Canadian generals also could not stand Monty. The reason - he wanted to replace the Canadian commanding officers with his own British picks. He did not seem to understand that Canada at this time was no longer a British colony but a country and a major contributor to the efforts of the Allies. As for myself, after extensive reading, I am not a fan of Monty.
Then I would suggest that you might not like some of the American Senior Officers, albeit for different reasons. At least Monty was an excellent planner (well, his staff were) and took great care to ensure he was properly prepared. This kept casualties to acceptable limits. Patton on the other hand...
@@csjrogerson2377 This is perhaps Monty's biggest failure .... the cautious advances to hold casualties to "acceptable limits", while Patton aggressively advanced. If there were some metric for measuring cost/benefit ... casualty per square mile taken or Allied casualty sustained vs. German casualty inflicted or something like that, I think you'd find that Patton was a far more successful battlefield general.
@@MrTexasDan While Patton was a good tank commander you cannot compare them. Between Monty and Patton... Monty commanded more men, was concerned with bigger issues, and achieved greater successes. Normandy was Monty's success, and the Allied armies attained the areas that Monty had made as objectives for the campaign 3 days sooner than had originally been intended. Patton, by contrast, never commanded anything more than an army and was much more of a tactical commander than a strategist. His greatest success is the rush from Normandy to Metz and the 90 degree wheel in the Bulge... but the former was against a German army that had already been beaten by the slogging match in the Normandy campaign and the latter was against the flank of a German attack that was beginning to run out of fuel and manpower. At Metz, where Patton faced a dug in and determined enemy... Patton was stopped dead by French and German made fortifications, some of which going all the way back to the 1800s.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-Sure you can compare Monty with Patton because they are not the same level of IQ. Unfortunate to the Allies, they didn't put the battle general Patton as the supercommand but a political general. As for Monty he was Britain could offer at that time but complete incompetent since 1943.
@@xchen3079 No, you logically can't. One was an Army Group Commander the other was a 4 star general. Completely different levels. If you are going to compare it should be Bradley and Devers who were also on Montgomerys level as Army Group commanders.
To be fair the Canadians hated him too. Because he wanted the resources for Market Garden the Canadians had to take a pause. This meant they got to invade Belgium after the Germans had a chance to fortify it for a month and meant they got to push on into the Netherlands in the middle of winter.
As a Canadian? It depends. I have numerous relatives who fought under Monty, (one great grandpa fought under him from north Africa and ended in Italy. The other from Italy to France and into the Netherlands.) Many of them loved him because he made an effort to care about them and not throw their lives away. Montgomery was a person. A complicated and imperfect person. He had successes and his failures, just as every other commander. I personally like him and respect him, as he's (in a weird way) is the reason I exist today. But I understand why people don't like him.
Monty got 1100 airman and Paras - killed in one day crossing the Rhine - that was his bullshit excuse for not moving and showing the fact he really didn't have a clue. Monty cared so much at market garden that HE DIDN'T SHOW UP!!! 34,400 men go in 17,000 come out more monty fanboi baloney. Monty isn't the reason thousands of Tommies,Canucks and GIs are the reason
I always loved the episode where Eisenhower says, "You can't talk to me like that, I'm your boss", but in a calm voice, as if reminding him what day of the week it was. Generals become great by knowing which war they are fighting. Eisenhower knew which war he was fighting.
That line just makes me respect Eisenhower so much. I don't believe he would have said anything like that to Pattern. Just Monty as he knew Monty didn't understand social ques, fantastic diplomat wearing generals stars. As someone who has dealt with people who are on the spectrum it's the best way to deal with them, don't yell just politely tell them to stop and they do so.
Just a shame Eisenhower too Montgomery's job of C-in-C of all ground forces in September 1944 and then prolonged the war with his broad front strategy and decided to waste massive amounts of men and material in secondary campaigns such as the Hurtgen Forest, Lorraine and Alsace instead of concentrating his armies in the north.
The amusement continues lyndon monty had 4 yrs to cross a channel as the GIs came 3500 miles to prop up the ankle biter, you people kept talking about Metz. WOW. An operation the British simply could not have undertook. Let alone complete. You lumps would have been carved up like the Christmas goose only he had more brains The tainted waif Bernard not showing up at all for his Monty Garden debacle that everyone else fought at. Then sending an armored column down one elevated road with no room for maneuver surrounded by marsh and drainage ditches. Even the Dutch advisors and underground warned the ass. But he was probably back at the caravan safe/sound and giving you THE FULL MONTY. And the British sent no help to that battle like the two US AB Divisions sent to help Monty - Plus all of the hardware and fuel. But they probably couldn't as he got them eviscerated just like CAEN Plus all of the hardware and fuel *Do the math not the meth The Lorraine campaign lasted from 1 September to 16 December 1944 - 6,657 were killed over 3 months and they took 75,000 German PoWs, compare that with 17,000 casualties at Market Garden in just 9 days (which was more than the invasion of Normandy) including nearly 2,000 Brits and Poles killed before taking the American killed into account. Market Garden had nearly 3 times the casualties per day* Op Queen and the Hurtgen Forest battles (of which Queen was part) were costly failures, also, but the same argument applies - the period was far longer and the average losses less together with much higher Axis casualties and PoWs and they do not turn Market Garden into a success. Monty and Market Garden were failures.
@@lyndoncmp5751 To be fair, we say that with hindsight. Looking at the information Eisenhower in the moment he just didn't know the state of German forces like we do now, that show the Narrow Front strategy would've been much more effective. Not to mention Eisenhower also had to appease de Gaulle and other parts of politics, which the Broad Front did. In short? Yes the Narrow Front was the better proposition in hindsight. But we have to stress the "in hindsight" part. Ike made a fair choice with the information he had, in the situation he was in.
"For Monty, this was a rare moment of self-reflection. 'So great were the feelings against me on the part of the American generals that whatever I said was bound to be wrong. I should therefore have said nothing.' " I don't believe this is self-reflection. I think this is Monty thinking that he said nothing wrong, at the press conference, and that it was just the Americans hating him. Not realizing that they were angry at him for minimizing their effort in stopping the German offensive and basically telling the press that is was him, British (and maybe Canadian, not sure what was actually said in the press conference), and US forces that stopped the Germans when it was mostly US infantry doing the fighting.
Indeed. Presenting that quote in that manner as well as accepting Monty’s self-serving explanation of his failure to capture Caen or make Goodwood work makes me wonder if there is a Monty brand Kool-Aid that Intel Report’s been drinking.
This is likely as close to apologies as Monty got and likewise with self reflection. I don't even think the Intel Report has been sippin' on the Monty juice. He was simply at his best overcoming finite circumstances as a group or division commander where his ever-rational operational approach eventually awarded him victory as he flexibly adapted to the circumstances in front of him. It is as a theatre commander leading grand strategy that his greatest weaknesses (unrestrained self-aggrandizement, inability to compromise and absolute commitment to his own correctness) are exposed and it greatly degrades his effectiveness as a military commander.
I am not justifying Monty here just adding a comment..... but the British feel at the time is that America was very late to the war and seemed to think it was winning it single handily. meanwhile the Brits had been at it for 3 years.
Truscott wasn't bad. Teddy Roosevelt, Jr. WON AND EARNED an MOH. Alan Simpson was simply superb. MacArthur should have let Eichelberger go European, or Marshall should have overriden him. In short, there were ways to improve things.
@@scottjoseph9578Reaching the top of the armed services is exclusively reserved for two kinds of men, the sociopathically competitive and the pathetically obsequious.
British officer Derek Mills-Roberts beat the surrendered German Field-Marshal Milch's head in when he learned about the extent of atrocities being carried out. He reported to Montgomery to face a reprimand for his conduct, and when entering the office, Monty jokingly raised his hands over his head and said "I heard you have a thing about Field Marshals"
@@DMC_Oorah im gonna be honest it probably would’ve prolonged it monty is really just a bog standard general nothing exemplary but nothing so atrocious
When you deal with any group project, you have to be careful taking more credit than you're owed. I think that's the chief lesson learned from the scrap between Monty and his American counter-parts
When serving in the RAMC I had the privilege of meeting Field Marshall Montgomery on several occasions in his own home. He wasn’t in good health and needed home care. I spent hours sat next to him whilst he spoke of his experiences. For me it was an honour to be in his company and I will never forget the experience
@@dennishoffman1218 yup an uppity little nothing that only prolonged the war because IKE out of favor to Churchill gave him a long leash.But Churchill in his memoirs admitted this mistake that he regretted
If we are honest, Monty and Patton were both really difficult egotistical glory-grabbers & nightmares to control, but as Churchill famously said: "Nice men do NOT win wars..."
British Generals had served on the Western front and Mesopotamia in the First World War and saw horrendous casualties. The US Army fought for less than twelve months 17-18 and missed the attrition. This made British Generals in Second World War a lot more conscious of casualties. They would rather rely on artillery than wasting manpower.
For goodness sakes. It doesn't matter who hated who. We were allies fighting an enemy who every day was killing more and more men, women, and children in those gas chambers. They were stopped and that's what matters.
An American officer was a guest a British Army mess, offered a pre-dinner drink, he requested a martini. The barman asked what kind and the American looked confused. The barman explained: Wet, 4 parts gin to one part vermouth, Dry, 8 to 1, very dry, 12 to 1 and a Montgomery, 15 to 1 and demanding more gin.
Strange joke seeing Montgomery was a famous tea-totaller. They had a body double for him as part of the disinformation campaign leading upto Overlord but had to stop using him because he got publicly drunk and blew his own cover.
It's hard to lead leaders. That skill is truly rare. Oppenheimer had it, early Reagan, Bush 1, Obama, but Trump tried to turn all his leaders into followers which leaves you with a staff that is either disgruntled or lackeys.
Yes even as a child he was rude. My mother was a Montgomery and met him once at a family gathering when she was a little girl. She remembered him as extremely rude.
If hate could be used as fuel, a locked room with the bullheaded idiot Patton and marshall Montgomery in it could've fueled the entire allied war effort. 😉
It's interesting that Monty was so disliked by his equals, as there's stories that he was well liked by his juniors. There's one particular story which may be apocryphal but still illustrates the point: Monty was discussing discipline in the ranks with a very straight-laced general and Monty was pointing out how there's more to discipline than just obeying "form and presentation". Monty stated that one time, a private had come running across the battleground toward him, yelling out, "Duck, Monty! Duck!" The very prim and proper general responded: "Good Heavens! You court-martialled him, I suppose?" Monty replied, dryly: "No. I ducked. And the shell missed me."
He was disliked by his equals because he could never treat them like equals. These were all educated and motivated men, brought together to do something historic, and all too often Monty undermined it by his insistence that his contributions/ideas/results were de facto the best and nothing anyone else had to say really mattered. He was more than happy to accept and promote the work of others up until it looked like they wanted to step on that last step along with him, or surpass him.
I'm sure all of that is true - of course it is. Britain had much better Generals - MUCH.The twisted tart shat on any body he thought would get praise besides him Three distinguished British officers who fought in Holland that winter and later became army commanders believed that the Allied cause could have profited immeasurably from giving a more important role to Patton.
- *Lieutenant Edwin Bramall* said: “I wonder if it would have taken so long if Patton or Rommel had been commanding.”* - *Captain David Fraser* believed that the northern axis of advance was always hopeless, because the terrain made progress so difficult. He suggests: “We might have won in 1944 if Eisenhower had reinforced Patton. Patton was a real doer. There were bigger hills further south, but fewer rivers.” - *Brigadier Michael Carver* argued that Montgomery’s single thrust could never have worked: “Patton’s army should have been leading the U.S. 12th Army Group.” Such speculations can never be tested, but it seems noteworthy that two British officers who later became field-marshals and another who became a senior general believed afterwards that the American front against Germany in the winter of 1944 offered far greater possibilities than that of the British in Holland, for which Montgomery continued to cherish such hopes. *Freddie de Guingand, Montgomery’s Chief of Staff* confided to Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay on 28 November (according to the admiral’s diary) that he was “rather depressed at the state of the war in the west . . . the SHAEF plan had achieved nothing beyond killing and capturing a some Germans, and that we were no nearer to knocking out Germany.” *Between the beginning of November and mid-December 1944, British Second Army advanced just ten miles.* *Arnhem,Jumping the Rhine in 1944 and 1945. By Lloyd Clark, page 333 Tom Hoare* who fought with the 3rd Para at Arnhem may be said to reflect a commonly held perception of OMG, (or Field Marshall Montgomery’s fiasco,as he calls it) when he writes: *'It is my opinion that Monty was a great soldier, but he had a even greater ego. When victory was in sight for the Allies, he degenerated into nothing more than a glory seeker. With little regard for the welfare or indeed the lives of his men of the British 1st Airborne Division, he threw the division away in an insane attempt to go down in history as the greatest military leader of the Second World War.’* *Armageddon - The Battle for Germany,1944-45 by Max Hastings,page 50 Jack Reynolds and his unit,the South Staffords* were locked into the long,messy,bloody battle.There was no continuous front,no coherent plan,merely a series of uncoordinated collisions between rival forces in woods,fields,gardens and streets. *That is when it got home to me.What a very bad operation this was The scale dropped from my eyes when I realized just how far from our objective we've landed*
*As Bob Peatling of the 2 Para said "Marshall Montgomery dropped a clanger at Arnhem"* Léo Major: The "One-Eyed Ghost" Who Single-Handedly Liberated a Dutch Town "He had made an awful mistake. I didn't like him at all." Leo Major, the most decorated Canadian soldier of WWII Losing an eye soon after D-Day, Major refused repatriation. He only needed one eye, he said, to aim his rifle. During the Battle of the Scheldt in occupied Holland, he was recommended for a DCM for a solo recon mission, from which he returned with 93 German prisoners. *Major refused it because the medal would be awarded by Field Marshal Montgomery, whom he despised His reason was simple: Arnhem.* Major felt Monty’s ill-fated airborne assault stopped Allied forces attacking on a broad front, delaying the liberation of Holland. Major believed Monty to be responsible for the deaths of some 20,000 Dutch citizens during 1944’s “hunger winter”. To quote Major exactly, “He had made an awful mistake. I didn’t like him at all.” Strong words, especially regarding a military megastar like Monty. This might also explain Major never being promoted above Corporal.
What incredible battles did he win? I mean where he didn't have overwhelming material superiority. He 1) let Rommel escape halfway across Africa after El Alamein without making a serious effort to stop him; 2) Took 2 months to get out of the Normandy bridgehead, and only managed it then because the Americans broke through on his right and the Germans collapsed; and 3) Was the "mastermind" behind Operation Market Garden, the biggest (and only) disaster the Allies had in 1944. All while being completely full of himself. He doesn't even rank in the top 100 WWII generals imho.
@@richardthelionheart6924 "He planned Operation Overlord." lol you make it sound like he did it all himself, sitting at a desk with a map and a crayon. As for MG, HF, and LC, you're comparing things that took place over vastly different time frames. Per day of fighting, MG was easily the most costly in terms of Allied casaulties.
He was a lousy battlefield commander. Read a book by Corelli Barnett, called "The Desert Generals". The book, includes an update with the Ultra information and further analysis. He didn't know how use his armour at Alemain, and as a result, had a major failure to clear the mines during the battle, that almost caused the attack to fail. He also didn't complete the successes, and didn't capture Rommel after the breakthrough. As a result, he had to fight Rommel all the way to Tunisia.
Looking at this from a European perspective, I grow ever more appreciative of having a man such as Dwight Eisenhower in command. I also agree with the sentiment that Montgomery may actually have been on the spectrum. It would explain his lack of tact and certain parts of his personality.
@@knightblade0188 Thankfully Marshal was a good judge of character and ability and FDR backed him. It was the US part of the Supreme allied command that finally insisted on invading France in 44 instead of letting Churchill talk them into invading Greece.
I'd read somewhere that he was possibly on the Spectrum too, and honestly with him being utterly clueless on social clues etc that does sound like he might have been somewhat autistic or have aspergers, of course it wouldn't have been recognised as such at the time. I recall reading that him being criticized for being 'timid' was due to his preference for bite and hold advances and rotating armoured forces off the line to rest, recover and repair once their job was done, which was in stark contrast to the US doctrine and their staff college training preference for sweeping advances and thrusts with armoured forces. Also in his defence, Monty wasn't willing to spend the lives of his men needlessly, and he knew the UK by 44 was reaching the end of its strategic rope in terms of manpower and money. A decent General but a bloody nightmare to work with.
Believable since he once went for a walk on the beach on a date and then ended up spending the whole time drawing military diagrams in the sand of how he would have fought past battles differently...
That's interesting. My grandad told me he bridged the Rhine under Montgomery's force (he was a sapper in the Royal Engineers) on their way to Berlin, where he was stationed by the end of the war. He told me this in around 1994/5 however and it was 50 years after the event, so likely his memory was failing him a bit. In any event, he had a dog called 'Monty' on account of Montgomery telling grandad what to do for several years and now it was grandad's turn to tell him what to do.
LOL... OFFICIALLY, Montgomery's forces did cross the Rhine first. Patton actually crossed the night before in order to take advantage of the cover of night, and was happy to have the OFFICIAL crossing as his misdirection-play. The Germans knew Montgomery was coming. How could they not with all the bridging equipment and troop build-up? I always thought that was a brilliant move on Patton's part.
@@nickdanger3802 CRUSADE IN EUROPE DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER WILLIAM HEINEMANN LIMITED 1948 CHAPTER 22. P423 ‘Montgomery was always the master in the methodical preparation of forces for a formal, set piece attack. In this case he made the most meticulous preparations because we knew that along the front just north of the Ruhr the enemy had his best remaining troops including portions of the First Paratroop Army.’ P427 ‘The March 24 operation sealed the fate of Germany. Already, of course, we had secured two bridgeheads farther to the south. But in each of these cases surprise and good fortune had favoured us. The northern operation was made in the teeth of the greatest resistance the enemy could provide anywhere along the long river. Moreover, it was launched directly on the edge of the Ruhr and the successful landing on the eastern bank placed strong forces in position to deny the enemy use of significant portions of that great industrial area. IKE & MONTY: GENERALS AT WAR NORMAN GELB 1994 CONSTABLE AND COMPANY LIMITED 1994 CHAPTER 21. P406: ‘Montgomery wouldn’t hear of it. An early crossing did not fit the plan he had been devising with great thoroughness to meet all contingencies. The resourceful Germans had shown in the Ardennes that they were capable of the unexpected. Bradley, Patton and Hodges might have been willing to gamble and Montgomery was pleased that they had succeeded. But he was not interested in easy victories that might be of limited significance, and he did not believe they fully understood the risks they had taken or the extent of the far greater achievement he was aiming for. Risk-taking was for amateurs. The results of the first day of his massive Rhine-crossing operation demonstrated the value of doing things right - six divisions were firmly across the river at a cost of only 1,200 casualties’
Had a friend who immigrated to the US from the UK, he has since passed away, but he followed the footsteps of his dad and joined First Paras. His dad stayed in outfit after the war, and had a small part in the movie "The Red Berets." He had been among those left stranded on bridge at Arnhem and spent the last few months of the war as a POW. According my friend his dad and others in his outfit weren't terribly fond of Monty either...
It wasn't just the Americans, it was everyone who had to deal with him personally. The best description I've heard of him came from a British officer. To put it in American terms, if he was on a football team and didn't get to be the quarterback and call the plays, he would mess up on purpose.
quite simple. British and French rest on their laurels cause they only needed to occupy weak countries while Germany and Japan developed their armies and navy with intent on attacking other empires. both used world war 1 tactics still against German blitzkrieg.
@@91Redmist 'Wow. That's saying a lot.' Read this: SIR BRIAN HORROCKS CORPS COMMANDER Sidgwick & Jackson LONDON 1977 Page 216 ‘The more I studied the problem the less it liked it; without going into technical details, we were not properly balanced for this task. Whilst I was thinking it over, the telephone rang and a Staff Officer from the Twenty-first Army Group said that Field Marshall Montgomery was on his way to see me. A few minutes later he entered my caravan and said, ‘Jorrocks, I am not happy about Bremen. ‘Nor am I sir’, I replied. ‘Tell me about it’, he said. So, sitting in my map lorry I described the problem to him and made certain suggestions. He said not a word until I had finished. After a short pause while he considered the problem on the map, he said, ‘We will do A, B, C, and D. ‘These four decisions were vital - and Bremen was finished. I have deliberately mentioned this because it was typical. Montgomery was not my immediate Commander, but he always kept in such close touch with the battle that he knew when and where ‘the shoe pinched’. He then went down to see the Commander on the spot - in this case, me - and listened to what he had to say. He then made up his mind immediately. As he drove away I knew that he had probably already forgotten about Bremen and would already be considering the next problem. That was what made him such a superb battle commander.’
@@thevillaaston7811 I'd like to know too because that just sounds like utter nonsense, especially considering US generals purposely dragged their feet and failed to prepare for Market Garden up until days before because they were sure Ike would cancel it. That is literally messing up on purpose while also failing to follow orders at the highest chain of command.
'I doubt it was the lack of a free lunch that had Patton angry with Montgomery.' More likely, Montgomery was in the way of Patton's personal ambitions.
@Bob.W Ironically, Monty didn't have a problem with Patton. He seems to have liked and respected him. Montgomery never said or wrote a bad word about Patton. In Sicily, Monty wished Patton's soldier slapping incidents to be kept quiet, while in the Bulge Montgomery told Eisenhower he should send for Patton to relieve Bastogne (unaware that Eisenhower had already thought of that).
Eisenhower did NOT decide to placate Montgomery by promoting him to Field Marshall. Ike (4 star US general) had no means to promote Monty (5 star British marshal) that was strictly a British (Churchill, Brooke, etc) decision. Led to Ike getting promoted in December.
Of course Eisenhower couldn't directly promote Montgomery, but it's implied that he could use his influence to get Montgomery a promotion. I don't know the inside history of the British military during the war, but it's easy enough to imagine Eisenhower suggesting to Churchill (and they were pretty much in constant communication) that it would be a good thing for Montgomery to be promoted to Field Marshal and that Churchill would put the promotion through. From the reactions quoted from both British and American officers in the documentary, it seems pretty clear that this is what happened.
@@RRaquello Not really. Especially the British press had been playing up Montgomery (with his support) as a British hero, basically since El Alamein. When Eisenhower took over as Supreme commander allied forces in Europe, and also took over Montgomery role since Normandy of leading the ground forces, Montgomery resisted (quite a lot actually), while the British press saw it as a demotion for Montgomery, a snub to not only their hero, but also of Britain as a nation at arms. Montgomery tacitly supported this narrative. Churchill (always sensitive to public opinion) sought to address this by making Montgomery a Field Marshall, thereby placating the press, as well as public opinion (Eisenhower would be made 5-star general soon after, so that he would still at least be on the same rank). Eisenhower didn't think it a good idea when it was first proposed, but understood the political imperative in Britain, and was politically savvy enough to keep well out of it. Perhaps because he suspected he'd personally benefit from it not much later. But it certainly wasn't his suggestion to Churchill. Nor, frankly, could (or would) he have made the suggestion, as he had very little influence in Britain to have it go either way. It is notable that many of the top brass in Britain thought it a bad idea as well. According to his diaries, not even Brooke (essentially Montgomery's mentor and supporter since Dunkirk) was entirely sold on the idea. But In the end, it was primarily Churchill's idea, and he was PM.
