"The Normandy Adventure" -Reflections of Field Marshal Montgomery
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 чер 2014
- An audio clip from a filmed interview of the made-for-TV feature "Montgomery Speaks His Mind". Interviewing Bernard Law Montgomery at his home in England are, journalist and military historian Edward R Murrow and Charles Collingwood. The film first aired to a US audience 28 April 1959 and the issues discussed range from pivotal events of WW11 to the post-war role of the United States.
Montgomery's uninhibited retrospective on the battle strategy deployed by his operational commander, D Eisenhower, has long been considered controversial. Even today, many would prefer that personal commentary on such matters be confined to already published works of autobiography. Fortunately, for 21st century seekers of truth and insight, it appears that studio engineers of the day copied the film soundtrack onto tape.
On a purely technical level, the item here is the product of painstaking digital refurbishment of an ageing analogue tape. If you know of any film print (or later years telecine or video-tape transcription) of this program that might be suitable for transcription for historical research purposes, please contact me via youtube or my website.
Thank you for putting this up. If you have more Monty stuff do put it up. You will be doing the world a favor. Not only a great general but a great leader who unlike most and despite his vanity ALWAYS put his men's lives first while ALSO making sure they would win.
A great example in this world of selfish uncaring leaders
You mention Beever who I think sucks as a historian (he is a revisionist; (ie he writes for political reason's Propaganda; New Tory BS). And you points on Monty are wrong. Sorry I cannot write a book right now but you are wrong .,He was the man who modernized the Brit Army. The only point you have he was egotistical. Yes as were most successful generals but he always used it to boost morale and unlike most ALWAYS put his soldiers first. You should read what the men who served under him had to say. He did much more than win all but some battles. He built a winning army out of a loser one and dragged the inbred upper class army into the 20th century..
He was the best UK General of either World War and Rommel and the Germans feared him far more than Patton BECAUSE he made sure to win. Of course he thought M.G. might have worked . It was his only gamble apart from that when he was saving the UK and French at Dunkirk. He hated gambles but would take them IF the risk was worth it. It was. He could have ended WW II 6 months earlier and prevented USSR from moving so deep into Europe while saving millions. Don't believe the movie hype.
Monty was horrific he won in the desert only because of an embarrasment in riches in both men and material.The Alled Navies & Air Corps completely strangled Rommel's supply lines.And ULTRA was picking off german radio dispstches directing Monty's every move.The drunk Churchill fired Auchinleck & Dorman Smith who set up the minefields and the battle plans.Only to have Monty sit on his ass for over 2 months.Hell even you couldn't faff up that situation but Monty almost did
A truly great general, The best allied commander of either WW I or II in my mind. I have read (3 times) Hamiltons 800 page account of Monty's best years 1942-44 which is filled with diary quotes made at the time (rather than later one's done for publicity and propaganda reasons) and it is clear that after the war the US's supreme power and leadership of the post war West mean' that it became impossible to do other than give Eisenhower the accolades earned and deserved by Monty for HIS plans used at D Day of which Eisenhower do no more than agree to (it was good he agreed too!)
Let me Quote Rommel who was always beaten by Him. 'Montgomery is Britains most competent commander, while not very imaginative he has never made a serious mistake.''
Monty had ot win with troops less trained and fanatical than the Germans and with mostly very inferior tanks. It was 100& his D Day plans that won the Western front and doomed the Germans, He was NOT spectacular. That was not his job. That was Pattons' who was chosen by Monty for just that reason to lead the 3rd Army strike south and then east through France.
MegaRaven100 I wouldn't go that far because he wasn't a general in WW1. In WW 2 i think he is probably number 3 on the allied side behind Rokossosky and Zhukov.because those two won more and participated in larger battle.
Good point. Agreed he was not a commender in WWI and you mention Zhukov and Rokossodky form the Russian side, while I actually meant' US or UK Generals but was not clear on that.
Both Russians were excellent. Better or as good I cannot say but certainly brilliant too and worth bringing up but my point was the overrated allied (US, UK) generals vs the underestimated and unpopular (politically but not with his soldiers Monty.
I had been reading Hamilton's 3 Part Biography of Monty - a damn nuisance that I left the 1942-1944 section unfinished on a French train.
You have a 3:1 advantage in armor...You have the majic intercepts which spells out Rommel's battle plans....thank's to majic, again, his re-supply convoys are sunk.... If you can't win under those circumstances, you need to join the Boy Scouts. He's as big a fraud as Mcauthor.
Fascinating to hear his views
Is there a full version?
Poor Caen! How they suffered over the following two months after the beach landings. The bombing was the worst unfortunately. "We won it doesn't matter"ends this interview... but the cost for Caen was total destruction along with it's civilian population. Two months of horror as men fought to the death even with fists at this stalemate in thousands of melee incidents during operation Epsom, Charnwood and Goodwood as the resolute German battle group would not budge. This was totally misread in the plans so eventually Monty called in the Lancasters, lots of them. One hopes that the population of this town have forgiven both their occupiers and their liberators!
His claim that the reason he didn't capture Caen was because the plan was to draw more germans to the eastern flank is a case of Monty rewriting history to make himself look good. He didn't capture Caen because his plan failed, its as simple as that. Also the American forces objective after landing on the beaches on D-Day was not St lo but the port Cherbourg.
Not a case of Monty rewriting history, you simply don't know any. It was not expected that Caen would be captured on D Day because the division that landed on Sword beach was the last to land with the furthest to go against the strongest opposition, the only unit to be engaged by a Panzer division on D Day. This was a nice to have objective but not essential.
As Montgomery says in the interview his plan was explained many times prior to the invasion and approved by Eisenhower. This was to draw the Germans onto the left flank and break out on the right. If Eisenhower didn't understand it he should have asked for clarification. But of course he did understand it. His later comments were a dishonest claim that the US army had rescued a British failure. In the interview Montgomery does not call Eisenhower a liar but he must have thought it. Incidentally the book mentioned in the interview undercut Eisenhower's post war alibis by publishing the wartime correspondence. Eisenhower never spoke to Montgomery again.
lastly about your last sentence. The US Army had more than one objective after D Day. The St Lo - Perriers road by D + 5 was one of them as stated. If you want to talk about failure to reach objectives on D Day lets talk about Omaha. That failure really did threaten the success of the invasion.
No. Montgomery laid out his plan for Normandy in his presentation at St Paul's School on 15th May 1944. Eisenhower and Bradley mentioned this planin their works.
egomaniac....pretty sure boys at bridge in Arnhem didn't think he was a super hero
Less of an egomaniac than Patton.
both equal
you do realize Arnhem is such a fuss because its the one time Monty had a high number of casualties? And that was what? 12.000?
Compare that to Patton's 32.000 in Metz, Bradley's 42.000 in Hurtgen Forest... or Battle of the bulge, what? 100.000 americans......
strategy not body count.....assuming 0ne road will let you save your guys is overly optimistic
scott garvey And yet all objectives were achieved but Arnhem itself. Considering that before the operation, everyone was actually pessimistic about it and everyone close to Monty in his staff thought it should have been disconsidered, makes all the successes it achieved quite a welcome surprise. THe fact that nijmegen was captured and later was the attacking point of operation veritable and all the advances north of holland proves that the sacrifices were justifiable.
If anything market garden proved how the british, even though superbly overstreched, could mount such an operation and almost win against most odds. In fact, the germans should have managed to stop the allies way before arnhem, they didnt and that was a major failure on their part. Arnhem was a tactical victory because of the delay on capturing Nijmegen by the allies. But that is it.