@@BarthCrane I've read the big diary on the other side, that of Eisenhower's Naval Aid (Harry Butcher) which was basically Ike's semi-official daily record of war operations. If you haven't looked at it it's very interesting. The influence of Ike on British policies (from what I read in that book) was an odd one. He was very friendly with Churchill and had the best personal relations with him, but he could influence Churchill's actions simply by refusing to go along with them when he disagreed knowing that in his refusals he'd be backed by Roosevelt, really meaning General Marshall who was running the war with Roosevelt more or less a figurehead. Churchill was shrewd enough not to push matters far enough to come to a showdown. When Ike stuck to a point, Churchill would eventually back down. This is where people like Eisenhower, Churchill and Marshall are clearly superior to the Montgomerys and Pattons--their ability to see beyond their own local interests. Churchill and Marshall knew, and Churchill was willing to acknowledge, the fact that there was no way on earth that the American people, supplying 2/3rds-to-3/4ths of the troops on the Western Front, would accept being under a foreign commander. We had done that in the First World War, Pershing serving under Foch, with disastrous results as far as casualties were concerned. In that war, in the short time we were in it, and the small amount of the front we had taken over, the AEF became cannon fodder for French Generals the way French soldiers had been at Verdun and throughout the war. They wore their own soldiers out and couldn't wait to use our boys the same way. Montgomery wasn't that type of general but the overall commander in the west was always going to be an American. It could be no other way. Churchill knew it and even Montgomery knew it and accepted it, if grudgingly. One last thing, in the Butcher diary, which was largely a recording of Ike's views, I think Ike was mostly friendly to Montgomery. He had his frustrations with him but no more so than with some American generals and certainly a lot less than in dealing with the French. The French, even when the other allies were fighting to save their lives, were more interested in fighting with each other, or in collaborating with the Germans. They could never be trusted. Montgomery was a good soldier even if he was hard to get along with, and he at least knew who the enemy was and put his energies into fighting them instead of his allies.
@@RRaquello I have not read Harry Butcher diary, but now I probably will. Having read your reply, and do agree with almost all of it, and where I don't, I'd be quibbling to mention it. That is to say; it doesn't really matter. So, I do agree, the land forces commander, after Overlord, did, certainly politically, have to be an American, for the reasons given. I don't dispute that, because there was simply no other way. And in that sense, Beaverbrook's et al. campaign in the UK press was nonsensical. But that still left Churchill in a bind. Wanting to keep the UK press 'on side', he had to come up with something to placate them, as well as the riled up UK public. Promoting Monty to Field Marshall was what he came up with. It made Monty superior in rank to Eisenhower (at least for a bit), while still under Eisenhower's command. And, to be fair, it worked as well (again, for a bit, until the UK press started agitating again during the Bulge). There are no sources, that I am aware of at least, that suggest that either Eisenhower, Marshall, or, indeed, Roosevelt had any hand in that decision, while the King's true opinion (who devolves this down to HMG and, ultimately, parliament) we will probably never know (as is only right and proper, obviously). Nor am I aware of any sources that suggest that they tried to influence it either before or while it was made. Although afterward, they did respond by giving Eisenhower an extra star on his shoulders. As such, I maintain that neither Eisenhower nor indeed any American, used, would use, or even could use, their influence to give Monty his batons, and that any implication to the contrary is quite out of place. Given what I do know, and have read about both the British and the US side of things during this period, I find it very hard to imagine someone as politically astute as Eisenhower to so clearly overstepping (political) boundaries to suggest this to Churchill, let alone exerting influence to make it happen. Neither Eisenhower nor Churchill had the personalities or relationship for this to happen in this way. In the UK, certainly at that time, such interference with, essentially, UK domestic politics would simply not have been cricket, and surely both Eisenhower and Churchill would have been well aware of that. I doubt even Marshall or Roosevelt would have gone down that road. Indeed, I doubt even Brooke has much to do with it, and that's saying something!
@@BarthCrane It's a big book, over 800 pages, but worth reading not only to get a handle on the political wrangling but also on the logistical nightmare facing the Services of Supply, especially following the invasion. I've read here some comments about Eisenhower getting bogged down after taking over from Montgomery, but it must be understood that this was unavoidable whoever the commander was if for no other reason (and there were others) than that the roads and remaining transportation network (railroads) had largely been destroyed by pre-invasion allied bombing, which specifically targeted all transportation facilities, and the remaining infrastructure was inadequate for the traffic necessary to supply the army in the field. The allied armies had to rebuild this infrastructure as it went further into Europe and the advance of the armies was dictated by the speed which the infrastructure could be rebuilt. This is what the amateur military historian misses. He looks at a map and says "we should have done this and this and this, it was all wide open" while forgetting that the men must be fed and rearmed with fresh ammunition and the vehicles must have fuel. You get a real understanding of how this influenced both the strategic and tactical choices of Eisenhower throughout the war but especially in the months after Normandy.
I used to work with an old gent who told me proudly that he had shaken hands with Monty. I am not sure if this was in Italy where my co-worker was in the Canadian tanks or at the end of the war when he was sprung from a PoW camp.
When I was 11 in 1947 Monty visited Carlisle and I got close enough to his jeep, after a struggle, to shake his hand. There were huge crowds and he was definitely a hero then.
He did not want to take command in Africa and have to go up against Rommel until he was told that the German code had been broken and that he would know Rommels orders before Rommel himself knew his orders, thereby making Monty out to be a hero, it wasn’t until operation “ Market Garden “ turned out to be a disaster that the true Monty was exposed as an incompetent leader, that Eisenhower had to relieve him of his command.
My Uncle was in the desert, circa 1943 when the General was touring the front line. Les, said it was like meeting an icon, yet Monty, who had served in the trenches, in the Great War, was buoyant. " a ball of energy" was my uncle's comment.
Yes indeed, Mac was a bit of an assh*le to his subordinates just like Monty. The difference is the MacArthur was very successful. Monty built his reputation on Alamein after he was able to out-supply Rommel. After the desert, Montgomery's war record was one of hesitation when boldness was called for and boldness when caution might have better served. The failure at the Faiaise Gap had dire consequences as the Germans were able to rebuild their Army in the west during the Autumn of 1944. In contrast, MacArthur had an almost unbroken string of success in the Pacific, yes, he also had overwhelming material superiority, but he also had incredible terrain and logistical challenges.
Its all because monty was likely autistic and didn't pick up on social cues. He had a very good understanding of the common soldier though. He was ostracised for giving advice on how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases in an era where generals were meant to think that their men were not meant to have sexual urges and so should punish them. His forward thought in training made his men able to wether the battle for France relatively well, especially his insistence of night fighting drills that made his divisions able to manoueveoure easier. Ultimately, Monty didn't "fit in" with the officers mess, he didn't drink, he didn't suck up etc. Surely it's testament to his skill that even with all his flaws, he was still seen as vital to fight the war
@@Swagmaster07 In his planning for the OVERLORD land campaign, Montgomery committed to reaching the Seine by D+90. He got there by D+78. Caen always intended to capture Caen, but he did rely on its capture by any particular date. He hoped to take Caen within a couple of days after D-Day, but he gave no firm commitment on that point. As soon as the allies landed in Normandy, the Germans massed nearly all of their armour in front of British Second Army at Caen. Thereafter, who actually occupied Caen was of little consequence in regard to the outcome of the Normandy campaign.
@@thevillaaston7811 Yes even on IWM - How the Allies trapped the German army it literally states "Montgomery had promised his fellow commanders at SHAEF that the campaign in Normandy would take around 3 months" Which it did 🤷♂
Monty was his own worst enemy. Having to control both him and Patton must have been a real challenge for Ike. But perhaps we need people like that to win wars?
Monty should have been left in command of all ground forces after Normandy. On 3 Sept 1944 when Eisenhower took over overall allied command of ground forces everything went at a snail's pace. The fastest advance of any western army in Autumn/early 1945 was the 60 mile thrust by the British XXX Corps to the Rhine at Arnhem.
@@johnburns4017 Agreed. But a General's biggest enemy is politics. Can you imagine what would have happened of John Wayne had not been allowed to win the war?
@@samgraham9235 Eisenhower was a politician not a warrier. Monty should have been left in charge while he talks to Chiefs of Staff and political leaders. It was too much for him and he just was not good enough for ground command as the results showed. Montgomery to AlanBrooke.. _"If we want the war to end within any reasonable period you have to get Eisenhower’s hand taken off the land battle._ *_I regret to say that in my opinion he just doesn’t know what he is doing._* Montgomery wrote of Eisenhower and his ridiculous broad-front strategy on 22 January 1945: _“I fear that the old snags of indecision and vacillation and refusal to consider the military problem fairly and squarely are coming to the front again . . . The real trouble is that there is no control and the three army groups are each intent on their own affairs. Patton today issued a stirring order to Third Army, saying the next step would be Cologne . . . One has to preserve a sense of humour these days, otherwise one would go mad.”_ Alanbrooke wrote in his diary about Einsenhower: _“At the end of this morning's C.O.S. [Chief of Staff] meeting I put before the committee my views on the very unsatisfactory state of affairs in France, with no one running the land battle. Eisenhower, though supposed to be doing so, is on the golf links at Rheims_ *_- entirely detached and taking practically no part in running of the war._* _Matters got so bad lately that a deputation of Whiteley, Bedell Smith and a few others went up to tell him that he must get down to it and RUN the war, which he said he would."_ _"We discussed the advisability of getting Marshall to come out to discuss the matter, but we are doubtful if he would appreciate the situation. Finally decided that I am to see the P.M. to discuss the situation with him.”_ _"November 28th I went to see the P.M. I told him I was very worried."_ Alan Brooke described in his daily diary that American generals Eisenhower and Marshall as poor strategists, when they were in jobs were strategy mattered. Brooke wrote to Montgomery about his talks with Eisenhower, *_“it is equally clear that Ike has the very vaguest conception of war!”_*
@@samgraham9235 HAHAHAHAHA another delusional limey!! it's painfully obvious that the sons of "britannia's" greatest asset is their ability to bulls**t themselves !
I mean, when you have men with thousands upon thousands of lives in the palms of their hands with the liberation of Europe at stake. You need to be a confident asshole to pull that kind of weight and to make extremely tough decisions that a normal person wouldn't.
Montgomery was abrasive most of the time to everyone around him, and his ego was just as notorious as Patton's was. We are very lucky Eisenhower was excellent at handling both of them.
I’m surprised that you didn’t include the footage of Monty making US soldiers run towards him happily yelling and celebrating him. Afterwards, they realized that they were used and felt humiliated. That has to part of why that hated Monty 😮
American forces who served under Montgomery were usually complimentary. Mostly because he might be annoying, hard to work with and had an ego the size of small planet but he made sure the officers under him were competent and the lower ranks were well taken care of. The classic case is the Ardennes when British forces moved in to shore up the collapsing US 1st army one of his first actions was making sure the Us troops received hot food in the front lines rather than the normal US system of making fighting troops rely on ration packs and putting main food service in the rear lines. He paid attention to details.
At the battle of the Bulge GIs threw Monty in the stockade thinking him and imposter.IKE got a big charge out of it as the arrogant ass was trying to take credit for the Bulge's success.
Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015 0:50 seconds in "were the germans afraid of general patton and everyone says you've got the movie, you've got a bridge too far, you've got the carlo deste biography, then harry yeide goes into the german archives about two years ago and discovers that most of the german generals have never heard of him, a big blow to the patton ego"
Clean monty's cack out of your eye sockets lil' villa. Patton routed Keselring's while bernard was montying on Sicily.The Russians and Germans knew monty was an uppity little nothing much like yourself.Had 4 full yrs to cross the channel yet waited for big brother. Twice Patton/Truscott flanked the Wehrmacht with amphibious landings on sicilian north shore
this one's barking - Villa how do you get food in your mouth with your head up monty's ass? Patton chastened the tart bernard in the art of war on Sicily - taking both Palermo and Messina whilst bernard montied. To prove that was no fluke Monty then went on to do even less in Italy/Caen/Falaise & of course Monty Garden. And as you know the Germans never drove Patton into the channel now that would make him Monty's equal *The Rommel Papers by B.H.Liddell-Hart page 523* "In Tunisia the Americans had to pay a stiff price for their experience,but it brought rich dividends .Even at the time American Generals showed themselves to be very advanced in the technical handling of their forces, *Although we had to wait until Patton's Army in France to see astonishing achievements in mobile warfare* The Americans it is fair to say, profited far more than the British from their experience in Africa, thus confirming axiom that education is easier than re-education" *Patton:A Genius for War,By Carlo D'Este, General Fritz Bayerlein commander of Panzer Lehr Division and in Rommel's Afrika Corp.He assessed the escape of Rommel's Panzers after Alamein "I do not think General Patton would have let us get away so easily said Bayerlein"* Comparing Patton with Guderian and Montgomery with Von Rundstedt.* *When interviewed in 1945,Heinz Guderian* , the Wehrmacht’s foremost practitioner of Blitzkrieg, stated, “ *General Patton conducted a good campaign. From the standpoint of a tank specialist, I must congratulate him on his victory since he acted as I would have done had I been in his place* General Gunther Blumentritt : *We regarded General Patton extremely highly as the most aggressive panzer-general of the Allies* . . . His operations impressed us enormously, probably because he came closest to our own concept of the classical military commander. He even improved on Napoleon’s basic tenets. From a letter on exhibit at Wichita KS "Museum of World treasures" Hasso Von Manteuffel 8018 Diessen am ammersee Mariahilfe Strasse 7. Dec. 16. 1976 Dear Mr. Dellingatti; I thank you for your letter, attached you find a photo as you asked for. In my opinion General Patton was a master of lightning warfare and the best commander in this reference! Evidence of his excellent command and control of an army are the campaign in Sicily, the break-out in Brittany 1944 and during the Battle of the Bulge Dec 1944. I agree with Ladislaw Farago first-rate book on Patton "Ordeal and Triumph" - an excellent report! With very good wishes *Patton: Ordeal and Triumph, Ladislas Farago (New York: Astor-Honor, Inc., Inc., 1964), p. 505* 'If Manstein was Germany's greatest strategist during World War II, Balck has strong claims to be regarded as our finest field commander. He has a superb grasp of tactics and great qualities of leadership' - Major-General von Mellenthin *General Balck, commenting on the Lorraine Campaign, said: "Patton was the outstanding tactical genius of World War II. I still consider it a privilege and an unforgettable experience to have had the honor to oppose him"* Fancy some more villa?
Yeah, I remember watching that at that tankfest. All I could think was it was a weird comment. Let's say he's 100% correct. Ok, but why does he feel the need to strike a blow against an ego that's been dead for 70 years. If he said a great disappointment to Patton's fanboys, at least that would have made sense, but a blow to the man's ego? How dead does a person have to get before their ego dies too?
@@morganmcallister2001 'Yeah, I remember watching that at that tankfest. All I could think was it was a weird comment. Let's say he's 100% correct. Ok, but why does he feel the need to strike a blow against an ego that's been dead for 70 years.' For every blow struck against Patton's ego, there are 300 blow struck against Montgomery's ego in comments on UA-cam, 299 of them posted by Americans. About 200 of them posted by some oppo from Cleveland, Ohio, USA. Montgomey has been dead for 48 years.
I've always wondered at the general animosity held against Montgomery. I had assumed it was because Monty was too cautious and slow to respond. This video fleshed out my limited, popularized view of Monty. I'm much gratified for the new understanding. Thanks for this.
As an American, I was well aware of Patton's ego. They made an entire motion picture out of it, after all. But I never realized Monty was just as bad in his own way.
Monty was cautious commander, remember he saw bloody action and was seriously injured in the First World War,Eisenhower didn’t see any action in the First World War,think Monty would of been miffed by that.
Same I was was always told that in Italy Monty was to slow and calculating which allowed German forces to slip away and that Patton wanted to move fast to stop the Germans from retreating.
Don't see why, since Monty didn't plan or participate in operation Market Garden. Maybe he should have put his dislike towards people that planned it Brereton and Williams, or maybe the person that insisted on it Ike, or even the person that stuffed it up like Gavin
Monty was actually Irish by birth. During WW1 he was shot through the lungs as he lay out in no man’s land, a medic sent to rescue him was shot by a sniper and collapsed on top of Monty. The sniper then used the two men for target practice. Monty was shot twice more. A day of so later he was picked up and taken for medical treatment. However the doctors believing him to be dying refused treatment and sent him for burial. A grave was dug and Monty was laid alongside it, but as the diggers waited for him to stop breathing, he moved his hand and so was sent back to the medics for another look and was saved. I think an experience like that would have affected his personality on going.
The whole of Ireland was British in 1887, even the bit Montgomery wasn't born in. Which reminds me, has Joe Biden told us which part of Ireland he's from at all?
Something you should always bear in mind. In September 1939, 'Ike' was only a Major on MacArthur's staff in the Philippines. He cut his political teeth dealing with THAT monsterous ego, and worked his way up from there! He's also the reason Omar Bradley, who was subordinate to Patton for Algeria, ended up Patton's superior by the time they entered Germany. Appointing him Supreme Commander Allied Forces Europe was, perhaps, the masterstroke of the entire campaign. A man who wasn't to be bullied by the colossal egos around him, who could actually listen to them without dismissing any ideas out-of-hand, and who had the guts to take decisions that he believed were right, even if they might make him unpopular in the short term. I think he was practically the only US General that 'understood' Monty enough to be able to tolerate his well-known shortcomings for the sake of his talents.
Tribute must be paid as well to General George C. Marshal, U.S. Army Chief of Staff, and known as perhaps the chief architect of the wartime force. He's the man who elevated Ike from relative obscurity to international renown. Marshal was a collector of talented people; as he and his aides and staff moved about in their duties, General Marshal was famous for keeping a small notebook in which he made note of people who had pleased and/or impressed him, and ones who had not. Marshal was the very definition of a team player. President Roosevelt liked the job he was doing so much that it probably cost Marshal any chance of having an operational command in action. And he knew that in recommending Ike he was condemning himself to a role away from the spotlight. Marshal and MacArthur cordially despised one another. MacArthur had damned Marshal with faint praise while the latter had been under his command at Ft. Benning. Marshal returned the favor when MacArthur was recalled to the U.S. Army after Dec. 7th 1941. MacArthur had retired as a four-star general and Army Chief of Staff, but Marshal recalled him as a lieutenant general, a three-star - one step lower than his final rank.
Look bud, if you graduated from Patton Indoctrination High, there aint much this video can do for you. And yes there's a reason I immediatly poke sarcastic fun at you. That reason being Montgomery was "Egomaniac BUT highly competent" while the idiots who collided with his ego, mostly Patton were badly incompetent, shouldn't have been promoted past 1st LT and whose war contribution was negative.
My old man joined the Tank Corp (or Royal Tank Regiment) 1938. He fought in France, North Africa, Sicily and Italy. He missed going to Normandy with the 7th Armoured due to catching malaria in Sicily, instead being flown back back to an Algerian hospital. When the US first turned up in Africa in 1942 there was general and mutual animosity between the British and American forces. I hope people reading this today can have the imagination to see why this might occur. As a youngster I took interest in WW2 and can still remember (in the 70's) my father making extremely disparaging remarks about US General Mark Clark. I sometimes wondered what side he fought on when he spoke of certain American officers.
@@margaretjiantonio939 That's why it's a good job that Ike was overseeing the Allies as supreme commander, he was the only man who could prevent the alliance breaking down between the Brits, Americans and French.
Well, General Mark Clark is probably the worst American General of WWII. If I were there, accepting any orders from him, I might wonder which side I was on also.
In Dixon's "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence" Montgomery is discussed as an interesting border case -- a commander who displayed many of the features that led to failure in many others, but who was intelligent and self aware enough to recognise those problems in himself and to _deliberately_ work to overcome them -- his whole "friend of the common soldier" schtick was planned -- he knew he was by nature aloof and introverted, so he worked on being the "soldier's soldier" as a way overcoming what he saw in a weakness. Sometimes he succeed in overcoming his nature and had tremendous success, sometimes he failed and looked like a total prat.
"The National Army Museum conducted a poll in 2011 to determine Britain’s greatest general. Montgomery’s name was not among the finalists. In a 2013 poll, the Battle of El Alamein was not listed among the five greatest British battles." Bernard Law Montgomery - Military History - Oxford Bibliographies
To be fair, I think Monty had plenty of staffers of all British service stripes who disliked Monty intensely. It wasn't personal, the man was a unique taste, and probably as this piece says, on the spectrum.
@@skathwoelya2935 I'm autistic. I use whichever formulation is more convenient in a given sentence, because - as a matter of self-care - I can't be arsed to coddle the delicate sensibilities of neurotypical activists who want to milk my illness for clout. (And if I _could_ - if I woke up tomorrow as someone who _did_ reliably have that level of executive function - I still wouldn't do it, because [a] I would have better things to focus that energy on and [b] I don't like them.) Also, last I checked in with the clout-farm side of mental illness activism, "Asperger's syndrome" had fallen off the euphemism treadmill - the internet had held one of its Ex Post Facto Nuremberg Re-Enactments (you know, as it does) and convicted Hans Asperger on charges of Being A Nazi. Did that get overturned, or did they just memory-hole it?
@@dylandarnell3657 It's interesting how people on the spectrum tend to assume that other people commenting on YT aren't on the spectrum. I sometimes fall into that trap myself. I don't like the neurotypical activists either as they have an annoying habit of calling people like me "autistic" which I strongly object to - I still have all my other characteristics that make me a fully rounded human being. The current edition of the DSM-5 absorbed "Asperger's syndrome" into "Autism Spectrum Disorders" in 2013 to simplify things. I would prefer "Autism Spectrum Conditions" as "Disorder" suggests something that needs to be cured and AS/autism doesn't need to be. It definitely isn't an "illness" as you claim for yourself. It's a developmental condition. Hans Asperger fell out of favour about five years ago - although if we cancelled all the historic scientists who made advancements by unethical means, or who had bad politics, there probably wouldn't be any left. I'm sticking with "having Asperger's syndrome" as it is less likely to be used as a term of abuse than the word "autistic" is. Also, it's more specific to more able Aspies and was still being used by clinical psychologists in the UK years after the (American) DSM-5 discontinued it. They still might be for all I know. I enjoy your prose style, by the way.
It wasn't just the Americans. I was an Army Cadet in the same regiment my uncle served in during WW2. On "Association" nights when the old veterans would get together, I would always pop up to their meeting room after my duties to say hello to my uncle and talk to all the vets. I never heard one of them say a kind word about Monty.
In the war of recognition between the allies in WW2 I would have referred them to the wise words of the Duke of Wellington following Waterloo, when officers were constantly asking for his recognition of their regiments, Gentlemen, he said, there is enough glory for all.
From everything I've read, enlisted men and junior officers who served _under_ Montgomery liked him quite well, because he was a very capable commander who would win battles, and whom they knew would not needlessly spend their lives. It was another story, however, for officers of equal or greater rank, who had to serve alongside or over Monty -- they found his monumental ego, tendency toward self-promotion, and utter lack of anything remotely resembling tact extremely hard to take. This included British senior officers as well as American. Eisenhower's second as supreme Allied commander for the ETO, Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Tedder developed a strong dislike for Montgomery. Winston Churchill summed Monty up as "in defeat unbeatable, in victory unbearable."
There's an old belief that I believe is most likely true that Monty demanded that ALL driver's, tank, armoured vehicles and trucks be former bus, taxi, etc professional drivers in civilian life because he believed that they would have better navigation skills...... very important in an endless desert
As an american, and having been a student of WW2, I would say that Montgomery was a brilliant but egotistical genius that came at the right time in history... I say this knowing that Patton was in that same boat.
Weak relativistic analysis, Mr. Davis. Patton has Metz, Montgomery has Market Garden, Sicily, and Falais to answer for. Ironlcally, one historian aptly commented that, after El Alamein, Monty would never risk his new found reputation by ever taking a risk again.
@johnhill7058 Patton attack at Metz was fool hardy. Germans simply withdrew. Patton could have skirted metz and achieved the same strategic goal with fewer loss of men and material... Patton wasn't called blood and guts for nothing. Like Montgomery, ego gets in the way... How's that analysis
18:21 The bald guy holding the map (Bradley to the left in the pic, Patton on the right behind) is one of the greatest of all WW2 Division Commanders... Maj. Gen. John Shirley "Tiger Jack" Wood (4th Armored Div.). Patton loved Wood's ability to get things done. Wood was not selected for corps command because of his outspoken manner and willingness to question his superiors. Instead Bradley picked his friend Eddy. Wood would have been the far better choice.
Auchenleck layed the groundwork for the final stand against Rommel,not Montgomery. Auchenleck was actually very frustrated that supplies and decent tanks were finally being supplied on mass,and him being replaced just when the desert airforce was destroying Rommel's tanks. Rommel retreated knowing the game was up,especially when the Americans landed in Morocco. Tunisia was the closest evacuation point,to Sicily. And Caen was a disaster for Montgomery. He had a couple of days to take the town,but took 6 weeks! He was a cautious commander at best,and quite often his ego would get in the way of his ability. In the end fleets of bombers had to flatten the place,because of Montgomerys caution and incompetence. And Eisenhower was furious with Montgomery. Antwerp was the main priority, a very important port,and the waterways . Montgomery failed to take the port,and the waterways first. Then the failure in operation market garden. Montgomerys failure end up costing the allies 17 thousand men because he didn't flush the Germans out of the waterways, and capture Antwerp, (That doesn't count the casualties at the market garden debacle.) The Americans had to do the job ( capturing Antwerp) After that Eisenhower took complete control, and as result Montgomery was somewhat isolated and marginalised. Even Churchill distanced himself from Montgomery, and left all the major decisions to the Americans.
Auchinleck managed to halt Rommel's advance with the tactically inconclusive but strategic victory of 1st El Alamein, but by this point he could no longer continue in the role because - as Theater Commander - he'd presided over the disaster at Gazala and the loss of Tobruk. His days were numbered. If the Auk had some frustration about being removed from command at this time then he only had himself to blame for not taking direct command of the 8th Army perminantly after he fired Alan Cunningham during Crusader as everyone had expect him to but instead appointed Neil Ritchie Army Commander. He was ultimately a failure of a Theater Commander in Africa with only the high point of Crusader and the saving grace of 1st El Alamein preventing his reputation from being irreparable tarnished. The idea that Auchinleck is responsible for Montgomery's successes in the Desert come from Correlli Barnett, who had an axe to grind against Montgomery and was not going to facts to stop him from tearing Monty down. So Barnett incorrectly attributed the battle plan for Alam el Halfa to Eric Dorman-Smith and the preparation for it to Auchinleck while ignoring the changed Montgomery made - as Field Marshal Carver noted in his book "Dilemmas of the Desert War". The only part Auchinleck played in Montgomery's victories in the Desert was in the position that Montgomery inherited when he assumed command, but certainly not in the plans he executed. Rommel retreated because he knew if he didn't his entire force would be destroyed or captured and him along with it. He had the good sense to realize he'd been defeated and staying in Egypt was suicide. His retreat began before the Torch landings took place. The obsession with schedule for Caen not being met ignores how the battle effected the wider campaign, and the simple fact is that failure to secure the location on time was no a major hinderance to the Allied Campaign, as the fact that they crossed the Seine several days ahead of schedule. Caen did not go as planned, and it was wrong of Montgomery to claim it did, but how it developed was beneficial to the Allied Campaign in how it forced the German to commit so much of their resource in the British/Commonwealth sector that they had nothing whatsoever to put against the Americans once their front line of defence collapsed. Eisenhower was not furious about Antwerp not getting priority above Market Garden and a Rhine crossed becuase he was the man who ultimately permitted 21st Army Group to split its focus between the two objectives. If he not done so and released the Allied Airborne Army for use then 21st Army Group could not have pressed forward with Market Garden to begin with. The casualties for Market Garden were approximately 15-to-17,000. The casualties for clearing the Scheldt estuary were approximately 12-to-13,000. The American's did not capture Antwerp. The British 2nd Army liberated the city on September 4th and the Canadian 1st Army were the ones who cleared the Scheldt between October and November 1944. Eisenhower assumed the role of Ground Forces Commander after Overlord, well before the operations against the Scheldt or Arnhem took place, and was making all the major decisions from that time - as the infamous Broad vs Narrow Front attests to.
Utter drivel. I wouldn't even know where to start with this and @11nytram11 should be commended for having so much patience with you. Antwerp's port capacity was needed to supply Eisenhower's broad front strategy into Germany, it was not needed to supply Market Garden, so it made sense to prioritise the Rhine crossing of British 2nd Army at Arnhem before opening Antwerp. If the operation had not been compromised in the planning and execution by American officers in 1st Allied Airborne Army and 82nd Airborne Division respectively (therefore not Montgomery's fault at all), then a successful advance to the Zuider Zee (Ijsselmeer) would have cut off all German forces in the western Netherlands and made the Canadian 1st Army's mission to clear the Scheldt estuary that much easier. So your argument (to use an old English expression) is hoist by your own petard!
The Americans had nothing to do with the capture of Antwerp. The 11th Armoured Division of the British 2nd Army captured and occupied Antwerp on September 4th.
As much as Monty was an ash whole, at least Monty was with his armies. Charles DeGaulle spent the war sipping tea in the U.K. while Americans and Canadians died liberating France. Cowardly and arrogant was Charles DeGaulle.
Not to mention when France was reconquered, Degaulle then goes "France has been liberated by the French" he literally REFUSED to acknowledge the British, Americans, Canadians and Poles who had just spent 2 months fighting set piece battles to liberate the French.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Say it, brutha! Ike's and Monty's soldiers and many Canadians put their lives on the line so the vain and venal DeGaulle could march through the Arc de Triomphe as THE conquerer. Compared to DeGaulle, Monty was the personable and astute one. And where the hell were the French soldiers while my dad was being evacuated in 1944 from Brittany, France, with horrible wounds.
old enuf to recall that gallic scumbag back in my '60s grade school days, gallicly arrogantly proudly announcing Froglandia were leaving NATO, needing no aid nor asisstance from anyone, to remain strong and free. ...he annouced all that, nearly instantly on the global msm announcement of Spain NATO accession, ( meaning 'strong independent' Froglandia were now 360d fully ringed by NATO , (read: 'US'), nuclear umbrella, lol). opines of degaulle among my peers/fam are universally contemptuous, due to precisely that 'tea sipping' perception of his arrogance and of his cowardice, each trait archetypically exemplifying that entire nation of imbecilically inbred losers called 'france'.
I remember Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes years ago talking about his role in liberating Paris “and then de Gaulle marched in like he owned the place” or something like that.
When Roosevelt realized that America would inevitably be sucked into the European mess he and General Geroge C Marshall started cleaning up his general staff by moving them aroud to meet their greatest abilities. General Marshal was the true genious that made everything work. He appointed Eisenhower to his position due to his administrative and personality traits.
Ike served as MacArthur's staff officer for a good number of years until Doug retired from the Army. Ike said MacArthur liked to surround himself with bootlickers so he would look more competent. Ike went in the different direction and had generals under his command that would argue with him.
Ike was a colonial when WWII started. He was jumped over a number of generals who were better qualified for the allied command. But he was a politician and shmoozed Marshal. Eisenhower had never commanded soldiers in the field. He was a desk jockey.
Patton: Best offense is best defense. Montgomery: Best defense is best offense. Zhukov: Best offense is best offense. Steiner: Sheisse, we can only do defense.
Monty's attitude among the generals is one factor along with he taking too much time and delayments like in the Sicily and Normandy campaigns. Even the Airborne grumbled about how Monty's plans cost more of them than objectives gained like Market Garden, and the Rhine river campaign.
Tripe. Monty had more experience in his little finger than all the US generals combined who didn't give a toss about casualties. Monty served right through WW1 and knew we weren't going to get through WW2 if we didn't keep casualties down. Luckily Monty knew what he as doing in his strategy shame people like Gavin did not.
@@madgavin7568 His boss, Marshall could have. But Roosevelt needed him to keep Hap Arnold, and MacArthur in check. He also was needed to have Ike's back in Washington. Marshall also came to a peace agreement with the notoriously prickly admiral King.
Quite honestly, the only credit Eisenhower ever really gets as a general was his ability to effectively manage a multi-national coalition with strong willed generals and keep it from falling apart through infighting. He has absolutely no record from which to judge his tactical abilities because he never even personally saw action let alone commanded a battle, he has mixed reviews on a strategic and logistical level, but majority opinion holds that he was the best choice to be Supreme Commander because of his man-management skills.
From what i've researched and interviews seen from ex british servicemen after the war, and throughout ww2 Montgomery was popular and was perhaps the right man to refocus and re-energize the british eighth army after suffering repeated failure to check rommel's advance thought north africa up to the egyptian border, at the 1st and 2nd battle of el alamein 1942 in the western desert campaign, against Field Marshal Rommel afrkica Korp, he motivated the men and aspire the men with his pep talks ,but he was not as loved as other british generals, one man in particular stands alone to this day, loved and respected home and abroad as the best general in the british army and by a considerable opinion by his peers as the best general that came out of world war 2, his portrait hangs in the british officer training academy ''Sandhurst'' to this day, Field marshal William Slim or to his men old bill slim who led the 14th army or the forgotten army that fought the japanese in the Burma War loved and respected by his men the ordinary common soldier, such was the man
I think he was one of only two soldiers to ever have held every rank in the British Army from Private soldier to Field Marshal. I'd suggest General O'Connor would have done well, but ended up captured.
@@johnbobson1557 You're both right as well. O'Connor and Slim were both very good. Slim in particular having to command forces on an almost forgotten front. Both did bloody well.
Montgomery's problem is that he was one of several egotistical generals in the European Theater, and there was inevitable clashes, hurt feelings and so on. In the Pacific, MacArthur was a MUCH bigger egomaniac, but his only major clash was with the Navy, and that wasn't much of a rivalry since Roosevelt was a Navy man and favored them most of the time. The only other major drama queen in the Pacific was Admiral Halsey.
Perhaps that is because the fronts were more dispersed in Asia and the Pacific? So the British fought in Burma, the Chinese in China and on the islands the only foreign force of any size the Americans had to interact with was the Australians and even then they mostly fought separately except on New Guinea. So each allied country could run things their own way with minimal need to cooperate with other allies?
This the South West Pacific MacArthur was in charge of all forces in the area. He only at one Senior Australia General on his command staff. The General was in command of all allied ground forces that were not American………
@@bryanbird1266 Yes. But MacArthur ranked Gen. Blamey. MacArthur had no compunction about criticising Australian command action down to be battalion level, and sometimes lower. And Blamey went along. Peruse some of 'hypohystericalhistory' he does a minute job of cataloging Australian and Allied campaigns.
MacArthur actually had the victories to prove his worth, though. He is a victim of Chinese propaganda, which smears him online all the time because he wanted to nuke China and was ardently anti-communist.
My Uncle who was with the 1st US Army stated we did not hate Monty, we just thought he was an arrogant self-centered person. But then again these same troops thought the same on a George S. Patton and a glory-hound to boot. My Uncle served from North Africa to Germany 1942 to 1945.
@@tonyrains217 Well, that's one opinion, but I think that George S Patton wasted way to many of his own men to achieve his own ego. Hence the nickname 'Old Blood N Guts'
"After the failure of the operation, Montgomery began to question the strategy developed by Eisenhower and as a result of comments made at a press conference he gave on 7th January, 1945, he was severely rebuked by Winston Churchill and General Alan Brooke, the head of the British Army. Although he came close to being sacked, Montgomery was allowed to remain in Europe and the end of the war was appointed Commander in Chief of the British Army of Occupation." Bernard Montgomery Jewish Virtual Library
Montgomery 7th January, 1945, Press Conference: This from one of Montgomery’s harshest critics: WITH PREJUDICE The War Memoirs of Marshall of the Royal Air Force Lord Tedder G.C.B. CASSELL & COMPANY 1966 P 636- 637 ‘In a press conference given on 7 January, Montgomery described how Eisenhower had placed him in command of the whole northern front. He emphasized that the repulse of the German onslaught had been an Anglo-American effort, but somewhat unfortunately went on to describe the battle as ‘most interesting. I think, possibly, one of the most interesting and tricky battles I have ever handled, with great issues at stake.’ Montgomery expressed his admiration for the fighting qualities of the American soldier and how grieved he was to see uncomplimentary articles about Eisenhower in the British Press. However, the subsequent handling of Montgomery’s statements by the British newspapers and by the B.B.C. caused a crisis. The Prime Minister telephoned several times to Eisenhower, who said that Bradley was most upset. He proposed to award the Bronze Star to Bradley with a citation drawing attention to his fighting qualities, and to the work of the American armies bearing the brunt of the German offensive. At a meeting on 9 January, the Supreme Commander remarked that censorship was a two-edged weapon. Anything withheld by the censors immediately acquired news value, and the Press, by inuendo or other means, invariably circumvented it. It seemed to him that he reaction of the American Press to the statements in the British newspapers would be to exaggerate the United States point of view. There would be no end to the statements which the Press of the two countries would make in reply to each other. He also remarked: ‘For two and a half years I have been trying to get the Press to talk of “Allied” operations, but look what has happened.’ ‘When de Guingand saw the British reporters in Brussels on 9 January, they were able to prove to him that their articles had given a balanced view of the picture, but that their editors had been responsible for the flaming headlines which told the British public that Montgomery had defeated the Germans in the salient. It was also learned that the radio station at Arnhem, then in German hands, had intercepted some of the despatches and had re-written them with an anti-American slant. They had been put out and mistaken for BBC broadcasts.’ And this from a reporter at the press conference: CHESTER WILMOT THE STRUGGLE FOR EUROPE WM. COLLINS, SONS AND CO LTD. 1954 P683 My dispatch to the B.B.C. was picked up in Germany, rewritten to give it an anti-American bias and then broadcast by Arnhem Radio, which was then in Goebbels's hands. Monitored at Bradley's H.Q., this broadcast was mistaken for a B.B.C. transmission and it was this twisted text that started the uproar. Stil... You have the Jewish Virtual Library behind you...crucial.
According to this analysis Montgomery's faults were arrogance, rudeness and the feeling he was right. I cannot imagine any American who would share such traits.
Now as far as leadership goes, it is not based on rank but appointment. A lower ranking person can be in charge of troops with higher rank. I happened to be in that position before. The higher soldier refused to obey, until a higher yet soldier told him he could be court marshalled. I had no problems after that.
Best part of my unit was officers usually only stuck with a platoon for one trip and spent most of that learning from the NCO’s. All positions were also held one rank above the typical officer rank so a PL would be a captain instead of a 1lt etc, typically meant they had experience in a regular line platoon before coming over. Everything was NCO ran for the most part. Politics and appointments only really applied to the BC and RC. All our officers were really expected to do was clear obstacles out of our way to perform missions how we wanted. The best ones risked taking the hits for the boys entrusting the platoon or company not to let him down when they did take that risk. The really good ones managed to stick around for multiple deployments and could potentially avoid the S shops.
Monty was casualty adverse, he fought in the First War and was shot through the right lung during the First Battle of Ypres, fought in the Battles of Arras and Passchendaele, saw a lot more combat than Patton and the other Americans. This made him more careful with the expenditure with lives and only attacked when he was ready.
Soldier turned historian Field Marshal Michael Carver - who served as a staff officer in the 8th Army in WW2 - wrote that it was not the scale of the casaulties in WWI itself that appalled Montgomery but how little was achieved by it, and that Monty was never casualty adverse because he was ready in engage in battles of attrition that other British General's shied away from. Meanwhile Stephen A. Hart wrote in his book "Colossal Cracks" that it was the dwindling pool of British manpower that forced Montogmery to be more conservative with his men and tactics, so rather than it being some kind of lingering impact of his experiance in the previous world war it was, in fact, military reality and the limits of what was available to him that forced his hand.
and he still went on with Market Garden... Failure of that operation can be smelled miles away (poor planing, too optimistic expectations and all info from Dutch underground that they got showed its too risky).
@@madkoala2130 I've known Paras who were in Arnehm. They were angry and disappointed that Monty did'nt come and see them after it. A "Bridge too far," for sure. They lost a lot of mates.
@@madkoala2130 'all info from Dutch underground that they got showed its too risky' But all information purportimng to come from the Dutch Underground at that time was disregarded unless it could be corroborated by other sources due to the German 'Englandspiel' penetration of the Dutch Underground during the previous year. MARKET GARDEN was no different to any other matter in this regard.
Also the Poles hate Montgomery. After failure at operation Market Garden Monty chose the Polish general in charge of Polish troops as a scape goat. Even though the Polish troops fought very hard and did a great job on their part, they were faulted by Montgomery. His ego didn't let him take his own fault. As a general? He was great. As a person? Total melt...
I am old enough to have spoken with a number of Poles who served in WW2. Not one ever said that they hated Monty. As far as Market Garden was concerned, their scorn was directed at the Air Plan which was a dismal failure and nothing to do with Monty!
@@nickjung7394 Polish troops were not only fighting in operation Market Garden so they might have fought else where. I am Polish and I know for a fact that Monty did fault the Polish general Stanisław Sosabowski. How would you feel if you fought valiantly but operation failed and all was faulted on you?
Montgomery had no jurisdiction to remove Sosabowski. It wasnt Montgomery who removed Sosabowski. Browning had a personal issue with Sosabowski due to his insubordination and lack of being a team player, plus his age. Browning recommended two younger Poles be chosen to replace Sosabowski. As it turned out, Browning was got rid of before Sosabowski. Browning was a scapegoat. Browning was out of the airborne before Sosabowski was. There is no evidence Montgomery blamed Sosabowski. All Montgomery did was listen to the complaints of others. He didn't personally know Sosabowski.
Bear in mind the British fought alone until 1942 in Africa, Asia and suffered severe losses because of poor leadership. Monty was a good leader with personal traits. US generals were no worse than Monty. Patton was as arrogant as Monty and much more brutal to his own troops hence his suspension and eventual sacking. Monty made do with limited supplies. Slim was a cut above, but that’s a different story
False. The Australians (as well as colonial subjects from India and various African nations) fought in North Africa pre-1942 and millions of Chinese had already died fighting the Japanese by 1942. Many Brits are every bit as blindly jingoistic as they accuse Americans of being.
@@everettmadsen4265 which bit is false? The fought alone or the issue of generalship arrogance? If the former, you are quite right that Britain fought with her empire forces but they were all volunteers, no conscription. Pre 1942 was essentially a European war and not global until Japan attacked Asia outside Manchuria/China
@@paulconnolly5320 The claim that Britain fought alone in Africa and Asia is categorically false. As I said, many troops from colonial subjects and commonwealth nations were fighting alongside the British, and the Chinese too of course. Ignoring the Chinese fighting Japan since 1937 is simply a Eurocentric viewpoint, however you didn't even just do that, you claimed the British were fighting ALONE in Asia prior to 1942 which is a slap in the face to the Chinese. Also, as far as Asia goes, pre-1942 the British really hadn't done all that much in Asia beyond their colonial troops (including Indians, Australians, and Malayans among others) falling quickly to the advancing Japanese in Malaya and their Hong Kong garrison consisting of British, Canadian, and Indian troops surrendering. Basically the same thing was concurrently happening to the US/Filipino troops in the Philippines. So really the British impact in Asia wasn't all that much more than the Americans pre-1942 contrary to your claim, and of course was not even remotely comparable to the Chinese war effort. If anything, the US oil embargo on Japan was far more impactful than any fighting the British did against the Japanese up to that point.
@@everettmadsen4265 Britain funded it regardless of where the people came from. That is the only reason to say it stood alone. It bankrupted us as a consequence. US support pre 1942 was conditional on payments being made with gold. The US collected it from the U.K. rather than risk losing it to UBoats in the Atlantic. Lend lease changed that since the gold ran out. As for the Chinese, yes they were fighting the Japanese but that was a specific intra China conflict and did not spread until 1941.
@@paulconnolly5320 Give me a break. Britain "funded it" with the wealth it plundered from those very colonies. Not to mention Canada and Australia were already independent nations at that point so your statement is inaccurate nevertheless. Even if we grant you the "Britain funded it" argument, you would have to be consistent and apply that logic to the massive amounts of war material the US sent to Britain, USSR, China, etc. before Pearl Harbor. As an American, I certainly do not attribute credit to the US for the British enduring the blitz, the Soviet fight on the eastern front, or China's resistance against Japan just because we sent war materials. You can spin it however you want, the simple fact is that there were massive contributions from 25% of the world's population, only a fraction of which were actually British proper. Britain was anything but alone pre-Pearl Harbor. Also, again to dismiss China's fight against Japan is simply a Eurocentric POV. But you still can't take that stance though since you explicitly claimed that Britain was fighting alone in Asia. Well, the Germans and Italians were not fighting in Asia, so you can only be talking about the Japanese. So how could you dismiss the Chinese fighting and inflicting millions of casualties upon them? This of course also ignores the fact I stated earlier that the British in reality hadn't actually done all that much against Japan up to that point anyways. The most impactful western allied action against Japan prior to Pearl harbor was the US freezing their assets and cutting off oil (and other resource) exports to them in 1941. Losing 80% of its oil supply forced Japan to overextend itself procuring those crucial resources in the East Indies and setting a defensive perimeter in the Pacific islands to protect those supply lines.
My Grandpa was in the British Army and hated Monty! So much in fact, that he forbid my Grandma from naming my uncle after him! To be fair! On the other side of my family, my Dad's uncle, fought in the Pacific and hated MacArthur
At least Gen. MacArthur returned to the Philippines and wanted to throw nukes into Communist forces during the Korean War. That’s already +2 points for MacArthur!
@squint04 'My Grandpa was in the British Army and hated Monty!' My father was in the British Army, and he had no opinion of Montgomery. Probably because never met him.
Having had the honour of shaking Monty’s hand and talking to him for a short time, one to one. Followed by Monty making a speech, he did appear rather awkward in company. Mild Autism? Certainly possible. However he could definitely speak very inspiringly to his men and had learned serious lessons in WW1, which he never forgot!
To be honest if he was autistic that might have been one of the reasons he made a good general. The ability to think creatively is a characteristic of mild autism.
monty was simply a product british military upbrining at the time, a lot off uk famous military officers didnt play well with others and ww2 was the first real and true allied mix of operations and command. Considering it lead to nato it turned out rather well in the end,even if it was a rocky start
Monty was always under constant pressure from Churchill to keep casualties to a minimum after the horrendous slaughters of the first war, where he as a young officer lost half a lung and a third of his stomach to bullet and bayonet wounds. He had to do that and maintain success of the battlefield. The one soldier summed up Patton well, "Our blood, his guts." He cared less about casualties. When Truman became President he looked at all the total casualties of US forces in Europe. He was so appalled at the numbers under Patton that when he went to Europe for the Potsdam Conference he didn't even want to look at him much less meet him. Go look up a lost episode to American history called the "Bonus Army" in 1932 when WW1 veterans went to Washington in hopes of getting an early bonus payment of 500 dollars because the Depression left them destitute. Patton was more than happy under Macarthur's orders to go in with tanks and calvary to drive them out and burn their shacks (the only thing they had left to call "home") to the ground.
facts please: "Patton more than happy", what evidence, quotes? my issue with that washington episode was MacArthur giving the order. Of course it was a travesty, without question
In North Africa, Monty did force Rommel into a retreat, but he only initiated his offensive after he had a 3 to 1 advantage in soldiers and 6 to 1 advantage in Armor. Giving Monty credit for being a battlefield genius, ignores the fact that Rommel had a much weaker force, including over 50% Italian troops, less capable armor and was dealing with a strangled supply line across the Med, especially fuel for his armor. Monty was not a 'superior' General to Rommel or indeed Patton. At Normandy, he said he'd take Caen in 3 days, weeks later, he still hadn't taken it.
@Wraith1959 "he said he'd take Caen in 3 days, weeks later, he still hadn't taken it." Just as Patton said he'd breach Metz in 2 weeks, it took him 3 MONTHS. And the reason Caen wasn't taken early, is because the Germans moved upwards of 8 SS Panzer divisions, 7 infantry divisions and 3 Tiger detachments to hold it. Do you honestly think going up against 600 German Tanks and Waffen SS troops is going to be a walk in the park?
WRONG:::axis troops..116,000 547 tanks 192 armoured cars 770- 900 aircraft 552 artillery pieces 496 - 1,063 anti-tank....common wealth troops...195,000 1,029 tanks 435 armoured cars 730 - 750 aircraft 892 - 908 artillery guns 1,451 anti-tank guns...now do i take your word regarding how Monty did against Rommel or this man.... As Generalfeldmarschall Kesserling noted ‘even a victorious army cannot keep up a pursuit of thousands of miles in one rush; the stronger the army the greater the difficulty of supply. Previous British pursuits had broken down for the same reason.’ and rather admiringly pointed out, ‘the British Eighth Army had marched halfway across North Africa - and over fifteen hundred miles - had spent the bad winter months on the move and in the desert, and had had to surmount difficulties of every kind.’...as for Caen Monty was facing 80% of the enemy armour that kind of slows things up now i could mention St Lo that the US troops were meant to take D DAY +5 but it was early aug before it was, any idea why? as for patton being a better general i think you should look at Metz and task force Baum and after you have tell me the battles patton won.
You act as thought waiting for numerical superiority is a bad thing. Rommel was a good general, and he was soundly beaten by another. Just another Nazi general, after all, certainly no one to idolize.
The British army in North Africa had its moral shot threw Monty needed to rebuild the army in both spirit and hard wears, the force was using outdated equipment and most men had not been rotated out of the theatre. The man took an all but broken force and turned it into an incredibly dangerous force and that numbers advantage came from him not wasting his men on reckless advances but rather beating his adversary at their own game
The feelings of the people you command can be just as damaging to the war effort as making bad decisions. It's not just what you command but how you command that wins wars and Eisenhower tiptowed a fine line on how he delt with Montgomery. Ultimately, I think the takeaway from this video is more of how well Eisenhower commanded than Montgomery.
What I took away from this video was that patton and bradly were a couple of hyper sensitive crybabies. Lets be clear Monty did care about and respect the lowly private, like my dad. It was high ranking officers he treated like crap.
Montgomery wasn't a child was he? He respected the men under his command very much and you're taking away all his successes and careful planning by saying Eisenhower babysat him and showed him what to do
@@niono1587 All of these generals were successful in their own way and I am in no way detracting from their successes. And I'm not saying Eisenhower showed Monty what to do, but he absolutely did have to be the babysitter, for other Generals like Bradley and Patton too because they all acted like children.
Also Montgomery had had a look at a map and realised that if they cut through entirely and crossed the Dutch rivers, they essentially had all the harbours they needed AND would've had the Ruhr. It wasn't a bad setup, just impossible given the conditions. If only the typewriter-general Patton had had a look at a map once or twice in his career.....
@@nvelsen1975 Without USA UK would not have survived until 1944. UK is world fasmous for its aggrandisement of itself and its achievments. Up until El Alamein there was not much to write home about. Even at Waterloo half the army of Wellington was from Hannover and the Netherlands. He would have lost the battle if Blucher and the prussian armyn had not arrived in the 11th hour on Napoleon´s flank.
@@trident6547 Your comment about industry does not relate to my comment about command structures and strategic situations at all. Maybe you meant to reply to someone else?
@@nvelsen1975Patton a "typewriter general"? Assuming that meant he stayed behind a desk, never saw the field, and didn't know operations, that seems an astonishingly erroneous comment. Edit: Don't bother responding, I see that's your standard characterization of Patton and American generals and you use it many times in comments. Clown.
@@trident6547 You don't seriously believe that, do you? Britain was most at risk of losing the war in the early summer of 1940. The outcome of the war was decided by October 1941 when Germany failed to defeat Russia before they ran out of momentum. Britain could have done nothing for the rest of the war and still survived comfortably.
As abrasive, and pig headed as Montgomery was, he had a good track record in North Africa against one of Germany's finest generals (Rommel). He had learned to husband his resources carefully before making an offensive. He was not willing to gamble on a swift win against seasoned German troops. And he Never slapped any of his men.
He won because he couldn't possibly loose.Othe officers won before he even arrived .But the Navy/Air Corp and ULTRA strangle Rommel plus the infusion of American men and materiel condemned any chance The Afrika Korp had
See there are several different versions of Good wood. One where it was a successful diversionary attack, another where it was a pointless assault that cost several divisions worth of armor that would have been important in the following falaise pocket battle. Monty would also prove just as reckless as Paton, in Market Garden.
"The final crisis between Ike and Monty came in late December 1944, during Germany’s offensive in the Ardennes, the Battle of the Bulge. True to form, Montgomery refused to attend Eisenhower’s senior leaders’ emergency meeting at Verdun on December 19, 1944. Tedder, Omar Bradley, Third Army commander George S. Patton, Bedell Smith, and 6th Army Group commander Lt. Gen. Jacob L. Devers were all there. Montgomery sent de Guingand. Eisenhower made the correct decision to place U.S. First and Ninth Armies temporarily under the operational control of Montgomery’s 21st Army Group to fight the German penetration north of the Bulge shoulder. Montgomery, however, became openly very critical of American performance during the battle. The British press echoed the criticisms, suggesting that Montgomery had “saved the bacon” for the Americans, and demanding that Monty be made overall land forces commander for the rest of the war. That was the final straw for Eisenhower. On December 30 Ike decided to tell British prime minister Winston Churchill and the Combined Chiefs of Staff that either he or Montgomery had to go. When de Guingand saw the draft of Eisenhower’s letter, he had no doubt which way the decision would fall. But he persuaded Eisenhower to postpone sending the letter until he could talk to Montgomery. At first, Montgomery refused to accept the seriousness of the situation, believing that there was no other British general who could replace him. He was shocked when de Guingand told him that Eisenhower was prepared to recommend Sir Harold Alexander, now a field marshal, as the replacement. Montgomery finally understood the gravity of his position. He asked de Guingand to draft an abject letter of apology to Eisenhower in an effort to defuse the situation. A very uncharacteristically humble-sounding Montgomery wrote, “Have seen Freddie and understand you are greatly worried by many considerations in these difficult days.” And, “Whatever your decision may be, you can rely upon me one hundred percent to make it work.” He signed the letter, “Your very devoted subordinate, Monty.” It worked. Eisenhower was mollified. But of course, after the war and to the end of his life Montgomery never missed an opportunity to snipe at Ike." - The Man Behind Monty, 8/2023, Historynet article.
Actually Frediie De Guingand intercepted the comunique dismissing Monty and HE ASKED IKE for 24 hrs. The meerkat Monty did some groveling and Freddie drew up the letter and Monty promptly signed it
"The principal objective of that thrust, known as Operation Market Garden, was to force the hand not of Hitler, but of Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower. If the British secured a corridor beyond the Rhine, Ike would be obliged to support a drive from the north led by Montgomery into Germany: the cocky little bishop’s son saw before him the prospect of passing into history as the composer and conductor of Western Allied victory." Botch on the Rhine Max Hastings
These were great commanders and none of them were perfect but I believe Montys experiences of the horrors of the WW1 trenches probably made him as some would say somewhat a little too cautious but I believe he had the best interests of his men and tried his best to see that they didn’t suffer and sacrifice unnecessarily which was a large part of the battles that took place in the First World War.
Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days! Play Call of War for FREE on PC or Mobile: 💥 callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/qxtaf2eg
This video is ridiculous. You paint Montgomery as some misunderstood genius who only rubbed people the wrong way but was always right as you crap all over the American generals as only a Brit would. Ive read Montys book. He is media obsessed. He cares nothing for the ideas of others and actively undermined his superiors, subordinates and peers claiming credit for the work of others time and time again. You claim Bradley wanted the limelight? Are you daft? Thats clearly false and you give no proof of your ascertation whatsoever. Bradley liked the limelight least of all. Montgomery was furious about Patton taking Messina because he wanted the limelight and accolades. He went on and on about it claiming he should have been allowed to take it first. When he went behind Bradleys back about Market Garden he should have been relieved not rewarded. If Ike hadn't been so obsessed with maintaining Churchills good graces he probably would have. Market Garden was stupid and Monty took great pains to ignore and supress any intel that painted the German troops in the region as anything other than old men and kids. There are reems of evidence to that effect. The signs were all there but he wanted the glory of crossing the Rhine first. As to Caen, he sent commonwealth troops to slaughter and ignored his subordinates who begged him to listen to them and allow them to attack the flanks or fix then bypass it to cut off their supplies. Caen didnt need to go down that way. He wanted the glory of taking Caen and couldnt be dissuaded. It didnt take 6 weeks because he was whittling down the Germans. It took 6 weeks because he insisted on idiotic frontal assaults against dug in forces holding superior positions with excellent fields of fire. He only dressed it up as attrition warfare later as if losing tanks and troops in a mindless slugfest was the only way to win. Patton bypassed German troops endangering their flanks which forced them to withdraw and eventually rout. He then destroyed them in good order taking far fewer casualties. Monty objected to Pattons plan. He didnt support it. Had Montgomery done the same he would have made the German positiom untenable and they'd have had to withdraw becoming easier to handle elsewhere where they didnt have positional advantage. Caen was wasteful but he didnt care because they werent British troops. Monty was not some genius commander. He attacked only when he thought he had a massive advantage or when he believed he could make a bigger splash than Patton or Bradley and he politicked behind the backs of his peers and his superiors at every opportunity. You blame others for the fractuous nature of the alliance but he was the biggest cause of these fractures. Patton had Montys number just right, Monty was a snake and a primadonna obsessed with his own image and willing to throw everyone else under the bus if he could make a big splash in the papers.
Patton rushed forward & his troops did war crimes against the local Italian civilians.
Montgomery was not autistic but an Englishmen.
Yanks trying to think like a Limey is like a cats thoughts vs a octopus thoughts.
Montgomery didn't underestimate the USA but knew their nature & tendencies better then they knew themselves.
Typical fashion Montgomery mistook Patton & the USA as soldiers thinking they would follow ''orders'' but that never happens with yanks as they do as please being a Hollywood trope like cowboys or an action man.
Montgomery was not seeking fame like Patton or any USA General inflecting on Britain what they did but Montgomery was carrying out his job & damn appearances or sentiment as that is not the role or position of a man in commissioned service.
Montgomery greatest only mistake was for thinking USA troops were a professional standing army but really they were militia armed with everything under the sun.
Why yanks are as dangerous to themselves as the enemy as friendly fire statistic have shown.
My father to my Great grand father would always say roughly ''any front with Yanks is of more danger then any enemy'' it is like watching a force of nature as if a storm rather then well ordered machine like the Germans.
America's Greatest strength is also it's greatest weakness like a double edged sword for they have no idea what they are doing with no clear orders so the enemy has no idea what the USA is doing.
The USA is very unconventional militarily & no other nation could afford such a method of attack with chaos & supremacy of firepower throwing money at any problem.
I clicked it but i just got a regular install
Cause Monty a Brit used the allies (ANZAC’S) mainly & resources that he had making a plan that would work. By doing this he done what the yanks said couldnt be done he beat the desert fox rommel in the desert where the yanks couldnt get a break
Both Generals O'Connor and Auchinleck won in the Desert with a lot less men and material - monty got thrown out of Europe before. Pay attention school is in session
EVERYTHING was already in place to win in the desert. Montgomery had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any of the actions below. He reaped the benefits of them and others who came before. The the brandy soaked Churchill removed the wrong guy and stuck with a mistake rather than dare admit he made one. *Churchill wrongly removed General Auchinleck who argued that his men had not regrouped and needed reinforcing. Several military analysts accused Churchill of misunderstanding desert warfare tactics, saying he placed too much emphasis on territorial occupation Auchileck/Dorman-Smith stated they needed 6 weeks to refit,reinforce and resupply. Made perfect sense attrition on men and materiel took it's toll. So what does Monty do - took 10 weeks(Aug-13-Oct 23) to advance - much more time than Auchileck and Dorman Smith insisted on and got fired for in the 1st place.*
🔶The Torch Landings - forces included 60,000 troops in Morocco, 15,000 in Tunisia, and 50,000 in Algeria. Claude Auchinleck called over two fresh divisions from the Nile Delta after winning 1st alamein.Both of these troop deployments forced Rommel's hand as now there would be more enemy troops to deal with. And he wasn't getting either reinforced or resupplied
🔶Monty didn't defeat Rommel in Africa. The British Navy did by starving Rommel of resources.
🔶Monty didn't build up the arms/men/tanks/materiel - the allies did -Dorman-Smith had engineers and infantry plant the massive mine field on the Alam Halfa ridge , that Bernard attempted to take credit for.
🔶ULTRA became fully operational in August 1942 after the Germans had changed some wheels/gears on Enigma
🔶The RAF and Royal Navy completely strangled the Afrika Korps supply lines. Sweeping the skies and seas in/over the Mediterranean
🔶Montgomery had 1500 miles and every conceivable advantage - BIG ADVANTAGES in men/materiel/air cover/intelligence/tanks/artillery and still Montgomery never captured Rommel
🔶Mongomery never opened ports or captured Air Strips for them in return this would continue into Sicily and Normandy where Monty's deficiencies would be exposed - Rommel in his memoirs credited complete Air superiority by Conningham's RAF that they could hardly sleep in the heat and battle of the day and could only move at nite
🔶 *Masters and Commanders by Andrew Roberts p.282-83 On 12 September 1942 Churchill had cause to thank Roosevelt telling him the 317 Sherman tanks and 94 self propelled 105 mm guns "which you kindly gave me on that dark Tobruk day in Washington" and arrived safetly in Egypt and been received with the greatest enthusiasm - as these tanks were taken from the hands of the American Army*
A famous yarn about Monty. Eisenhower was having dinner with King George VI, the king asked Ike. "How are you getting on with Monty?" Ike replied "Well.. I think he wants my job." "That's a relief." replied the King. "I thought he wanted mine."
That's a good one!
I knew an australian company commander who reminisced how montgomery insisted 8th Army officers did five mile runs daily in the lead up to Alamein. His judgement was that the time would have been better spent planning than being wasted on basic training carry on.
I should point out that he had fair reason for that judgement, his company took 60% losses attempting to cut the coastal road to draw off the panzer reserve to allow the breakout. The brit armour supporting them turned up late and stayed hull down out of range, their integral AT guns, Mortars and Vickers guns were held up on the minefields, and the battalion's closest support was near a thousand yards away...the only thing that saved them was the germans and italians let them carry out their wounded after the two forward companies were overrun by panzers.
@@Desdichado-vs8ls That I agree with. He really never got out of the trenches of WW1. Coincidentally, one of Rommel's desert staff officers observed that Rommel was still the junior officer who fought and won his fame in italy in WW1. The reality for Rommel was that by british standards, he did show outstanding generalship, but by germam standards he was average, and was propped up in the desert by a staff picked for him specifically to strengthen his weaknesses...Rommel was never selected for general staff training, which is a fair indicator of his professional standing. He was lucky he was a hitler favourite, which makes the british hero worship of him rather tasteless.
The brits have always shied away from confronting the issue of Rommel's and DAK's support for the einsatzgruppe operating in their rear area.
That’s awesome hahaha
@@yyy-875 Lol you’re probably right about that.
Being able to handle generals with such great egos makes me think that perhaps Eisenhower was America's greatest gift to the European theater in WW II.
Criminally underrated comment.
Him knowing when and how to use Monty, Patton, and Bradley, among many others with fewer stars, is why I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with you.
Yeah especially since he never had frontline action some wouldn't respect him as much. I believe he was mainly a logistician so some would question if he knew what he was doing. He didn't just have to deal with certain generals egos, but the competition between American and British generals. Look at the invasion of Sicily, the race between patton and Montgomery.
Eisenhower is sometimes derided for not being a battlefield general, and there is some limited justice in saying so.
But Eisenhower did so incredibly well in the political aspects of being a general, that for that specific aspect of being a general, he is probably the best in the history of the world.
That's why he went from a Colonel to General of the Army in three years. Patton outranked Eisenhower at the beginning of the war. General Marshall (then Chief of Staff of the United States Army) had worked with Eisenhower in the past and knew him to be a diplomatic man and excellent judge of character. When the time came for an American General to work alongside and coordinate with allies, Marshall knew who to send.
General Marshall is criminally underrated in history, in my humble opinion.
In 1945 Churchill said of him: “Indomitable in retreat, invincible in advance, insufferable in victory.”
lol, that about sums him up.
I give everyone an even shake, but 40 years of reading WWII history books has led me to one conclusion: Monty was an overrated stooge propped up for PR purposes.
@@andrewdavid5928 Well its an opinion I suppose. Shame you wasted 40 years, but that's life.
@@onastick2411 Brits have always been an inbred lot of crown kissers and knee benders.
@onastick2411
A marginally competent, narcissistic prima donna. Whose lack of action and failures, probably prolonged the war by at least six months.
In the end, no better than De Gaulle.
Bradley: I'm resigning.
Eisenhower: Good luck getting home.
If you put MacArthur, Montgomery, and Patton in a room together, their collective egos could probably bring down the entire building
There's a story that Truman was in a conversation and Wake Island came up, which was where he had a meeting with MacArthur.
Truman's comment was "Ah, Wake Island. That's where I met God."
Quite similar to the anecdote about Monty, Churchill and King George.
A little known fact is that MacArthur was actually forbidden from travelling on board any vessel smaller than a battleship. This is due to the fact that the overwhelming weight of his ego would cause any smaller ship to begin to sink.
To my knowledge Patton and MacArthur got on very well if I’m remembering correctly they were in the same class at West Point and worked directly with each other in WWI
Some guy on Drachinifel's video on Admiral King joked about putting Monty, MacArthur, Beatty, Patton and King together in a lfe raft and you're stuck with them. For the sake of the scene, everyone has the same rank : Flag Officer.
One replied they'd rather their chance in the water because too many egos.
Another joked about shooting being on the table. Beatty and MacArthur end up with two bullets each, Patton and Monty one, and you'd en up with a slighty less angry King.
Then a third added LeMay and Halsey into the mix...
Which prompted a fourth to say that Halsey would somehow find a way to sail them into a typhoon.
@@spirz4557 Imagine a round table with MacArthur, Montgomery, Patton, De Gaulle, and Mark Clark.
I feel bad for Eisenhower after watching this, its like he was herding cats the whole time.
That was exactly his job .. Supreme allied commander .. not American.. or anyone else.. Allied. I don't thinking anyone else could have done it half as well. He had to fight a war against the enemy and a battle against his commanders. He succeeded. uh-rah, I don't pity him.. but i couldnt do it. Credit where it's due eh ?
A curious analogy to use, as Eisenhower was well known as a cat-hater. He even had his groundskeepers kill them if they found them on his property.
(I suspect it's because he knew cats were connected to the alien greys! LOL)
He had the rare skill of being able to get along with basically everybody and get them to work on a single project. People like Monty and Patton couldn't even agree on the time of day or the weather, so getting them to even vaguely work together when fighting the Germans was a miracle.
Imagine: Ducttape hadn't been invented yet, and Eisenhower had the mouths of both the moronic Patton and Montgomery to contend with.
Actually, duck tape had been created in the 1930s. That said, Ike would have needed a case or two of it every month.
I'm an American. It seems to me that Monty understood that while the Germans needed to win the war they had started, he only had to not lose it. He would attack a weakness that he saw, but otherwise he would prepare for the inevitable attack and how best to counterattack. Meanwhile, Patton was of the school that the judicious application of constant maximum aggression was the quickest way to victory. Neither was necessarily wrong, but seen this way, it is easy to understand their dislike of one another.
Underrated comment
@@TheIntelReport Truly. However, I think that doctrine was flawed. The way to win is to.... if I might quote Heinlein...
"We are the boys who will go to a particular place, at H-hour, occupy a designated terrain, stand on it, dig the enemy out of their holes, force them then and there to surrender or die. We're the bloody infantry, the doughboy, the duck foot, the foot soldier who goes where the enemy is and takes them on in person. We've been doing it, with changes in weapons but very little change in our trade, at least since the time five thousand years ago when the foot sloggers of Sargon the Great forced the Sumerians to cry Uncle."
That's how you win wars. You Go to where they are and make them cry uncle.
With the huge resources available Patton in men and armour he could afford to make assaults that were costly in men and materials, Monty however used the limited resources he had as efficiently and effectively as possible, just a clash of personalities that's all.
Monty was irrevocably shaped by his experiences in WWI which demonstrated to him that the only way forward was a detailed, coordinated and meticulous combined arms effort. Patton saw much less than a year of combat in WW1 - much of this during the 100 days which led him to believe in aggression and the attack to keep the enemy off balance and to work inside their OODA loop. I'd personally say that their approaches were irrevocably shaped by this difference of experience and that each has their strengths and weaknesses.
However I would posit that seen 80 years later, in the context of the Ukraine/Russian war which is the closest analogue to WW1&2 since those wars, I'd say that Montgomery was the more correct of the two.
Comparing Montgomery, a man over armies, with an average US general who never did much is ludicrous.
My WWII vet grandfather told me when I was a kid that Patton was a self aggrandizing prick. He said Monty was a condescending self aggrandizing prick. It drove me into a summer of reading that turned me in a history buff for life.
so your grandpa met them both..what a lucky man
@@johndawes9337
Meeting both would mean you were in the centre of war. Lucky would be meeting neither and being nowhere near war.
Monty was only condescending to incompetent officers. He got on well with competent officers, “Lightning Joe” Collins for a start.
Thing was, there were an awful number of incompetent officers.
if that was true bernard would have been removed for yelling at himself. He should have been removed as he was the least essential, a positive impediment and a malevolent drag on American operations. Couldn't cross his crummy little channel until riding the GIs coattails. The Poor tommies deserved better
so monty looked down on himself then? When the odds were even Gerry drove brooke and Bernard into the the channel.That they didn't cross for 4 FULL YEARS - thanx to the GIs. If he was a Patton or Zhukov he wouldn't have RUNAWAY into the desert. Cross the channel and ask the Euros - they saw it
On the plus side, there was less infighting between the US and British Commanders then the Japanese Army and Japanese Navy Commanders.
less assassinations lel
Indeed. Compared to the Imperial infighting, the allied commanders were practically bosom buddies. I’d no idea till this year how phenomenally bad the cooperation between the Japanese Navy and Army was
@@baahcusegamer4530Gotta love having an Army make Aircraft Carriers because the Navy doesn’t want to support you.
Even Hitlers relationship with his army was better than that of the Japanese army and Navy.
There was less fighting between US and British commanders in the American Revolution than between the IJN and IJA commanders during WW2
My father was a career U.S. Army officer. He served during WWII. He said of Montgomery that he would not move his army until he had every single gallon of gas and every tent stake he wanted.
your dad speaks out of his arse then
He was a master of the set-piece battle.
@@haroldflashman4687 he did very well on the move as well as this gentleman points out,,,,,As Generalfeldmarschall Kesserling noted
‘even a victorious army cannot keep up a pursuit of thousands of miles in one rush; the stronger the army the greater the difficulty of supply. Previous British pursuits had broken down for the same reason.’
and rather admiringly pointed out,
‘the British Eighth Army had marched halfway across North Africa - and over fifteen hundred miles - had spent the bad winter months on the move and in the desert, and had had to surmount difficulties of every kind.’
@@johndawes9337 In Africa, after El Alamein (which was a set piece battle) the German Army was too broken and defeated to offer much resistance, so it was no great accomplishment to keep moving against it. They were unable to offer coherent resistance.
@@haroldflashman4687 no great accomplishment to chase a enemy over 1500 miles in 19 days against the weather and 7 battles on the way..go jump in the lake you sad fool next you will be saying patton was a great general.
In his personal diary, Chief of the Imperial Staff, General Sir Alan Brooke, wrote of Montgomery, “ he is liable to commit untold errors in lack of tact" and "I had to haul him over the coals for his usual lack of tact and egotistical outlook which prevented him from appreciating other people's feelings. “
people were dying and yankee top brass were worried about their feelings of the generals
Brooke should have enforced military discipline on Monty, but he failed to do so.
Sounds like pandering to woke Americans being and wanting tonkeep them happy with a participation medal to me
@@johnfleet235
Better yet, put Montgomery and Patton in a room, lock the door, let them eat eachother. Saves the allies one badly incompetent typewriter general who hated his own troops (Patton) and one decently-competent general who was a liability because of his interactions with other commanders.
@@nvelsen1975😂🤦
You should read more.
Ike also had to deal with another very large personally, Charles de Gaulle. 0:05
To a much lesser extent.
Montgomery stands out more because he was more prominent.
I'd argue de Gaulle was "worse" but de Gaulle was comparably inconsequential while behaving as if he were equal to the likes of Eisenhower. And continued to be obnoxious after the war...
yea! huge ego with zero army!
You should do a video about in my opinion the best British commander of the WW2 Bill Slim. He waged war against the Japanese with a shoe string budget and an Army composed of different ethnicities and religions which was a nightmare for the quartermasters. He did with much support from Whitehall since it was regarded as backwater. Despite all the handicaps he was victorious over the Japanese army in India and Burma.
Excellent suggestion. I have heard good things about his service but know next to nothing about him.
And he took troops that had been badly whipped by the Japanese and turned them into winners.
It's all opinion who was the best. Different theatres, different enemies.
There is no question, however, that Montgomery was the most successful. He took more ground through more countries winning more battles while facing more quality enemy units than any other.
Even many of the British resented him for taking all of the credit for Al-Alemaine, when in fact the Royal Air Force played a key role, without which victory would not have been possible. He didn't even mention them.
Moreover, the Americans were not the only ones that resented his high handedness. If you think Patton resented him, he ignited incandescent rage in General DeGaulle, for whom Monty had little regard and didn't have enough sense to even pretend to respect him. It led to chilly relations between DeGaulle and Britain's chilly relations, and contributed to the French decision not to integrate their forces directly into NATO after the war.
@@jacqueslefave4296
1. Who told you Montgomery never mentioned the Royal Air Force?
2. Who cares about DeGaulle? Even Eisenhower couldn't stand DeGaulle.
Interesting presentation. Two comments. When I think about Monty, I cannot help but remember Winston Churchill's statement on Monty - "In defeat, unbeatable; in success, unbearable." Second, according to Cook (a very well-known Canadian historian who specializes on Canadian military history in 20th century), the major Canadian generals also could not stand Monty. The reason - he wanted to replace the Canadian commanding officers with his own British picks. He did not seem to understand that Canada at this time was no longer a British colony but a country and a major contributor to the efforts of the Allies. As for myself, after extensive reading, I am not a fan of Monty.
Then I would suggest that you might not like some of the American Senior Officers, albeit for different reasons. At least Monty was an excellent planner (well, his staff were) and took great care to ensure he was properly prepared. This kept casualties to acceptable limits. Patton on the other hand...
@@csjrogerson2377 This is perhaps Monty's biggest failure .... the cautious advances to hold casualties to "acceptable limits", while Patton aggressively advanced. If there were some metric for measuring cost/benefit ... casualty per square mile taken or Allied casualty sustained vs. German casualty inflicted or something like that, I think you'd find that Patton was a far more successful battlefield general.
@@MrTexasDan While Patton was a good tank commander you cannot compare them.
Between Monty and Patton...
Monty commanded more men, was concerned with bigger issues, and achieved greater successes. Normandy was Monty's success, and the Allied armies attained the areas that Monty had made as objectives for the campaign 3 days sooner than had originally been intended.
Patton, by contrast, never commanded anything more than an army and was much more of a tactical commander than a strategist. His greatest success is the rush from Normandy to Metz and the 90 degree wheel in the Bulge... but the former was against a German army that had already been beaten by the slogging match in the Normandy campaign and the latter was against the flank of a German attack that was beginning to run out of fuel and manpower. At Metz, where Patton faced a dug in and determined enemy... Patton was stopped dead by French and German made fortifications, some of which going all the way back to the 1800s.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-Sure you can compare Monty with Patton because they are not the same level of IQ. Unfortunate to the Allies, they didn't put the battle general Patton as the supercommand but a political general. As for Monty he was Britain could offer at that time but complete incompetent since 1943.
@@xchen3079 No, you logically can't. One was an Army Group Commander the other was a 4 star general. Completely different levels. If you are going to compare it should be Bradley and Devers who were also on Montgomerys level as Army Group commanders.
To be fair the Canadians hated him too. Because he wanted the resources for Market Garden the Canadians had to take a pause. This meant they got to invade Belgium after the Germans had a chance to fortify it for a month and meant they got to push on into the Netherlands in the middle of winter.
Taking the Scheldt was utterly vital and Monty should've been sacked for prioritizing Market Garden over it. The Royal Navy straight up told him this.
It was 1 bridge too far. Almost successful.
As a Canadian?
It depends.
I have numerous relatives who fought under Monty, (one great grandpa fought under him from north Africa and ended in Italy. The other from Italy to France and into the Netherlands.) Many of them loved him because he made an effort to care about them and not throw their lives away.
Montgomery was a person. A complicated and imperfect person. He had successes and his failures, just as every other commander. I personally like him and respect him, as he's (in a weird way) is the reason I exist today. But I understand why people don't like him.
EXCUSE ME???? My dad was in the 1st Canadian parachute battalion. Him and his war buddies idolized monty.
Monty got 1100 airman and Paras - killed in one day crossing the Rhine - that was his bullshit excuse for not moving and showing the fact he really didn't have a clue. Monty cared so much at market garden that HE DIDN'T SHOW UP!!! 34,400 men go in 17,000 come out more monty fanboi baloney. Monty isn't the reason thousands of Tommies,Canucks and GIs are the reason
I always loved the episode where Eisenhower says, "You can't talk to me like that, I'm your boss", but in a calm voice, as if reminding him what day of the week it was. Generals become great by knowing which war they are fighting. Eisenhower knew which war he was fighting.
That line just makes me respect Eisenhower so much. I don't believe he would have said anything like that to Pattern. Just Monty as he knew Monty didn't understand social ques, fantastic diplomat wearing generals stars. As someone who has dealt with people who are on the spectrum it's the best way to deal with them, don't yell just politely tell them to stop and they do so.
Pore ol’ Kikenhower “The Terrible Swedish Jew”
Just a shame Eisenhower too Montgomery's job of C-in-C of all ground forces in September 1944 and then prolonged the war with his broad front strategy and decided to waste massive amounts of men and material in secondary campaigns such as the Hurtgen Forest, Lorraine and Alsace instead of concentrating his armies in the north.
The amusement continues lyndon monty had 4 yrs to cross a channel as the GIs came 3500 miles to prop up the ankle biter, you people kept talking about Metz. WOW. An operation the British simply could not have undertook. Let alone complete. You lumps would have been carved up like the Christmas goose only he had more brains
The tainted waif Bernard not showing up at all for his Monty Garden debacle that everyone else fought at. Then sending an armored column down one elevated road with no room for maneuver surrounded by marsh and drainage ditches. Even the Dutch advisors and underground warned the ass. But he was probably back at the caravan safe/sound and giving you THE FULL MONTY.
And the British sent no help to that battle like the two US AB Divisions sent to help Monty - Plus all of the hardware and fuel. But they probably couldn't as he got them eviscerated just like CAEN Plus all of the hardware and fuel
*Do the math not the meth The Lorraine campaign lasted from 1 September to 16 December 1944 - 6,657 were killed over 3 months and they took 75,000 German PoWs, compare that with 17,000 casualties at Market Garden in just 9 days (which was more than the invasion of Normandy) including nearly 2,000 Brits and Poles killed before taking the American killed into account. Market Garden had nearly 3 times the casualties per day*
Op Queen and the Hurtgen Forest battles (of which Queen was part) were costly failures, also, but the same argument applies - the period was far longer and the average losses less together with much higher Axis casualties and PoWs and they do not turn Market Garden into a success.
Monty and Market Garden were failures.
@@lyndoncmp5751 To be fair, we say that with hindsight. Looking at the information Eisenhower in the moment he just didn't know the state of German forces like we do now, that show the Narrow Front strategy would've been much more effective. Not to mention Eisenhower also had to appease de Gaulle and other parts of politics, which the Broad Front did.
In short? Yes the Narrow Front was the better proposition in hindsight. But we have to stress the "in hindsight" part. Ike made a fair choice with the information he had, in the situation he was in.
I believe that "Here Montgomery displayed the characteristics that made him.... an insufferable person to work with," pretty much sums it up.
Churchill said of Monty "wonderful to serve under.....impossible to command" or something like that!
Today monty would be on the autistic scale..hence his faux pars
but knew his job
Most people under his command greatly liked and appreciated him. He really only rubbed up those on his level or above him.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Best sort of commander. imho
"For Monty, this was a rare moment of self-reflection. 'So great were the feelings against me on the part of the American generals that whatever I said was bound to be wrong. I should therefore have said nothing.' "
I don't believe this is self-reflection. I think this is Monty thinking that he said nothing wrong, at the press conference, and that it was just the Americans hating him. Not realizing that they were angry at him for minimizing their effort in stopping the German offensive and basically telling the press that is was him, British (and maybe Canadian, not sure what was actually said in the press conference), and US forces that stopped the Germans when it was mostly US infantry doing the fighting.
Indeed. Presenting that quote in that manner as well as accepting Monty’s self-serving explanation of his failure to capture Caen or make Goodwood work makes me wonder if there is a Monty brand Kool-Aid that Intel Report’s been drinking.
This is likely as close to apologies as Monty got and likewise with self reflection.
I don't even think the Intel Report has been sippin' on the Monty juice. He was simply at his best overcoming finite circumstances as a group or division commander where his ever-rational operational approach eventually awarded him victory as he flexibly adapted to the circumstances in front of him. It is as a theatre commander leading grand strategy that his greatest weaknesses (unrestrained self-aggrandizement, inability to compromise and absolute commitment to his own correctness) are exposed and it greatly degrades his effectiveness as a military commander.
@@blue-pi2kt Army Commander was where he was best. Monty could not work well with allies. Ultimately, Eisenhower was superb as a Theater Commander.
I am not justifying Monty here just adding a comment..... but the British feel at the time is that America was very late to the war and seemed to think it was winning it single handily. meanwhile the Brits had been at it for 3 years.
Yep, that's a perfect example of the standard _I'm sorry you were offended_ non-apology apology that only a complete dullard would accept.
Most of the senior staff of all the armies were somewhat self centered and unlikable.
I think it's more than all the dislikable ones were self-aggrandizing, and therefore seem to be a majority when they aren't really.
We’re talking about posh Brit’s here.. Special category.
Truscott wasn't bad. Teddy Roosevelt, Jr. WON AND EARNED an MOH. Alan Simpson was simply superb. MacArthur should have let Eichelberger go European, or Marshall should have overriden him.
In short, there were ways to improve things.
Still are
@@scottjoseph9578Reaching the top of the armed services is exclusively reserved for two kinds of men, the sociopathically competitive and the pathetically obsequious.
British officer Derek Mills-Roberts beat the surrendered German Field-Marshal Milch's head in when he learned about the extent of atrocities being carried out.
He reported to Montgomery to face a reprimand for his conduct, and when entering the office, Monty jokingly raised his hands over his head and said "I heard you have a thing about Field Marshals"
Real act of courage on Derek Mills-Roberts part.
Looks like Mills-Roberts blew his chance with "Ole Monty" It could have shorten the war if he didn't
@@DMC_Oorah im gonna be honest it probably would’ve prolonged it monty is really just a bog standard general nothing exemplary but nothing so atrocious
When you deal with any group project, you have to be careful taking more credit than you're owed. I think that's the chief lesson learned from the scrap between Monty and his American counter-parts
When serving in the RAMC I had the privilege of meeting Field Marshall Montgomery on several occasions in his own home. He wasn’t in good health and needed home care. I spent hours sat next to him whilst he spoke of his experiences. For me it was an honour to be in his company and I will never forget the experience
I would have loved to have met him!
If I was in his command I would have gone AWOl.
@@dennishoffman1218it's a good job you never served then.
@@dennishoffman1218 yup an uppity little nothing that only prolonged the war because IKE out of favor to Churchill gave him a long leash.But Churchill in his memoirs admitted this mistake that he regretted
@@dennishoffman1218 You would of gone AWOL regardless.
If we are honest, Monty and Patton were both really difficult egotistical glory-grabbers & nightmares to control, but as Churchill famously said: "Nice men do NOT win wars..."
And then there was MacArthur...
@@origamiscienceguy6658 Oh yes, another difficult, brutal character, - I forgot him!
And then there was Markus Aurelius Clarkus. 😂
Patton didn’t fuck over the war effort or lead men into massacres though. You can be an asshole if you’re successful
@@origamiscienceguy6658 I mean... At least he was more effective than any of the others, despite him being such a bastard.
British Generals had served on the Western front and Mesopotamia in the First World War and saw horrendous casualties. The US Army fought for less than twelve months 17-18 and missed the attrition.
This made British Generals in Second World War a lot more conscious of casualties. They would rather rely on artillery than wasting manpower.
After reading Rick Atkinson's work, it seems better to ask why Monty hated the Americans so much.
For goodness sakes. It doesn't matter who hated who. We were allies fighting an enemy who every day was killing more and more men, women, and children in those gas chambers. They were stopped and that's what matters.
@@CMAzeriahit’s a discussion worth having. Nobody is downplaying the United struggle against fascism.
@@CMAzeriahyet Monty still made it a dick measuring contest😊
Turning up 2.5 years late probably didn't help
@@williamchamberlain2263 ha y’all couldn’t hold out for that long with out American support
An American officer was a guest a British Army mess, offered a pre-dinner drink, he requested a martini. The barman asked what kind and the American looked confused. The barman explained: Wet, 4 parts gin to one part vermouth, Dry, 8 to 1, very dry, 12 to 1 and a Montgomery, 15 to 1 and demanding more gin.
Not really...
Sorry, don't get it.
Monty always wanted more men and supplies. Hence the 15 and more @@lyndoncmp5751
😂 good one
Strange joke seeing Montgomery was a famous tea-totaller. They had a body double for him as part of the disinformation campaign leading upto Overlord but had to stop using him because he got publicly drunk and blew his own cover.
Eisenhower had the patience of a Saint.
Yes he put up with Bradley's stupidity at the Bulge.
It's hard to lead leaders. That skill is truly rare. Oppenheimer had it, early Reagan, Bush 1, Obama, but Trump tried to turn all his leaders into followers which leaves you with a staff that is either disgruntled or lackeys.
@@brokenrecord3523 Foreigners don't have opinions about the US. You know that.
He had to put up with the american generals.. going after big cities for popularity rather than following commands.
"Ike was the best damn office clerk I ever had...." -- Gen. McArthur
Yes even as a child he was rude. My mother was a Montgomery and met him once at a family gathering when she was a little girl. She remembered him as extremely rude.
But that makes you a Montgomery too, by blood!
@@robertmaybeth3434 yep, a McGregor, a Stirling, a Wotherspoon and quite a few others I suspect..... aren't we all related far enough back? 😜
Monty was of the opinion that he was of a superior race,The Normans,and could trace his lineage back to before the 1066 Conquest.
reading this is like that one gif from ratitouille
god, imagine Patton and Monty in the same room.
the gravity of their egos combined might rival that of a black hole
It had to have happened occasionally.
It wouldn't surprise me that there were always several men on standby to disarm and subdue them in the case they started shooting at each other.
they were good pals do not believe all the hollywood bs
If hate could be used as fuel, a locked room with the bullheaded idiot Patton and marshall Montgomery in it could've fueled the entire allied war effort. 😉
It's interesting that Monty was so disliked by his equals, as there's stories that he was well liked by his juniors. There's one particular story which may be apocryphal but still illustrates the point: Monty was discussing discipline in the ranks with a very straight-laced general and Monty was pointing out how there's more to discipline than just obeying "form and presentation".
Monty stated that one time, a private had come running across the battleground toward him, yelling out, "Duck, Monty! Duck!"
The very prim and proper general responded: "Good Heavens! You court-martialled him, I suppose?"
Monty replied, dryly: "No. I ducked. And the shell missed me."
He liked the juniors alright read THE FULL MONTY
He was disliked by his equals because he could never treat them like equals. These were all educated and motivated men, brought together to do something historic, and all too often Monty undermined it by his insistence that his contributions/ideas/results were de facto the best and nothing anyone else had to say really mattered. He was more than happy to accept and promote the work of others up until it looked like they wanted to step on that last step along with him, or surpass him.
He was an unhinged halwit and if the war went on any longer IKE would have had him removed
My father was British SAS, close to Monty…we had a pair of his leather gloves. He was respected and loved by his men.
I'm sure all of that is true - of course it is. Britain had much better Generals - MUCH.The twisted tart shat on any body he thought would get praise besides him
Three distinguished British officers who fought in Holland that winter and later became army commanders believed that the Allied cause could have profited immeasurably from giving a more important role to Patton.
- *Lieutenant Edwin Bramall* said: “I wonder if it would have taken so long if Patton or Rommel had been commanding.”*
- *Captain David Fraser* believed that the northern axis of advance was always hopeless, because the terrain made progress so difficult. He suggests: “We might have won in 1944 if Eisenhower had reinforced Patton. Patton was a real doer. There were bigger hills further south, but fewer rivers.”
- *Brigadier Michael Carver* argued that Montgomery’s single thrust could never have worked: “Patton’s army should have been leading the U.S. 12th Army Group.”
Such speculations can never be tested, but it seems noteworthy that two British officers who later became field-marshals and another who became a senior general believed afterwards that the American front against Germany in the winter of 1944 offered far greater possibilities than that of the British in Holland, for which Montgomery continued to cherish such hopes.
*Freddie de Guingand, Montgomery’s Chief of Staff* confided to Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay on 28 November (according to the admiral’s diary) that he was “rather depressed at the state of the war in the west . . . the SHAEF plan had achieved nothing beyond killing and capturing a some Germans, and that we were no nearer to knocking out Germany.” *Between the beginning of November and mid-December 1944, British Second Army advanced just ten miles.*
*Arnhem,Jumping the Rhine in 1944 and 1945. By Lloyd Clark, page 333 Tom Hoare* who fought with the 3rd Para at Arnhem may be said to reflect a commonly held perception of OMG, (or Field Marshall Montgomery’s fiasco,as he calls it) when he writes: *'It is my opinion that Monty was a great soldier, but he had a even greater ego. When victory was in sight for the Allies, he degenerated into nothing more than a glory seeker. With little regard for the welfare or indeed the lives of his men of the British 1st Airborne Division, he threw the division away in an insane attempt to go down in history as the greatest military leader of the Second World War.’*
*Armageddon - The Battle for Germany,1944-45 by Max Hastings,page 50 Jack Reynolds and his unit,the South Staffords* were locked into the long,messy,bloody battle.There was no continuous front,no coherent plan,merely a series of uncoordinated collisions between rival forces in woods,fields,gardens and streets. *That is when it got home to me.What a very bad operation this was The scale dropped from my eyes when I realized just how far from our objective we've landed*
*As Bob Peatling of the 2 Para said "Marshall Montgomery dropped a clanger at Arnhem"*
Léo Major: The "One-Eyed Ghost" Who Single-Handedly Liberated a Dutch Town
"He had made an awful mistake. I didn't like him at all." Leo Major, the most decorated Canadian soldier of WWII
Losing an eye soon after D-Day, Major refused repatriation. He only needed one eye, he said, to aim his rifle. During the Battle of the Scheldt in occupied Holland, he was recommended for a DCM for a solo recon mission, from which he returned with 93 German prisoners.
*Major refused it because the medal would be awarded by Field Marshal Montgomery, whom he despised His reason was simple: Arnhem.* Major felt Monty’s ill-fated airborne assault stopped Allied forces attacking on a broad front, delaying the liberation of Holland. Major believed Monty to be responsible for the deaths of some 20,000 Dutch citizens during 1944’s “hunger winter”. To quote Major exactly, “He had made an awful mistake. I didn’t like him at all.” Strong words, especially regarding a military megastar like Monty. This might also explain Major never being promoted above Corporal.
Would have been interesting to lock Monty, Patton and Charles De Gualle in a small room and watch the fireworks erupt. :)
Monty would go down first. Patton is the human equivalent of a rabid dog and De Gaulle has the benefit of long arms.
Throw in MacArthur and we have a battle royale.
@@Samm815 nice! I completely forgot about good ole Doug. The room would probably explode from the pressures of the competing egos.
Yep, Patton was a warrior first and a soldier second. That's a man who just likes killin'
Don't forget to add Mark Clark and Macathur.
People don't realize it's not so easy to switch off the thing that makes you an incredible battlefield commander. You are ALWAYS that person.
What incredible battles did he win? I mean where he didn't have overwhelming material superiority. He 1) let Rommel escape halfway across Africa after El Alamein without making a serious effort to stop him; 2) Took 2 months to get out of the Normandy bridgehead, and only managed it then because the Americans broke through on his right and the Germans collapsed; and 3) Was the "mastermind" behind Operation Market Garden, the biggest (and only) disaster the Allies had in 1944. All while being completely full of himself. He doesn't even rank in the top 100 WWII generals imho.
@@scotty6glove who the fuck asked you derp
@@scotty6glove He planned Operation Overlord oh and Market Garden was no where near as bad as the Hurtgen forest and lorraine campaigns
@@richardthelionheart6924 "He planned Operation Overlord." lol you make it sound like he did it all himself, sitting at a desk with a map and a crayon. As for MG, HF, and LC, you're comparing things that took place over vastly different time frames. Per day of fighting, MG was easily the most costly in terms of Allied casaulties.
He was a lousy battlefield commander.
Read a book by Corelli Barnett, called "The Desert Generals". The book, includes an update with the Ultra information and further analysis.
He didn't know how use his armour at Alemain, and as a result, had a major failure to clear the mines during the battle, that almost caused the attack to fail. He also didn't complete the successes, and didn't capture Rommel after the breakthrough. As a result, he had to fight Rommel all the way to Tunisia.
Looking at this from a European perspective, I grow ever more appreciative of having a man such as Dwight Eisenhower in command. I also agree with the sentiment that Montgomery may actually have been on the spectrum. It would explain his lack of tact and certain parts of his personality.
Without Eisenhower we’d have probably lost the war in the west.
@@knightblade0188 Thankfully Marshal was a good judge of character and ability and FDR backed him. It was the US part of the Supreme allied command that finally insisted on invading France in 44 instead of letting Churchill talk them into invading Greece.
@@PeteOtton sadly many British hate Eisenhower and still try to discredit him.
@@PeteOtton The US part of the SAC also insisted on invading France in 1941 with Ike and Monty having to convince them that it would be suicide.
@@knightblade0188 I've never met a single Brit with anything bad to say about Ike.
I'd read somewhere that he was possibly on the Spectrum too, and honestly with him being utterly clueless on social clues etc that does sound like he might have been somewhat autistic or have aspergers, of course it wouldn't have been recognised as such at the time. I recall reading that him being criticized for being 'timid' was due to his preference for bite and hold advances and rotating armoured forces off the line to rest, recover and repair once their job was done, which was in stark contrast to the US doctrine and their staff college training preference for sweeping advances and thrusts with armoured forces. Also in his defence, Monty wasn't willing to spend the lives of his men needlessly, and he knew the UK by 44 was reaching the end of its strategic rope in terms of manpower and money. A decent General but a bloody nightmare to work with.
Believable since he once went for a walk on the beach on a date and then ended up spending the whole time drawing military diagrams in the sand of how he would have fought past battles differently...
That's interesting. My grandad told me he bridged the Rhine under Montgomery's force (he was a sapper in the Royal Engineers) on their way to Berlin, where he was stationed by the end of the war. He told me this in around 1994/5 however and it was 50 years after the event, so likely his memory was failing him a bit. In any event, he had a dog called 'Monty' on account of Montgomery telling grandad what to do for several years and now it was grandad's turn to tell him what to do.
LOL... OFFICIALLY, Montgomery's forces did cross the Rhine first. Patton actually crossed the night before in order to take advantage of the cover of night, and was happy to have the OFFICIAL crossing as his misdirection-play. The Germans knew Montgomery was coming. How could they not with all the bridging equipment and troop build-up? I always thought that was a brilliant move on Patton's part.
@@ericlarson6390
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludendorff_Bridge#
They did. It's an overlooked battle. I only now know the name of the parachute attack, Varsity.
It was even bigger than Market from Market Garden.
@@ericlarson6390
But Stupot 2030 has not claimed that Montgomery's forces did cross the Rhine first.
@@nickdanger3802
CRUSADE IN EUROPE
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
WILLIAM HEINEMANN LIMITED 1948
CHAPTER 22.
P423
‘Montgomery was always the master in the methodical preparation of forces for a formal, set piece attack. In this case he made the most meticulous preparations because we knew that along the front just north of the Ruhr the enemy had his best remaining troops including portions of the First Paratroop Army.’
P427
‘The March 24 operation sealed the fate of Germany. Already, of course, we had secured two bridgeheads farther to the south. But in each of these cases surprise and good fortune had favoured us. The northern operation was made in the teeth of the greatest resistance the enemy could provide anywhere along the long river. Moreover, it was launched directly on the edge of the Ruhr and the successful landing on the eastern bank placed strong forces in position to deny the enemy use of significant portions of that great industrial area.
IKE & MONTY: GENERALS AT WAR
NORMAN GELB 1994
CONSTABLE AND COMPANY LIMITED 1994
CHAPTER 21.
P406:
‘Montgomery wouldn’t hear of it. An early crossing did not fit the plan he had been devising with great thoroughness to meet all contingencies. The resourceful Germans had shown in the Ardennes that they were capable of the unexpected. Bradley, Patton and Hodges might have been willing to gamble and Montgomery was pleased that they had succeeded. But he was not interested in easy victories that might be of limited significance, and he did not believe they fully understood the risks they had taken or the extent of the far greater achievement he was aiming for. Risk-taking was for amateurs. The results of the first day of his massive Rhine-crossing operation demonstrated the value of doing things right - six divisions were firmly across the river at a cost of only 1,200 casualties’
Had a friend who immigrated to the US from the UK, he has since passed away, but he followed the footsteps of his dad and joined First Paras. His dad stayed in outfit after the war, and had a small part in the movie "The Red Berets." He had been among those left stranded on bridge at Arnhem and spent the last few months of the war as a POW. According my friend his dad and others in his outfit weren't terribly fond of Monty either...
It wasn't just the Americans, it was everyone who had to deal with him personally. The best description I've heard of him came from a British officer. To put it in American terms, if he was on a football team and didn't get to be the quarterback and call the plays, he would mess up on purpose.
Wow. That's saying a lot.
quite simple. British and French rest on their laurels cause they only needed to occupy weak countries while Germany and Japan developed their armies and navy with intent on attacking other empires. both used world war 1 tactics still against German blitzkrieg.
@twostep1953
'The best description I've heard of him came from a British officer.'
Which officer would that be?..
@@91Redmist
'Wow. That's saying a lot.'
Read this:
SIR BRIAN HORROCKS
CORPS COMMANDER
Sidgwick & Jackson
LONDON 1977
Page 216
‘The more I studied the problem the less it liked it; without going into technical details, we were not properly balanced for this task. Whilst I was thinking it over, the telephone rang and a Staff Officer from the Twenty-first Army Group said that Field Marshall Montgomery was on his way to see me. A few minutes later he entered my caravan and said, ‘Jorrocks, I am not happy about Bremen. ‘Nor am I sir’, I replied. ‘Tell me about it’, he said. So, sitting in my map lorry I described the problem to him and made certain suggestions. He said not a word until I had finished. After a short pause while he considered the problem on the map, he said, ‘We will do A, B, C, and D. ‘These four decisions were vital - and Bremen was finished.
I have deliberately mentioned this because it was typical. Montgomery was not my immediate Commander, but he always kept in such close touch with the battle that he knew when and where ‘the shoe pinched’. He then went down to see the Commander on the spot - in this case, me - and listened to what he had to say. He then made up his mind immediately. As he drove away I knew that he had probably already forgotten about Bremen and would already be considering the next problem.
That was what made him such a superb battle commander.’
@@thevillaaston7811 I'd like to know too because that just sounds like utter nonsense, especially considering US generals purposely dragged their feet and failed to prepare for Market Garden up until days before because they were sure Ike would cancel it. That is literally messing up on purpose while also failing to follow orders at the highest chain of command.
I doubt it was the lack of a free lunch that had Patton angry with Montgomery.
I wouldn't be so sure. Patton was famously vain and well known for holding completely irrational grudges.
@@mattbowden4996 lol, just substitute Monty for Patton on your comment. Two peas in a pod.
@Bob.W. I don't disagree at all, but Monty's vanity isn't in dispute here.
'I doubt it was the lack of a free lunch that had Patton angry with Montgomery.'
More likely, Montgomery was in the way of Patton's personal ambitions.
@Bob.W
Ironically, Monty didn't have a problem with Patton. He seems to have liked and respected him. Montgomery never said or wrote a bad word about Patton. In Sicily, Monty wished Patton's soldier slapping incidents to be kept quiet, while in the Bulge Montgomery told Eisenhower he should send for Patton to relieve Bastogne (unaware that Eisenhower had already thought of that).
Eisenhower did NOT decide to placate Montgomery by promoting him to Field Marshall. Ike (4 star US general) had no means to promote Monty (5 star British marshal) that was strictly a British (Churchill, Brooke, etc) decision. Led to Ike getting promoted in December.
Of course Eisenhower couldn't directly promote Montgomery, but it's implied that he could use his influence to get Montgomery a promotion. I don't know the inside history of the British military during the war, but it's easy enough to imagine Eisenhower suggesting to Churchill (and they were pretty much in constant communication) that it would be a good thing for Montgomery to be promoted to Field Marshal and that Churchill would put the promotion through. From the reactions quoted from both British and American officers in the documentary, it seems pretty clear that this is what happened.
@@RRaquello Not really. Especially the British press had been playing up Montgomery (with his support) as a British hero, basically since El Alamein. When Eisenhower took over as Supreme commander allied forces in Europe, and also took over Montgomery role since Normandy of leading the ground forces, Montgomery resisted (quite a lot actually), while the British press saw it as a demotion for Montgomery, a snub to not only their hero, but also of Britain as a nation at arms. Montgomery tacitly supported this narrative. Churchill (always sensitive to public opinion) sought to address this by making Montgomery a Field Marshall, thereby placating the press, as well as public opinion (Eisenhower would be made 5-star general soon after, so that he would still at least be on the same rank). Eisenhower didn't think it a good idea when it was first proposed, but understood the political imperative in Britain, and was politically savvy enough to keep well out of it. Perhaps because he suspected he'd personally benefit from it not much later. But it certainly wasn't his suggestion to Churchill. Nor, frankly, could (or would) he have made the suggestion, as he had very little influence in Britain to have it go either way. It is notable that many of the top brass in Britain thought it a bad idea as well. According to his diaries, not even Brooke (essentially Montgomery's mentor and supporter since Dunkirk) was entirely sold on the idea. But In the end, it was primarily Churchill's idea, and he was PM.
@@BarthCrane I've read the big diary on the other side, that of Eisenhower's Naval Aid (Harry Butcher) which was basically Ike's semi-official daily record of war operations. If you haven't looked at it it's very interesting. The influence of Ike on British policies (from what I read in that book) was an odd one. He was very friendly with Churchill and had the best personal relations with him, but he could influence Churchill's actions simply by refusing to go along with them when he disagreed knowing that in his refusals he'd be backed by Roosevelt, really meaning General Marshall who was running the war with Roosevelt more or less a figurehead. Churchill was shrewd enough not to push matters far enough to come to a showdown. When Ike stuck to a point, Churchill would eventually back down. This is where people like Eisenhower, Churchill and Marshall are clearly superior to the Montgomerys and Pattons--their ability to see beyond their own local interests.
Churchill and Marshall knew, and Churchill was willing to acknowledge, the fact that there was no way on earth that the American people, supplying 2/3rds-to-3/4ths of the troops on the Western Front, would accept being under a foreign commander. We had done that in the First World War, Pershing serving under Foch, with disastrous results as far as casualties were concerned. In that war, in the short time we were in it, and the small amount of the front we had taken over, the AEF became cannon fodder for French Generals the way French soldiers had been at Verdun and throughout the war. They wore their own soldiers out and couldn't wait to use our boys the same way. Montgomery wasn't that type of general but the overall commander in the west was always going to be an American. It could be no other way. Churchill knew it and even Montgomery knew it and accepted it, if grudgingly.
One last thing, in the Butcher diary, which was largely a recording of Ike's views, I think Ike was mostly friendly to Montgomery. He had his frustrations with him but no more so than with some American generals and certainly a lot less than in dealing with the French. The French, even when the other allies were fighting to save their lives, were more interested in fighting with each other, or in collaborating with the Germans. They could never be trusted. Montgomery was a good soldier even if he was hard to get along with, and he at least knew who the enemy was and put his energies into fighting them instead of his allies.
@@RRaquello I have not read Harry Butcher diary, but now I probably will.
Having read your reply, and do agree with almost all of it, and where I don't, I'd be quibbling to mention it. That is to say; it doesn't really matter.
So, I do agree, the land forces commander, after Overlord, did, certainly politically, have to be an American, for the reasons given. I don't dispute that, because there was simply no other way. And in that sense, Beaverbrook's et al. campaign in the UK press was nonsensical.
But that still left Churchill in a bind. Wanting to keep the UK press 'on side', he had to come up with something to placate them, as well as the riled up UK public. Promoting Monty to Field Marshall was what he came up with. It made Monty superior in rank to Eisenhower (at least for a bit), while still under Eisenhower's command. And, to be fair, it worked as well (again, for a bit, until the UK press started agitating again during the Bulge).
There are no sources, that I am aware of at least, that suggest that either Eisenhower, Marshall, or, indeed, Roosevelt had any hand in that decision, while the King's true opinion (who devolves this down to HMG and, ultimately, parliament) we will probably never know (as is only right and proper, obviously). Nor am I aware of any sources that suggest that they tried to influence it either before or while it was made. Although afterward, they did respond by giving Eisenhower an extra star on his shoulders.
As such, I maintain that neither Eisenhower nor indeed any American, used, would use, or even could use, their influence to give Monty his batons, and that any implication to the contrary is quite out of place. Given what I do know, and have read about both the British and the US side of things during this period, I find it very hard to imagine someone as politically astute as Eisenhower to so clearly overstepping (political) boundaries to suggest this to Churchill, let alone exerting influence to make it happen. Neither Eisenhower nor Churchill had the personalities or relationship for this to happen in this way.
In the UK, certainly at that time, such interference with, essentially, UK domestic politics would simply not have been cricket, and surely both Eisenhower and Churchill would have been well aware of that. I doubt even Marshall or Roosevelt would have gone down that road. Indeed, I doubt even Brooke has much to do with it, and that's saying something!
@@BarthCrane It's a big book, over 800 pages, but worth reading not only to get a handle on the political wrangling but also on the logistical nightmare facing the Services of Supply, especially following the invasion. I've read here some comments about Eisenhower getting bogged down after taking over from Montgomery, but it must be understood that this was unavoidable whoever the commander was if for no other reason (and there were others) than that the roads and remaining transportation network (railroads) had largely been destroyed by pre-invasion allied bombing, which specifically targeted all transportation facilities, and the remaining infrastructure was inadequate for the traffic necessary to supply the army in the field. The allied armies had to rebuild this infrastructure as it went further into Europe and the advance of the armies was dictated by the speed which the infrastructure could be rebuilt. This is what the amateur military historian misses. He looks at a map and says "we should have done this and this and this, it was all wide open" while forgetting that the men must be fed and rearmed with fresh ammunition and the vehicles must have fuel. You get a real understanding of how this influenced both the strategic and tactical choices of Eisenhower throughout the war but especially in the months after Normandy.
I used to work with an old gent who told me proudly that he had shaken hands with Monty. I am not sure if this was in Italy where my co-worker was in the Canadian tanks or at the end of the war when he was sprung from a PoW camp.
When I was 11 in 1947 Monty visited Carlisle and I got close enough to his jeep, after a struggle, to shake his hand. There were huge crowds and he was definitely a hero then.
He did not want to take command in Africa and have to go up against Rommel until he was told that the German code had been broken and that he would know Rommels orders before Rommel himself knew his orders, thereby making Monty out to be a hero, it wasn’t until operation “ Market Garden “ turned out to be a disaster that the true Monty was exposed as an incompetent leader, that Eisenhower had to relieve him of his command.
My Uncle was in the desert, circa 1943 when the General was touring the front line. Les, said it was like meeting an icon, yet Monty, who had served in the trenches, in the Great War, was buoyant. " a ball of energy" was my uncle's comment.
Let me guess. And your father shook hands with Lawrence of Arabia. 😂
Montgomery WAS an icon; he was the hero the British people needed at the time.
Hamas? CCP? Or a you simply bored today?@@bigwoody4704
Now do a special on why Australians and British hated MacArthur in the Pacific
You forgot to add the US Navy to that list
Just about everyone hated MacArthur
Yes indeed, Mac was a bit of an assh*le to his subordinates just like Monty. The difference is the MacArthur was very successful. Monty built his reputation on Alamein after he was able to out-supply Rommel. After the desert, Montgomery's war record was one of hesitation when boldness was called for and boldness when caution might have better served. The failure at the Faiaise Gap had dire consequences as the Germans were able to rebuild their Army in the west during the Autumn of 1944. In contrast, MacArthur had an almost unbroken string of success in the Pacific, yes, he also had overwhelming material superiority, but he also had incredible terrain and logistical challenges.
Mac was an ego beast...but troops under his command suffered fewest causalities of any allied army in ww2
Isn't it true MacArthur would often talk in the 3rd person IN PRIVATE? Lol
Its all because monty was likely autistic and didn't pick up on social cues.
He had a very good understanding of the common soldier though.
He was ostracised for giving advice on how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases in an era where generals were meant to think that their men were not meant to have sexual urges and so should punish them.
His forward thought in training made his men able to wether the battle for France relatively well, especially his insistence of night fighting drills that made his divisions able to manoueveoure easier.
Ultimately, Monty didn't "fit in" with the officers mess, he didn't drink, he didn't suck up etc.
Surely it's testament to his skill that even with all his flaws, he was still seen as vital to fight the war
Monty saying "I did not intend to capture Caen" reminds me of the movie "A Bridge too far", it was literally a bridge too far.
Montgomery did not state that he did not intend to capture Caen.
@@thevillaaston7811 The narrator basically said he did, maybe with different words.
@@Swagmaster07
In his planning for the OVERLORD land campaign, Montgomery committed to reaching the Seine by D+90. He got there by D+78.
Caen always intended to capture Caen, but he did rely on its capture by any particular date. He hoped to take Caen within a couple of days after D-Day, but he gave no firm commitment on that point.
As soon as the allies landed in Normandy, the Germans massed nearly all of their armour in front of British Second Army at Caen. Thereafter, who actually occupied Caen was of little consequence in regard to the outcome of the Normandy campaign.
@@Swagmaster07 ua-cam.com/video/t-0AxubQEWM/v-deo.html Doesn't say that here
@@thevillaaston7811 Yes even on IWM - How the Allies trapped the German army it literally states "Montgomery had promised his fellow commanders at SHAEF that the campaign in Normandy would take around 3 months"
Which it did
🤷♂
Monty was his own worst enemy. Having to control both him and Patton must have been a real challenge for Ike. But perhaps we need people like that to win wars?
Monty should have been left in command of all ground forces after Normandy. On 3 Sept 1944 when Eisenhower took over overall allied command of ground forces everything went at a snail's pace. The fastest advance of any western army in Autumn/early 1945 was the 60 mile thrust by the British XXX Corps to the Rhine at Arnhem.
@@johnburns4017 Agreed. But a General's biggest enemy is politics. Can you imagine what would have happened of John Wayne had not been allowed to win the war?
@@samgraham9235
Eisenhower was a politician not a warrier. Monty should have been left in charge while he talks to Chiefs of Staff and political leaders. It was too much for him and he just was not good enough for ground command as the results showed.
Montgomery to AlanBrooke..
_"If we want the war to end within any reasonable period you have to get Eisenhower’s hand taken off the land battle._ *_I regret to say that in my opinion he just doesn’t know what he is doing._*
Montgomery wrote of Eisenhower and his ridiculous broad-front strategy
on 22 January 1945:
_“I fear that the old snags of indecision and vacillation and refusal to consider the military problem fairly and squarely are coming to the front again . . . The real trouble is that there is no control and the three army groups are each intent on their own affairs. Patton today issued a stirring order to Third Army, saying the next step would be Cologne . . . One has to preserve a sense of humour these days, otherwise one would go mad.”_
Alanbrooke wrote in his diary about Einsenhower:
_“At the end of this morning's C.O.S. [Chief of Staff] meeting I put before the committee my views on the very unsatisfactory state of affairs in France, with no one running the land battle. Eisenhower, though supposed to be doing so, is on the golf links at Rheims_ *_- entirely detached and taking practically no part in running of the war._* _Matters got so bad lately that a deputation of Whiteley, Bedell Smith and a few others went up to tell him that he must get down to it and RUN the war, which he said he would."_
_"We discussed the advisability of getting Marshall to come out to discuss the matter, but we are doubtful if he would appreciate the situation. Finally decided that I am to see the P.M. to discuss the situation with him.”_
_"November 28th I went to see the P.M. I told him I was very worried."_
Alan Brooke described in his daily diary that American generals Eisenhower and Marshall as poor strategists, when they were in jobs were strategy mattered. Brooke wrote to Montgomery about his talks with Eisenhower, *_“it is equally clear that Ike has the very vaguest conception of war!”_*
@@samgraham9235 HAHAHAHAHA another delusional limey!! it's painfully obvious that the sons of "britannia's" greatest asset is their ability to bulls**t themselves !
I mean, when you have men with thousands upon thousands of lives in the palms of their hands with the liberation of Europe at stake. You need to be a confident asshole to pull that kind of weight and to make extremely tough decisions that a normal person wouldn't.
Montgomery was abrasive most of the time to everyone around him, and his ego was just as notorious as Patton's was. We are very lucky Eisenhower was excellent at handling both of them.
We were unlucky in having Eisenhower in command of ground troops.
I’m surprised that you didn’t include the footage of Monty making US soldiers run towards him happily yelling and celebrating him. Afterwards, they realized that they were used and felt humiliated. That has to part of why that hated Monty 😮
American forces who served under Montgomery were usually complimentary.
Mostly because he might be annoying, hard to work with and had an ego the size of small planet but he made sure the officers under him were competent and the lower ranks were well taken care of.
The classic case is the Ardennes when British forces moved in to shore up the collapsing US 1st army one of his first actions was making sure the Us troops received hot food in the front lines rather than the normal US system of making fighting troops rely on ration packs and putting main food service in the rear lines.
He paid attention to details.
Yeah that hot food scared the shit out of the Germans....@@voiceofraisin3778
Got i link to that footage good sir? I'm interested in seeing it, but failed to get a good search result.
At the battle of the Bulge GIs threw Monty in the stockade thinking him and imposter.IKE got a big charge out of it as the arrogant ass was trying to take credit for the Bulge's success.
@@bigwoody4704 more big Woody rubbish !! how are you so clueless . It was Eisenhower who put him in charge of the north flank of the bulge .
Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015 0:50 seconds in
"were the germans afraid of general patton and everyone says you've got the movie, you've got a bridge too far, you've got the carlo deste biography, then harry yeide goes into the german archives about two years ago and discovers that most of the german generals have never heard of him, a big blow to the patton ego"
Patton did not even rate a German dossier before D-Day.
Clean monty's cack out of your eye sockets lil' villa. Patton routed Keselring's while bernard was montying on Sicily.The Russians and Germans knew monty was an uppity little nothing much like yourself.Had 4 full yrs to cross the channel yet waited for big brother. Twice Patton/Truscott flanked the Wehrmacht with amphibious landings on sicilian north shore
this one's barking - Villa how do you get food in your mouth with your head up monty's ass? Patton chastened the tart bernard in the art of war on Sicily - taking both Palermo and Messina whilst bernard montied. To prove that was no fluke Monty then went on to do even less in Italy/Caen/Falaise & of course Monty Garden.
And as you know the Germans never drove Patton into the channel now that would make him Monty's equal
*The Rommel Papers by B.H.Liddell-Hart page 523* "In Tunisia the Americans had to pay a stiff price for their experience,but it brought rich dividends .Even at the time American Generals showed themselves to be very advanced in the technical handling of their forces, *Although we had to wait until Patton's Army in France to see astonishing achievements in mobile warfare* The Americans it is fair to say, profited far more than the British from their experience in Africa, thus confirming axiom that education is easier than re-education"
*Patton:A Genius for War,By Carlo D'Este, General Fritz Bayerlein commander of Panzer Lehr Division and in Rommel's Afrika Corp.He assessed the escape of Rommel's Panzers after Alamein "I do not think General Patton would have let us get away so easily said Bayerlein"* Comparing Patton with Guderian and Montgomery with Von Rundstedt.*
*When interviewed in 1945,Heinz Guderian* , the Wehrmacht’s foremost practitioner of Blitzkrieg, stated, “ *General Patton conducted a good campaign. From the standpoint of a tank specialist, I must congratulate him on his victory since he acted as I would have done had I been in his place*
General Gunther Blumentritt : *We regarded General Patton extremely highly as the most aggressive panzer-general of the Allies* . . . His operations impressed us enormously, probably because he came closest to our own concept of the classical military commander. He even improved on Napoleon’s basic tenets.
From a letter on exhibit at Wichita KS "Museum of World treasures" Hasso Von Manteuffel 8018 Diessen am ammersee Mariahilfe Strasse 7. Dec. 16. 1976 Dear Mr. Dellingatti; I thank you for your letter, attached you find a photo as you asked for. In my opinion General Patton was a master of lightning warfare and the best commander in this reference! Evidence of his excellent command and control of an army are the campaign in Sicily, the break-out in Brittany 1944 and during the Battle of the Bulge Dec 1944. I agree with Ladislaw Farago first-rate book on Patton "Ordeal and Triumph" - an excellent report! With very good wishes
*Patton: Ordeal and Triumph, Ladislas Farago (New York: Astor-Honor, Inc., Inc., 1964), p. 505* 'If Manstein was Germany's greatest strategist during World War II, Balck has strong claims to be regarded as our finest field commander. He has a superb grasp of tactics and great qualities of leadership' - Major-General von Mellenthin
*General Balck, commenting on the Lorraine Campaign, said: "Patton was the outstanding tactical genius of World War II. I still consider it a privilege and an unforgettable experience to have had the honor to oppose him"*
Fancy some more villa?
Yeah, I remember watching that at that tankfest. All I could think was it was a weird comment. Let's say he's 100% correct. Ok, but why does he feel the need to strike a blow against an ego that's been dead for 70 years. If he said a great disappointment to Patton's fanboys, at least that would have made sense, but a blow to the man's ego? How dead does a person have to get before their ego dies too?
@@morganmcallister2001
'Yeah, I remember watching that at that tankfest. All I could think was it was a weird comment. Let's say he's 100% correct. Ok, but why does he feel the need to strike a blow against an ego that's been dead for 70 years.'
For every blow struck against Patton's ego, there are 300 blow struck against Montgomery's ego in comments on UA-cam, 299 of them posted by Americans. About 200 of them posted by some oppo from Cleveland, Ohio, USA. Montgomey has been dead for 48 years.
I've always wondered at the general animosity held against Montgomery. I had assumed it was because Monty was too cautious and slow to respond. This video fleshed out my limited, popularized view of Monty. I'm much gratified for the new understanding. Thanks for this.
Cheers
As an American, I was well aware of Patton's ego. They made an entire motion picture out of it, after all. But I never realized Monty was just as bad in his own way.
Monty was cautious commander, remember he saw bloody action and was seriously injured in the First World War,Eisenhower didn’t see any action in the First World War,think Monty would of been miffed by that.
He was a crap general, made crap plans he couldn't back up, used outdated attack models and got in Patton's way.
@@donorbane source: a film
My grandpa didn't hate Monty, but he sure didn't like him because of Market Garden.
Same I was was always told that in Italy Monty was to slow and calculating which allowed German forces to slip away and that Patton wanted to move fast to stop the Germans from retreating.
Don't see why, since Monty didn't plan or participate in operation Market Garden.
Maybe he should have put his dislike towards people that planned it Brereton and Williams, or maybe the person that insisted on it Ike, or even the person that stuffed it up like Gavin
Well the people that told you that were wrong.
You seem to have fallen down the myth pit.
@robertpalmer3235 Yeah, better yet, you should have fought the war you deserved after the Balfour Declaration and Versailles on your own.
Market Garden failed because Gavin forgot what his mission was. He failed to capture Nijmegan when he had the chance and to keep the highway clear.
Monty was actually Irish by birth. During WW1 he was shot through the lungs as he lay out in no man’s land, a medic sent to rescue him was shot by a sniper and collapsed on top of Monty. The sniper then used the two men for target practice. Monty was shot twice more. A day of so later he was picked up and taken for medical treatment. However the doctors believing him to be dying refused treatment and sent him for burial. A grave was dug and Monty was laid alongside it, but as the diggers waited for him to stop breathing, he moved his hand and so was sent back to the medics for another look and was saved. I think an experience like that would have affected his personality on going.
Monty was actually born in London near the Oval cricket ground.
@@johnburns4017
You beat me to it.
The whole of Ireland was British in 1887, even the bit Montgomery wasn't born in. Which reminds me, has Joe Biden told us which part of Ireland he's from at all?
@@davemac1197
He will when he wakes up.
.He will beat the Orange Grifter Draft Dodger Bine Spurs Donnie Dump@@thevillaaston7811
Something you should always bear in mind. In September 1939, 'Ike' was only a Major on MacArthur's staff in the Philippines. He cut his political teeth dealing with THAT monsterous ego, and worked his way up from there! He's also the reason Omar Bradley, who was subordinate to Patton for Algeria, ended up Patton's superior by the time they entered Germany. Appointing him Supreme Commander Allied Forces Europe was, perhaps, the masterstroke of the entire campaign. A man who wasn't to be bullied by the colossal egos around him, who could actually listen to them without dismissing any ideas out-of-hand, and who had the guts to take decisions that he believed were right, even if they might make him unpopular in the short term. I think he was practically the only US General that 'understood' Monty enough to be able to tolerate his well-known shortcomings for the sake of his talents.
Tribute must be paid as well to General George C. Marshal, U.S. Army Chief of Staff, and known as perhaps the chief architect of the wartime force. He's the man who elevated Ike from relative obscurity to international renown. Marshal was a collector of talented people; as he and his aides and staff moved about in their duties, General Marshal was famous for keeping a small notebook in which he made note of people who had pleased and/or impressed him, and ones who had not.
Marshal was the very definition of a team player. President Roosevelt liked the job he was doing so much that it probably cost Marshal any chance of having an operational command in action. And he knew that in recommending Ike he was condemning himself to a role away from the spotlight.
Marshal and MacArthur cordially despised one another. MacArthur had damned Marshal with faint praise while the latter had been under his command at Ft. Benning. Marshal returned the favor when MacArthur was recalled to the U.S. Army after Dec. 7th 1941. MacArthur had retired as a four-star general and Army Chief of Staff, but Marshal recalled him as a lieutenant general, a three-star - one step lower than his final rank.
The video title almost implies there were people who didn't hate Montgomery.
Yes it does
Americans under him seems to not hate him...
If that's your opinion on starting to watch, maybe you should quit immediately
Look bud, if you graduated from Patton Indoctrination High, there aint much this video can do for you.
And yes there's a reason I immediatly poke sarcastic fun at you. That reason being Montgomery was "Egomaniac BUT highly competent" while the idiots who collided with his ego, mostly Patton were badly incompetent, shouldn't have been promoted past 1st LT and whose war contribution was negative.
Did any of his Peers, other Generals of the same rank, that worked with him like him?
My old man joined the Tank Corp (or Royal Tank Regiment) 1938. He fought in France, North Africa, Sicily and Italy. He missed going to Normandy with the 7th Armoured due to catching malaria in Sicily, instead being flown back back to an Algerian hospital. When the US first turned up in Africa in 1942 there was general and mutual animosity between the British and American forces. I hope people reading this today can have the imagination to see why this might occur. As a youngster I took interest in WW2 and can still remember (in the 70's) my father making extremely disparaging remarks about US General Mark Clark. I sometimes wondered what side he fought on when he spoke of certain American officers.
It would've been great if the British and Americans realized that they were fighting the Germans and Italians, not each other.
@@margaretjiantonio939 That's why it's a good job that Ike was overseeing the Allies as supreme commander, he was the only man who could prevent the alliance breaking down between the Brits, Americans and French.
Well, General Mark Clark is probably the worst American General of WWII. If I were there, accepting any orders from him, I might wonder which side I was on also.
Mark Clark absolutely ruined the Allies chances in Italy by wasting time at Anzio giving Germany ample time to box them in.
Mark Clark was given the nickname "Marcus Clarkus" among some of his officers and detractors due to his own ego
In Dixon's "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence" Montgomery is discussed as an interesting border case -- a commander who displayed many of the features that led to failure in many others, but who was intelligent and self aware enough to recognise those problems in himself and to _deliberately_ work to overcome them -- his whole "friend of the common soldier" schtick was planned -- he knew he was by nature aloof and introverted, so he worked on being the "soldier's soldier" as a way overcoming what he saw in a weakness. Sometimes he succeed in overcoming his nature and had tremendous success, sometimes he failed and looked like a total prat.
Interesting insight. Thanks for posting.
At least he didn't rough up a shell shocked soldier!!!!!
He just caused the deaths of thousands in Operation Market Garden.
You don't risk your life on front lines to just push a narrative about yourself...
Where did Montgomery fail ?
"The National Army Museum conducted a poll in 2011 to determine Britain’s greatest general. Montgomery’s name was not among the finalists. In a 2013 poll, the Battle of El Alamein was not listed among the five greatest British battles."
Bernard Law Montgomery - Military History - Oxford Bibliographies
a poll..hahaha..i prefer historians and facts..fact is Monty was the most successful general in the M/ETO..
@@johndawes9337
I don't know while nickdanger3802 keeps on posting this stuff. Its meaningless in regard to any assessment of Montgomery.
Narrator hit it. "His shameless and egoistical manner". No one likes a braggart or "know it all".
they do if he is successful monty wasnt always succssesful and he made excuses for his failures that nobody believed
To be fair, I think Monty had plenty of staffers of all British service stripes who disliked Monty intensely. It wasn't personal, the man was a unique taste, and probably as this piece says, on the spectrum.
I read the excerpt at 4:15 and immediately thought, "Oh, he's autistic."
@@dylandarnell3657 "...has autism" sounds better. People are more than just a disability. We would probably call it Asperger's syndrome these days.
@@skathwoelya2935 I'm autistic. I use whichever formulation is more convenient in a given sentence, because - as a matter of self-care - I can't be arsed to coddle the delicate sensibilities of neurotypical activists who want to milk my illness for clout. (And if I _could_ - if I woke up tomorrow as someone who _did_ reliably have that level of executive function - I still wouldn't do it, because [a] I would have better things to focus that energy on and [b] I don't like them.)
Also, last I checked in with the clout-farm side of mental illness activism, "Asperger's syndrome" had fallen off the euphemism treadmill - the internet had held one of its Ex Post Facto Nuremberg Re-Enactments (you know, as it does) and convicted Hans Asperger on charges of Being A Nazi. Did that get overturned, or did they just memory-hole it?
@@dylandarnell3657 It's interesting how people on the spectrum tend to assume that other people commenting on YT aren't on the spectrum. I sometimes fall into that trap myself. I don't like the neurotypical activists either as they have an annoying habit of calling people like me "autistic" which I strongly object to - I still have all my other characteristics that make me a fully rounded human being.
The current edition of the DSM-5 absorbed "Asperger's syndrome" into "Autism Spectrum Disorders" in 2013 to simplify things. I would prefer "Autism Spectrum Conditions" as "Disorder" suggests something that needs to be cured and AS/autism doesn't need to be. It definitely isn't an "illness" as you claim for yourself. It's a developmental condition.
Hans Asperger fell out of favour about five years ago - although if we cancelled all the historic scientists who made advancements by unethical means, or who had bad politics, there probably wouldn't be any left. I'm sticking with "having Asperger's syndrome" as it is less likely to be used as a term of abuse than the word "autistic" is. Also, it's more specific to more able Aspies and was still being used by clinical psychologists in the UK years after the (American) DSM-5 discontinued it. They still might be for all I know.
I enjoy your prose style, by the way.
It wasn't just the Americans. I was an Army Cadet in the same regiment my uncle served in during WW2. On "Association" nights when the old veterans would get together, I would always pop up to their meeting room after my duties to say hello to my uncle and talk to all the vets. I never heard one of them say a kind word about Monty.
One Pacific Theater USAAF veteran said the only decent Brit officer as far as he could tell was Mountbatten. I don't know why he said that though.
@@GSteel-rh9iuMountbatten tried to throw a coup.
Mountbatten was a devious puff
Remember that arse rules the Navy
Was that a guards regiment. They criticize everyone
Regiment name please. Your post is way too vague.
In the war of recognition between the allies in WW2 I would have referred them to the wise words of the Duke of Wellington following Waterloo, when officers were constantly asking for his recognition of their regiments, Gentlemen, he said, there is enough glory for all.
My Grandad was Montgomery's chauffer in North Africa. He always told me how polite and generous he was.
Your grandad was jack job
From everything I've read, enlisted men and junior officers who served _under_ Montgomery liked him quite well, because he was a very capable commander who would win battles, and whom they knew would not needlessly spend their lives. It was another story, however, for officers of equal or greater rank, who had to serve alongside or over Monty -- they found his monumental ego, tendency toward self-promotion, and utter lack of anything remotely resembling tact extremely hard to take.
This included British senior officers as well as American. Eisenhower's second as supreme Allied commander for the ETO, Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Tedder developed a strong dislike for Montgomery. Winston Churchill summed Monty up as "in defeat unbeatable, in victory unbearable."
@@Hibernicus1968 Monty's superior Alan Brooke acknowledged than he 'once again I had to haul him (Monty) over the coals for his usual lack of tact'.
There's an old belief that I believe is most likely true that Monty demanded that ALL driver's, tank, armoured vehicles and trucks be former bus, taxi, etc professional drivers in civilian life because he believed that they would have better navigation skills...... very important in an endless desert
Haha, either had a few drivers or I've just discovered a new relative!
As an american, and having been a student of WW2, I would say that Montgomery was a brilliant but egotistical genius that came at the right time in history... I say this knowing that Patton was in that same boat.
Patton and Monty deserved each other.
Weak relativistic analysis, Mr. Davis. Patton has Metz, Montgomery has Market Garden, Sicily, and Falais to answer for. Ironlcally, one historian aptly commented that, after El Alamein, Monty would never risk his new found reputation by ever taking a risk again.
@johnhill7058 Slow your roll dude...Wasn't critiquing their military acumen. I was referring to them both being Prima Donna's,
@johnhill7058 Patton attack at Metz was fool hardy. Germans simply withdrew. Patton could have skirted metz and achieved the same strategic goal with fewer loss of men and material... Patton wasn't called blood and guts for nothing. Like Montgomery, ego gets in the way... How's that analysis
I'd be curious to know what he ever did that was "brilliant. "
18:21 The bald guy holding the map (Bradley to the left in the pic, Patton on the right behind) is one of the greatest of all WW2 Division Commanders... Maj. Gen. John Shirley "Tiger Jack" Wood (4th Armored Div.). Patton loved Wood's ability to get things done. Wood was not selected for corps command because of his outspoken manner and willingness to question his superiors. Instead Bradley picked his friend Eddy. Wood would have been the far better choice.
love looking down at my laptop in class and seeing that you have uploaded 54 seconds ago
Damn. I am 6 minutes slower than you at work while Windoze boots up....
Auchenleck layed the groundwork for the final stand against Rommel,not Montgomery. Auchenleck was actually very frustrated that supplies and decent tanks were finally being supplied on mass,and him being replaced just when the desert airforce was destroying Rommel's tanks. Rommel retreated knowing the game was up,especially when the Americans landed in Morocco. Tunisia was the closest evacuation point,to Sicily. And Caen was a disaster for Montgomery. He had a couple of days to take the town,but took 6 weeks! He was a cautious commander at best,and quite often his ego would get in the way of his ability. In the end fleets of bombers had to flatten the place,because of Montgomerys caution and incompetence. And Eisenhower was furious with Montgomery. Antwerp was the main priority, a very important port,and the waterways . Montgomery failed to take the port,and the waterways first. Then the failure in operation market garden. Montgomerys failure end up costing the allies 17 thousand men because he didn't flush the Germans out of the waterways, and capture Antwerp, (That doesn't count the casualties at the market garden debacle.) The Americans had to do the job ( capturing Antwerp) After that Eisenhower took complete control, and as result Montgomery was somewhat isolated and marginalised. Even Churchill distanced himself from Montgomery, and left all the major decisions to the Americans.
100% drivel
Auchinleck managed to halt Rommel's advance with the tactically inconclusive but strategic victory of 1st El Alamein, but by this point he could no longer continue in the role because - as Theater Commander - he'd presided over the disaster at Gazala and the loss of Tobruk. His days were numbered.
If the Auk had some frustration about being removed from command at this time then he only had himself to blame for not taking direct command of the 8th Army perminantly after he fired Alan Cunningham during Crusader as everyone had expect him to but instead appointed Neil Ritchie Army Commander. He was ultimately a failure of a Theater Commander in Africa with only the high point of Crusader and the saving grace of 1st El Alamein preventing his reputation from being irreparable tarnished.
The idea that Auchinleck is responsible for Montgomery's successes in the Desert come from Correlli Barnett, who had an axe to grind against Montgomery and was not going to facts to stop him from tearing Monty down. So Barnett incorrectly attributed the battle plan for Alam el Halfa to Eric Dorman-Smith and the preparation for it to Auchinleck while ignoring the changed Montgomery made - as Field Marshal Carver noted in his book "Dilemmas of the Desert War".
The only part Auchinleck played in Montgomery's victories in the Desert was in the position that Montgomery inherited when he assumed command, but certainly not in the plans he executed.
Rommel retreated because he knew if he didn't his entire force would be destroyed or captured and him along with it. He had the good sense to realize he'd been defeated and staying in Egypt was suicide. His retreat began before the Torch landings took place.
The obsession with schedule for Caen not being met ignores how the battle effected the wider campaign, and the simple fact is that failure to secure the location on time was no a major hinderance to the Allied Campaign, as the fact that they crossed the Seine several days ahead of schedule.
Caen did not go as planned, and it was wrong of Montgomery to claim it did, but how it developed was beneficial to the Allied Campaign in how it forced the German to commit so much of their resource in the British/Commonwealth sector that they had nothing whatsoever to put against the Americans once their front line of defence collapsed.
Eisenhower was not furious about Antwerp not getting priority above Market Garden and a Rhine crossed becuase he was the man who ultimately permitted 21st Army Group to split its focus between the two objectives. If he not done so and released the Allied Airborne Army for use then 21st Army Group could not have pressed forward with Market Garden to begin with.
The casualties for Market Garden were approximately 15-to-17,000. The casualties for clearing the Scheldt estuary were approximately 12-to-13,000.
The American's did not capture Antwerp. The British 2nd Army liberated the city on September 4th and the Canadian 1st Army were the ones who cleared the Scheldt between October and November 1944.
Eisenhower assumed the role of Ground Forces Commander after Overlord, well before the operations against the Scheldt or Arnhem took place, and was making all the major decisions from that time - as the infamous Broad vs Narrow Front attests to.
Utter drivel. I wouldn't even know where to start with this and @11nytram11 should be commended for having so much patience with you.
Antwerp's port capacity was needed to supply Eisenhower's broad front strategy into Germany, it was not needed to supply Market Garden, so it made sense to prioritise the Rhine crossing of British 2nd Army at Arnhem before opening Antwerp. If the operation had not been compromised in the planning and execution by American officers in 1st Allied Airborne Army and 82nd Airborne Division respectively (therefore not Montgomery's fault at all), then a successful advance to the Zuider Zee (Ijsselmeer) would have cut off all German forces in the western Netherlands and made the Canadian 1st Army's mission to clear the Scheldt estuary that much easier. So your argument (to use an old English expression) is hoist by your own petard!
The Americans had nothing to do with the capture of Antwerp. The 11th Armoured Division of the British 2nd Army captured and occupied Antwerp on September 4th.
Correct. Remember Percival Wavell.
Only for Montgomery we wouldn't have Spike's great memoir, 'Monty: His Part in My Victory'.
As much as Monty was an ash whole, at least Monty was with his armies. Charles DeGaulle spent the war sipping tea in the U.K. while Americans and Canadians died liberating France. Cowardly and arrogant was Charles DeGaulle.
Not to mention when France was reconquered, Degaulle then goes "France has been liberated by the French" he literally REFUSED to acknowledge the British, Americans, Canadians and Poles who had just spent 2 months fighting set piece battles to liberate the French.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Say it, brutha! Ike's and Monty's soldiers and many Canadians put their lives on the line so the vain and venal DeGaulle could march through the Arc de Triomphe as THE conquerer. Compared to DeGaulle, Monty was the personable and astute one. And where the hell were the French soldiers while my dad was being evacuated in 1944 from Brittany, France, with horrible wounds.
old enuf to recall that gallic scumbag back in my '60s grade school days, gallicly arrogantly proudly announcing Froglandia were leaving NATO, needing no aid nor asisstance from anyone, to remain strong and free.
...he annouced all that, nearly instantly on the global msm announcement of Spain NATO accession, ( meaning 'strong independent' Froglandia were now 360d fully ringed by NATO , (read: 'US'), nuclear umbrella, lol).
opines of degaulle among my peers/fam are universally contemptuous, due to precisely that 'tea sipping' perception of his arrogance and of his cowardice, each trait archetypically exemplifying that entire nation of imbecilically inbred losers called 'france'.
I remember Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes years ago talking about his role in liberating Paris “and then de Gaulle marched in like he owned the place” or something like that.
@@eatmorenachos Rooney was spot-on on the arrogant De Gaulle.
When Roosevelt realized that America would inevitably be sucked into the European mess he and General Geroge C Marshall started cleaning up his general staff by moving them aroud to meet their greatest abilities. General Marshal was the true genious that made everything work. He appointed Eisenhower to his position due to his administrative and personality traits.
Hell yes. Marshalls the one that said we're not going to sack Patton.
Jill
Ike served as MacArthur's staff officer for a good number of years until Doug retired from the Army. Ike said MacArthur liked to surround himself with bootlickers so he would look more competent. Ike went in the different direction and had generals under his command that would argue with him.
@@billwilson-es5yn
'Ike said MacArthur liked to surround himself with bootlickers so he would look more competent.'
Really?.. Where is this on record?
Ike was a colonial when WWII started. He was jumped over a number of generals who were better qualified for the allied command. But he was a politician and shmoozed Marshal.
Eisenhower had never commanded soldiers in the field. He was a desk jockey.
Patton: Best offense is best defense.
Montgomery: Best defense is best offense.
Zhukov: Best offense is best offense.
Steiner: Sheisse, we can only do defense.
Monty's attitude among the generals is one factor along with he taking too much time and delayments like in the Sicily and Normandy campaigns. Even the Airborne grumbled about how Monty's plans cost more of them than objectives gained like Market Garden, and the Rhine river campaign.
Cause you’re clearly not biased lmao
@@BigBazz-Clips It is from what I remember reading from history and understanding about military strategy and tactics.
What in your monthly subscription to the patton fan club magazine?
Are you jealous cause you can’t read? Lol
Tripe. Monty had more experience in his little finger than all the US generals combined who didn't give a toss about casualties. Monty served right through WW1 and knew we weren't going to get through WW2 if we didn't keep casualties down. Luckily Monty knew what he as doing in his strategy shame people like Gavin did not.
When I heard your description of Montgomery’s lack of social graces, I thought,”That sounds like me.” I have high functioning autism.
Maybe, but I like you! lol
Enough credit is not given to Ike, imagine having to play nurse made with dozens of premadonna generals and personalities and still try to win a war.
Ike really was the right man at the right time. I don't think anyone else could have done the job he did.
@@madgavin7568 His boss, Marshall could have. But Roosevelt needed him to keep Hap Arnold, and MacArthur in check. He also was needed to have Ike's back in Washington. Marshall also came to a peace agreement with the notoriously prickly admiral King.
@@PeteOtton Marshall is arguably the greatest General to have never commanded troops during wartime. You need Generals like him, as well as Ike.
But it was great training for POTUS!
Quite honestly, the only credit Eisenhower ever really gets as a general was his ability to effectively manage a multi-national coalition with strong willed generals and keep it from falling apart through infighting.
He has absolutely no record from which to judge his tactical abilities because he never even personally saw action let alone commanded a battle, he has mixed reviews on a strategic and logistical level, but majority opinion holds that he was the best choice to be Supreme Commander because of his man-management skills.
From what i've researched and interviews seen from ex british servicemen after the war, and throughout ww2 Montgomery was popular and was perhaps the right man to refocus and re-energize the british eighth army after suffering repeated failure to check rommel's advance thought north africa up to the egyptian border, at the 1st and 2nd battle of el alamein 1942 in the western desert campaign, against Field Marshal Rommel afrkica Korp, he motivated the men and aspire the men with his pep talks ,but he was not as loved as other british generals, one man in particular stands alone to this day, loved and respected home and abroad as the best general in the british army and by a considerable opinion by his peers as the best general that came out of world war 2, his portrait hangs in the british officer training academy ''Sandhurst'' to this day, Field marshal William Slim or to his men old bill slim who led the 14th army or the forgotten army that fought the japanese in the Burma War loved and respected by his men the ordinary common soldier, such was the man
I think he was one of only two soldiers to ever have held every rank in the British Army from Private soldier to Field Marshal. I'd suggest General O'Connor would have done well, but ended up captured.
@@johnbobson1557 You're both right as well. O'Connor and Slim were both very good. Slim in particular having to command forces on an almost forgotten front.
Both did bloody well.
Aye. Agreed. Burma was a slogging match against the Imperial Japanese Army. With meager resources and tropical diseases thrown in for good measure.
Montgomery's problem is that he was one of several egotistical generals in the European Theater, and there was inevitable clashes, hurt feelings and so on. In the Pacific, MacArthur was a MUCH bigger egomaniac, but his only major clash was with the Navy, and that wasn't much of a rivalry since Roosevelt was a Navy man and favored them most of the time. The only other major drama queen in the Pacific was Admiral Halsey.
Perhaps that is because the fronts were more dispersed in Asia and the Pacific? So the British fought in Burma, the Chinese in China and on the islands the only foreign force of any size the Americans had to interact with was the Australians and even then they mostly fought separately except on New Guinea. So each allied country could run things their own way with minimal need to cooperate with other allies?
Well, if MacArthur's grave was anywhere within a thousand miles of Australia there would be tour groups formed to go piss on it.
This the South West Pacific MacArthur was in charge of all forces in the area. He only at one Senior Australia General on his command staff. The General was in command of all allied ground forces that were not American………
@@bryanbird1266 Yes. But MacArthur ranked Gen. Blamey. MacArthur had no compunction about criticising Australian command action down to be battalion level, and sometimes lower. And Blamey went along. Peruse some of 'hypohystericalhistory' he does a minute job of cataloging Australian and Allied campaigns.
MacArthur actually had the victories to prove his worth, though. He is a victim of Chinese propaganda, which smears him online all the time because he wanted to nuke China and was ardently anti-communist.
Eisenhower did NOT promote Montgomery to Field Marshal, Churchill did.
My Uncle who was with the 1st US Army stated we did not hate Monty, we just thought he was an arrogant self-centered person. But then again these same troops thought the same on a George S. Patton and a glory-hound to boot. My Uncle served from North Africa to Germany 1942 to 1945.
Monty was lucky in N. Africa. He was a genuine failure as a commander. Patton did nearly everything right except slap a soldier.
@@tonyrains217 Well, that's one opinion, but I think that George S Patton wasted way to many of his own men to achieve his own ego. Hence the nickname 'Old Blood N Guts'
god bless the young men who saved the world, now there is great reason to believe the USA is doomed if the same is needed from our youngsters today
Most of troops under British control not British they from its colonial
@@MARVIN-o3b
When did that happen?
"After the failure of the operation, Montgomery began to question the strategy developed by Eisenhower and as a result of comments made at a press conference he gave on 7th January, 1945, he was severely rebuked by Winston Churchill and General Alan Brooke, the head of the British Army. Although he came close to being sacked, Montgomery was allowed to remain in Europe and the end of the war was appointed Commander in Chief of the British Army of Occupation."
Bernard Montgomery Jewish Virtual Library
what operation?
Montgomery 7th January, 1945, Press Conference:
This from one of Montgomery’s harshest critics:
WITH PREJUDICE
The War Memoirs of Marshall of the Royal Air Force
Lord Tedder G.C.B.
CASSELL & COMPANY 1966
P 636- 637
‘In a press conference given on 7 January, Montgomery described how Eisenhower had placed him in command of the whole northern front. He emphasized that the repulse of the German onslaught had been an Anglo-American effort, but somewhat unfortunately went on to describe the battle as ‘most interesting. I think, possibly, one of the most interesting and tricky battles I have ever handled, with great issues at stake.’
Montgomery expressed his admiration for the fighting qualities of the American soldier and how grieved he was to see uncomplimentary articles about Eisenhower in the British Press. However, the subsequent handling of Montgomery’s statements by the British newspapers and by the B.B.C. caused a crisis. The Prime Minister telephoned several times to Eisenhower, who said that Bradley was most upset. He proposed to award the Bronze Star to Bradley with a citation drawing attention to his fighting qualities, and to the work of the American armies bearing the brunt of the German offensive. At a meeting on 9 January, the Supreme Commander remarked that censorship was a two-edged weapon. Anything withheld by the censors immediately acquired news value, and the Press, by inuendo or other means, invariably circumvented it. It seemed to him that he reaction of the American Press to the statements in the British newspapers would be to exaggerate the United States point of view. There would be no end to the statements which the Press of the two countries would make in reply to each other. He also remarked: ‘For two and a half years I have been trying to get the Press to talk of “Allied” operations, but look what has happened.’
‘When de Guingand saw the British reporters in Brussels on 9 January, they were able to prove to him that their articles had given a balanced view of the picture, but that their editors had been responsible for the flaming headlines which told the British public that Montgomery had defeated the Germans in the salient. It was also learned that the radio station at Arnhem, then in German hands, had intercepted some of the despatches and had re-written them with an anti-American slant. They had been put out and mistaken for BBC broadcasts.’
And this from a reporter at the press conference:
CHESTER WILMOT
THE STRUGGLE FOR EUROPE
WM. COLLINS, SONS AND CO LTD. 1954
P683
My dispatch to the B.B.C. was picked up in Germany, rewritten to give it an anti-American bias and then broadcast by Arnhem Radio, which was then in Goebbels's hands. Monitored at Bradley's H.Q., this broadcast was mistaken for a B.B.C. transmission and it was this twisted text that started the uproar.
Stil... You have the Jewish Virtual Library behind you...crucial.
Market garden's failure was due to the Americans. As i have said before, Monty saved the Americans at the battle of the bulge.
According to this analysis Montgomery's faults were arrogance, rudeness and the feeling he was right. I cannot imagine any American who would share such traits.
I can picture Americans with those traits, but I can’t picture one rising in ranks (Edit) in War Conditions
Payton.
Sorry Patton.
@@americankid7782 really,
@@davidmcintyre998 I should amend that comment to specify rising the rank’s during war conditions.
Seldom mentioned is Monty’s infatuation with a schoolboy toward the end of the war.
because it is BS
Read THE FULL MONTY JOHNNY you're mentioned in it by name.Pretty bad when you biggest fan and biographer outted him for the creep he was
Now as far as leadership goes, it is not based on rank but appointment. A lower ranking person can be in charge of troops with higher rank. I happened to be in that position before. The higher soldier refused to obey, until a higher yet soldier told him he could be court marshalled. I had no problems after that.
Best part of my unit was officers usually only stuck with a platoon for one trip and spent most of that learning from the NCO’s. All positions were also held one rank above the typical officer rank so a PL would be a captain instead of a 1lt etc, typically meant they had experience in a regular line platoon before coming over. Everything was NCO ran for the most part.
Politics and appointments only really applied to the BC and RC.
All our officers were really expected to do was clear obstacles out of our way to perform missions how we wanted. The best ones risked taking the hits for the boys entrusting the platoon or company not to let him down when they did take that risk.
The really good ones managed to stick around for multiple deployments and could potentially avoid the S shops.
Monty was casualty adverse, he fought in the First War and was shot through the right lung during the First Battle of Ypres, fought in the Battles of Arras and Passchendaele, saw a lot more combat than Patton and the other Americans. This made him more careful with the expenditure with lives and only attacked when he was ready.
Soldier turned historian Field Marshal Michael Carver - who served as a staff officer in the 8th Army in WW2 - wrote that it was not the scale of the casaulties in WWI itself that appalled Montgomery but how little was achieved by it, and that Monty was never casualty adverse because he was ready in engage in battles of attrition that other British General's shied away from.
Meanwhile Stephen A. Hart wrote in his book "Colossal Cracks" that it was the dwindling pool of British manpower that forced Montogmery to be more conservative with his men and tactics, so rather than it being some kind of lingering impact of his experiance in the previous world war it was, in fact, military reality and the limits of what was available to him that forced his hand.
and he still went on with Market Garden... Failure of that operation can be smelled miles away (poor planing, too optimistic expectations and all info from Dutch underground that they got showed its too risky).
@@madkoala2130 I've known Paras who were in Arnehm. They were angry and disappointed that Monty did'nt come and see them after it. A "Bridge too far," for sure. They lost a lot of mates.
@@sandymackay4017
'I've known Paras who were in Arnehm.' Really? How many?
@@madkoala2130
'all info from Dutch underground that they got showed its too risky'
But all information purportimng to come from the Dutch Underground at that time was disregarded unless it could be corroborated by other sources due to the German 'Englandspiel' penetration of the Dutch Underground during the previous year.
MARKET GARDEN was no different to any other matter in this regard.
Also the Poles hate Montgomery. After failure at operation Market Garden Monty chose the Polish general in charge of Polish troops as a scape goat. Even though the Polish troops fought very hard and did a great job on their part, they were faulted by Montgomery. His ego didn't let him take his own fault.
As a general? He was great. As a person? Total melt...
Most people hate Poles. They're in no position to talk.
Good point.
I am old enough to have spoken with a number of Poles who served in WW2. Not one ever said that they hated Monty. As far as Market Garden was concerned, their scorn was directed at the Air Plan which was a dismal failure and nothing to do with Monty!
@@nickjung7394 Polish troops were not only fighting in operation Market Garden so they might have fought else where. I am Polish and I know for a fact that Monty did fault the Polish general Stanisław Sosabowski. How would you feel if you fought valiantly but operation failed and all was faulted on you?
Montgomery had no jurisdiction to remove Sosabowski. It wasnt Montgomery who removed Sosabowski.
Browning had a personal issue with Sosabowski due to his insubordination and lack of being a team player, plus his age. Browning recommended two younger Poles be chosen to replace Sosabowski.
As it turned out, Browning was got rid of before Sosabowski. Browning was a scapegoat. Browning was out of the airborne before Sosabowski was.
There is no evidence Montgomery blamed Sosabowski. All Montgomery did was listen to the complaints of others. He didn't personally know Sosabowski.
Bear in mind the British fought alone until 1942 in Africa, Asia and suffered severe losses because of poor leadership. Monty was a good leader with personal traits. US generals were no worse than Monty. Patton was as arrogant as Monty and much more brutal to his own troops hence his suspension and eventual sacking. Monty made do with limited supplies. Slim was a cut above, but that’s a different story
False. The Australians (as well as colonial subjects from India and various African nations) fought in North Africa pre-1942 and millions of Chinese had already died fighting the Japanese by 1942.
Many Brits are every bit as blindly jingoistic as they accuse Americans of being.
@@everettmadsen4265 which bit is false? The fought alone or the issue of generalship arrogance? If the former, you are quite right that Britain fought with her empire forces but they were all volunteers, no conscription. Pre 1942 was essentially a European war and not global until Japan attacked Asia outside Manchuria/China
@@paulconnolly5320 The claim that Britain fought alone in Africa and Asia is categorically false. As I said, many troops from colonial subjects and commonwealth nations were fighting alongside the British, and the Chinese too of course. Ignoring the Chinese fighting Japan since 1937 is simply a Eurocentric viewpoint, however you didn't even just do that, you claimed the British were fighting ALONE in Asia prior to 1942 which is a slap in the face to the Chinese.
Also, as far as Asia goes, pre-1942 the British really hadn't done all that much in Asia beyond their colonial troops (including Indians, Australians, and Malayans among others) falling quickly to the advancing Japanese in Malaya and their Hong Kong garrison consisting of British, Canadian, and Indian troops surrendering. Basically the same thing was concurrently happening to the US/Filipino troops in the Philippines. So really the British impact in Asia wasn't all that much more than the Americans pre-1942 contrary to your claim, and of course was not even remotely comparable to the Chinese war effort. If anything, the US oil embargo on Japan was far more impactful than any fighting the British did against the Japanese up to that point.
@@everettmadsen4265 Britain funded it regardless of where the people came from. That is the only reason to say it stood alone. It bankrupted us as a consequence. US support pre 1942 was conditional on payments being made with gold. The US collected it from the U.K. rather than risk losing it to UBoats in the Atlantic. Lend lease changed that since the gold ran out. As for the Chinese, yes they were fighting the Japanese but that was a specific intra China conflict and did not spread until 1941.
@@paulconnolly5320 Give me a break. Britain "funded it" with the wealth it plundered from those very colonies. Not to mention Canada and Australia were already independent nations at that point so your statement is inaccurate nevertheless. Even if we grant you the "Britain funded it" argument, you would have to be consistent and apply that logic to the massive amounts of war material the US sent to Britain, USSR, China, etc. before Pearl Harbor. As an American, I certainly do not attribute credit to the US for the British enduring the blitz, the Soviet fight on the eastern front, or China's resistance against Japan just because we sent war materials.
You can spin it however you want, the simple fact is that there were massive contributions from 25% of the world's population, only a fraction of which were actually British proper. Britain was anything but alone pre-Pearl Harbor.
Also, again to dismiss China's fight against Japan is simply a Eurocentric POV. But you still can't take that stance though since you explicitly claimed that Britain was fighting alone in Asia. Well, the Germans and Italians were not fighting in Asia, so you can only be talking about the Japanese. So how could you dismiss the Chinese fighting and inflicting millions of casualties upon them? This of course also ignores the fact I stated earlier that the British in reality hadn't actually done all that much against Japan up to that point anyways.
The most impactful western allied action against Japan prior to Pearl harbor was the US freezing their assets and cutting off oil (and other resource) exports to them in 1941. Losing 80% of its oil supply forced Japan to overextend itself procuring those crucial resources in the East Indies and setting a defensive perimeter in the Pacific islands to protect those supply lines.
The way Holland phrased it was that Montgomery generally pissed off other officers on the combined staff, not specifically Americans.
My Grandpa was in the British Army and hated Monty! So much in fact, that he forbid my Grandma from naming my uncle after him! To be fair! On the other side of my family, my Dad's uncle, fought in the Pacific and hated MacArthur
They both had their vanity projects and their public relations staff.
MacArthur and his chief of staff Sutherland both assholes!!
At least Gen. MacArthur returned to the Philippines and wanted to throw nukes into Communist forces during the Korean War. That’s already +2 points for MacArthur!
and Pity his Macarthur's grave isnt nearby , I need to have a piss
@squint04
'My Grandpa was in the British Army and hated Monty!'
My father was in the British Army, and he had no opinion of Montgomery. Probably because never met him.
Having had the honour of shaking Monty’s hand and talking to him for a short time, one to one. Followed by Monty making a speech, he did appear rather awkward in company. Mild Autism? Certainly possible. However he could definitely speak very inspiringly to his men and had learned serious lessons in WW1, which he never forgot!
I hope all the Americans making insulting comments about a man they had never even met take note! Thank you for posting.
To be honest if he was autistic that might have been one of the reasons he made a good general. The ability to think creatively is a characteristic of mild autism.
@@agentduck9285 Autism may also explain his lack of tact as well as lack of awareness of it.
My father fought under Monty . He told me Monty looked after his men .
An admirable quality most likely brought on by his experiences in World War I and the extensive losses of a generation in the trenches.
An admirable quality most likely brought on by his experiences in World War I and the extensive losses of a generation in the trenches.
especially his 'bat boy' read the book on him "Monty"
My dad fought in North Africa and loved Monty 😊
Who could hate Monty Python?! They're hilarious!
Agreed! The only Monty from the U.K. I like hearing about, is Monty Python!🤣
Only when you cannot distinguish them from reality...
@@CA999 They were as real as a dead parrot....
69 likes... nice.
@@InquisitorMatt **click**
*NOICE*
monty was simply a product british military upbrining at the time, a lot off uk famous military officers didnt play well with others and ww2 was the first real and true allied mix of operations and command. Considering it lead to nato it turned out rather well in the end,even if it was a rocky start
Monty was always under constant pressure from Churchill to keep casualties to a minimum after the horrendous slaughters of the first war, where he as a young officer lost half a lung and a third of his stomach to bullet and bayonet wounds. He had to do that and maintain success of the battlefield. The one soldier summed up Patton well, "Our blood, his guts." He cared less about casualties. When Truman became President he looked at all the total casualties of US forces in Europe. He was so appalled at the numbers under Patton that when he went to Europe for the Potsdam Conference he didn't even want to look at him much less meet him. Go look up a lost episode to American history called the "Bonus Army" in 1932 when WW1 veterans went to Washington in hopes of getting an early bonus payment of 500 dollars because the Depression left them destitute. Patton was more than happy under Macarthur's orders to go in with tanks and calvary to drive them out and burn their shacks (the only thing they had left to call "home") to the ground.
facts please: "Patton more than happy", what evidence, quotes? my issue with that washington episode was MacArthur giving the order. Of course it was a travesty, without question
In North Africa, Monty did force Rommel into a retreat, but he only initiated his offensive after he had a 3 to 1 advantage in soldiers and 6 to 1 advantage in Armor. Giving Monty credit for being a battlefield genius, ignores the fact that Rommel had a much weaker force, including over 50% Italian troops, less capable armor and was dealing with a strangled supply line across the Med, especially fuel for his armor. Monty was not a 'superior' General to Rommel or indeed Patton. At Normandy, he said he'd take Caen in 3 days, weeks later, he still hadn't taken it.
@Wraith1959 "he said he'd take Caen in 3 days, weeks later, he still hadn't taken it."
Just as Patton said he'd breach Metz in 2 weeks, it took him 3 MONTHS. And the reason Caen wasn't taken early, is because the Germans moved upwards of 8 SS Panzer divisions, 7 infantry divisions and 3 Tiger detachments to hold it. Do you honestly think going up against 600 German Tanks and Waffen SS troops is going to be a walk in the park?
WRONG:::axis troops..116,000
547 tanks
192 armoured cars
770- 900 aircraft
552 artillery pieces
496 - 1,063 anti-tank....common wealth troops...195,000
1,029 tanks
435 armoured cars
730 - 750 aircraft
892 - 908 artillery guns
1,451 anti-tank guns...now do i take your word regarding how Monty did against Rommel or this man.... As Generalfeldmarschall Kesserling noted
‘even a victorious army cannot keep up a pursuit of thousands of miles in one rush; the stronger the army the greater the difficulty of supply. Previous British pursuits had broken down for the same reason.’
and rather admiringly pointed out,
‘the British Eighth Army had marched halfway across North Africa - and over fifteen hundred miles - had spent the bad winter months on the move and in the desert, and had had to surmount difficulties of every kind.’...as for Caen Monty was facing 80% of the enemy armour that kind of slows things up now i could mention St Lo that the US troops were meant to take D DAY +5 but it was early aug before it was, any idea why? as for patton being a better general i think you should look at Metz and task force Baum and after you have tell me the battles patton won.
You act as thought waiting for numerical superiority is a bad thing. Rommel was a good general, and he was soundly beaten by another. Just another Nazi general, after all, certainly no one to idolize.
'3 to 1 advantage in soldiers and 6 to 1 advantage in Armor.'
Its a definite no.
The British army in North Africa had its moral shot threw Monty needed to rebuild the army in both spirit and hard wears, the force was using outdated equipment and most men had not been rotated out of the theatre. The man took an all but broken force and turned it into an incredibly dangerous force and that numbers advantage came from him not wasting his men on reckless advances but rather beating his adversary at their own game
The feelings of the people you command can be just as damaging to the war effort as making bad decisions. It's not just what you command but how you command that wins wars and Eisenhower tiptowed a fine line on how he delt with Montgomery. Ultimately, I think the takeaway from this video is more of how well Eisenhower commanded than Montgomery.
What I took away from this video was that patton and bradly were a couple of hyper sensitive crybabies. Lets be clear Monty did care about and respect the lowly private, like my dad. It was high ranking officers he treated like crap.
@@banzi403 Telling the media that you're a genius and hero isn't a redeemable quality, but you glossed over that part.
@@JoviaI1 I'm just going off what people whom I knew personally, that served and met Monty had to say about him. Not what I saw in a movie or google.
Montgomery wasn't a child was he? He respected the men under his command very much and you're taking away all his successes and careful planning by saying Eisenhower babysat him and showed him what to do
@@niono1587 All of these generals were successful in their own way and I am in no way detracting from their successes. And I'm not saying Eisenhower showed Monty what to do, but he absolutely did have to be the babysitter, for other Generals like Bradley and Patton too because they all acted like children.
The narrow front attack proposed by Montgomery was also to eliminate the sites for launching V1 bombs to London.
Also Montgomery had had a look at a map and realised that if they cut through entirely and crossed the Dutch rivers, they essentially had all the harbours they needed AND would've had the Ruhr. It wasn't a bad setup, just impossible given the conditions.
If only the typewriter-general Patton had had a look at a map once or twice in his career.....
@@nvelsen1975 Without USA UK would not have survived until 1944. UK is world fasmous for its aggrandisement of itself and its achievments. Up until El Alamein there was not much to write home about. Even at Waterloo half the army of Wellington was from Hannover and the Netherlands. He would have lost the battle if Blucher and the prussian armyn had not arrived in the 11th hour on Napoleon´s flank.
@@trident6547 Your comment about industry does not relate to my comment about command structures and strategic situations at all.
Maybe you meant to reply to someone else?
@@nvelsen1975Patton a "typewriter general"? Assuming that meant he stayed behind a desk, never saw the field, and didn't know operations, that seems an astonishingly erroneous comment. Edit: Don't bother responding, I see that's your standard characterization of Patton and American generals and you use it many times in comments. Clown.
@@trident6547 You don't seriously believe that, do you? Britain was most at risk of losing the war in the early summer of 1940. The outcome of the war was decided by October 1941 when Germany failed to defeat Russia before they ran out of momentum. Britain could have done nothing for the rest of the war and still survived comfortably.
As abrasive, and pig headed as Montgomery was, he had a good track record in North Africa against one of Germany's finest generals (Rommel). He had learned to husband his resources carefully before making an offensive. He was not willing to gamble on a swift win against seasoned German troops.
And he Never slapped any of his men.
He won because he couldn't possibly loose.Othe officers won before he even arrived .But the Navy/Air Corp and ULTRA strangle Rommel plus the infusion of American men and materiel condemned any chance The Afrika Korp had
See there are several different versions of Good wood. One where it was a successful diversionary attack, another where it was a pointless assault that cost several divisions worth of armor that would have been important in the following falaise pocket battle. Monty would also prove just as reckless as Paton, in Market Garden.
neither Patton or Monty had anything to do with MG
"The final crisis between Ike and Monty came in late December 1944, during Germany’s offensive in the Ardennes, the Battle of the Bulge. True to form, Montgomery refused to attend Eisenhower’s senior leaders’ emergency meeting at Verdun on December 19, 1944. Tedder, Omar Bradley, Third Army commander George S. Patton, Bedell Smith, and 6th Army Group commander Lt. Gen. Jacob L. Devers were all there. Montgomery sent de Guingand. Eisenhower made the correct decision to place U.S. First and Ninth Armies temporarily under the operational control of Montgomery’s 21st Army Group to fight the German penetration north of the Bulge shoulder. Montgomery, however, became openly very critical of American performance during the battle. The British press echoed the criticisms, suggesting that Montgomery had “saved the bacon” for the Americans, and demanding that Monty be made overall land forces commander for the rest of the war.
That was the final straw for Eisenhower. On December 30 Ike decided to tell British prime minister Winston Churchill and the Combined Chiefs of Staff that either he or Montgomery had to go. When de Guingand saw the draft of Eisenhower’s letter, he had no doubt which way the decision would fall. But he persuaded Eisenhower to postpone sending the letter until he could talk to Montgomery. At first, Montgomery refused to accept the seriousness of the situation, believing that there was no other British general who could replace him. He was shocked when de Guingand told him that Eisenhower was prepared to recommend Sir Harold Alexander, now a field marshal, as the replacement.
Montgomery finally understood the gravity of his position. He asked de Guingand to draft an abject letter of apology to Eisenhower in an effort to defuse the situation. A very uncharacteristically humble-sounding Montgomery wrote, “Have seen Freddie and understand you are greatly worried by many considerations in these difficult days.” And, “Whatever your decision may be, you can rely upon me one hundred percent to make it work.” He signed the letter, “Your very devoted subordinate, Monty.” It worked. Eisenhower was mollified. But of course, after the war and to the end of his life Montgomery never missed an opportunity to snipe at Ike." - The Man Behind Monty, 8/2023, Historynet article.
Actually Frediie De Guingand intercepted the comunique dismissing Monty and HE ASKED IKE for 24 hrs. The meerkat Monty did some groveling and Freddie drew up the letter and Monty promptly signed it
"The principal objective of that thrust, known as Operation Market Garden, was to force the hand not of Hitler, but of Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower. If the British secured a corridor beyond the Rhine, Ike would be obliged to support a drive from the north led by Montgomery into Germany: the cocky little bishop’s son saw before him the prospect of passing into history as the composer and conductor of Western Allied victory."
Botch on the Rhine Max Hastings
Ike demanded MG Brereton and Williams planned it Gavin broke it. so where does Monty fit in?
TWAT
Its speculation.
THICKO quit making shyt up - Bernard admitted fault after the war - read THE FULL MONTY Johnny you and little villa are mentioned in it
@@bigwoody4704 lilwoody Whittaker of you trot boy those windows will not lick themselves
What is that garble you chattering ebola chimp - has Monty been getting rough with you in the tub again. Ring the nurses station and report this
These were great commanders and none of them were perfect but I believe Montys experiences of the horrors of the WW1 trenches probably made him as some would say somewhat a little too cautious but I believe he had the best interests of his men and tried his best to see that they didn’t suffer and sacrifice unnecessarily which was a large part of the battles that took place in the First World War.