With a name like “Charles Of France”, I can understand that.
Smashed and chased are interesting adjectives. Starting with a 2 to 1 numerical advantage and unlimited fuel the followed the Germans back along their 1500 precarious mile supply route in a fashion that I suppose one could characterize was workmanlike if one was being generous. By the end the armor was something like 600 to 30 tanks. That isn’t a loss, but it is hardly a smashing victory. They should have encircled the Germans and captured all of them. Montgomery’s victory here is pathetic. Contrast it with what Grant did to Lee. That is what is supposed to happen. Relentless engagement, attempts at encirclement and capture and surrender of the entire army with commander. That is what must be done with those advantages against a disadvantaged enemy with a brilliant commander.
A brilliant commander wins all or most of his battles against superior forces. Perhaps you could refer to the occasions where Montgomery defeated superior forces in support of the preposterous claim that he was the best Allied commander (now that you’ve conceded Zukov in the East) and are now claiming Western.
Did Montgomery ever beat forces better equipped and several times his size in a manner similar to McAullife at Bastogne? Of course not. What McAullife pulled off at Bastogne was superior commanding to anything any other commander did during the entire war (with the possible exception of Pearl Harbor or Midway). Yet you assert that Montgomery was the best Allied commander? No, he was the best British commander. He could be counted on to keep pushing numerically inferior forces at a steady pace so that they could conduct textbook examples of fighting retreats. See North Africa.
You are correct.
There is clearly no point in our arguing ad infinitum about Montgomery. For the purposes of the OP’s question he was clearly a huge jerk - he was not asking about their merits as battlefield commanders as has already been made clear.
Montgomery is a divisive character. Personally I think he was clearly amongst the very top Allied generals of WW2, many other (mainly Americans, and failed British desert generals and their autobiographers) disagree. I think part of the issue comes from the viewpoint. The USA, compared to the British Empire, had huge manpower resources and did not appear to mind taking casualties as a consequence. The USSR had a similar viewpoint and for surprisingly similar reasons.
By 1943 let alone 1944 the British Empire was running out of manpower, whole divisions were being cannibalized to supply replacements for others and the British Army was a wasting resource. Montgomery cared about his men and the casualties he was prepared to take to a very high degree - and indeed he preferred to build up resources such that he could continue going once broken through and gets condemned for never moving until he had overwhelming force. This was exactly what he had to do if he was going to have an army left for the next move forward.
This is in contrast to the American habit of bulling ahead regardless of casualties and attacking everywhere at once. The result was the debacle that was the Battle of the Bulge, which was a disgraceful defeat that never should have happened. What McAullife did at Bastogne can be compared to putting he finger in the dyke but cannot be compared to major campaigns involving Armies and Army Groups which was the level Montgomery was operating at.
It’s a shame that we argue over detail, as there is glory enough for all to take pride in what their Armies achieved in WW2. The truth is that there is a massive shortage of quality generalship in every major war. Perhaps we can agree that Montgomery and Patton (although I am not a fan of the latter) were probably in the top 10% of the generals each Nation produced despite both being clearly huge jackasses and probably mentally disturbed in some way.
Eisenhower was somewhat obsessed by Hannibal and Cannae. More than anything, he wanted to repeat the historical ‘double envelopment’, and a war of annihilation, something that has rarely (if ever) been accomplished since Cannae. The problem with attempting this sort of thing is that every side in a war is aware of the tactics and prepares for them. That said, the American brass knew from the outset that they would have to send troops into a meat grinder and that only massive assault from land, sea and air would win out over the Wehrmacht and SS troops, which it ultimately did. At one point, morale was so bad that they quit calling fresh troops ‘replacements’ because of the implication of the word. I believe the alternative word was ‘reinforcements’.
I’m pretty sure that Bastogne was the result of ignoring or dismissing intelligence from the front as being unreliable or a case of the jitters by line officers. Patton was the only General who saw it coming, but he was ignored along with everyone else who was convinced that the Hun was a defeated army.
See Battle of Walaja
Ike’s obsessions with Cannae was no where near what the Germans had. From Moltke the elder to Schlieffen to Moltke the young at the Marne, to well the whole concept behind Blitzkrieg.
I was going to mention von Schlieffen, but you are much more informed and eloquent. 
How was Bagration something you couldn’t have done in the West? Are you of the impression it was just a human wave attack?
Bagration was as carefully prepared an assault as Normandy, including massive deception operations meant to pull German forces away from the area of attack so the Soviets WOULDN’T take unnecessary casualties. Despite being the defenders the Germans took far more casualties than the Soviets did (according to most sources.)
That’s a big call- Bagration took a few months of preparation whereas Normandy was several years in the making and included creating harbours and landing troops across the sea. Bagration was carefully prepared, no doubt, but they were such different operations that a comparison is difficult.
Similarly, I find some of the arguments above are difficult to accept because of the nature of the combat involved. Bastogne has been mentioned above, but surely the greatest mismatch was the Battle Off Samar when and American small naval fleet escaped destruction from the Japanese. However, both these actions (arguably) had little effect on the outcome of the war- they changed nothing.
Montgomery was pompous and couldn’t accept criticism, but a loss at El Alamein could have been devastating. Sure, he had superior fuel and reserves but eventually it was his planning that allowed for this.
And I guess, this si where we run into a problem- what are the guidelines on the decision we are making? Is it the commander who unnecessarily wasted lives, opportunities or resources? The prickliest? Or even those who achieved the least with what they had?
I THOUGHT it was supposed to be about who you would LEAST like to go out with for a beer…
Dug-out Doug? Well, my Dad served with him and hated him, said he was a asshole. He tried to start WWIII by Nuking the North Koreans and likely the Chinese.
Even after he got news of Pearl Harbor he did nothing to prepare for the Japanese surprise attack which …took Doug by surprise (wiki) :" *At 03:30 local time on 8 December 1941 (about 09:00 on 7 December in Hawaii),[119] Sutherland learned of the attack on Pearl Harbor and informed MacArthur. At 05:30, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General George Marshall, ordered MacArthur to execute the existing war plan, Rainbow Five. MacArthur did nothing. On three occasions, the commander of the Far East Air Force, Major General Lewis H. Brereton, requested permission to attack Japanese bases in Formosa, in accordance with prewar intentions, but was denied by Sutherland. Not until 11:00 did Brereton speak with MacArthur about it, and obtained permission.[120] MacArthur later denied having the conversation.[121] At 12:30, aircraft of Japan’s 11th Air Fleet achieved complete tactical surprise when they attacked Clark Field and the nearby fighter base at Iba Field, and destroyed or disabled 18 of Far East Air Force’s 35 B-17s, 53 of its 107 P-40s, three P-35s, and more than 25 other aircraft. Most were destroyed on the ground. Substantial damage was done to the bases, and casualties totaled 80 killed and 150 wounded.[122] What was left of the Far East Air Force was all but destroyed over the next few days.[123]
For this he got the Medal of Honor.:rolleyes: Oh and a bribe of half-a-million $ from President Quezon of the Philippines.
My dad’s old brown-shoe army surrogate fathers all had MacArthur stories, mostly funny but entirely debunkable in the internet era. But my favorite “MacArthur was an asshole” line was written by MacArthur himself. Both he and Billy Mitchell had wealthy Wisconsin backgrounds on their mothers’ sides, and their houses on the Milwaukee lake bluffs were close. Mitchell was only 12 months older, but for kids that can make for a huge tactical advantage, and Mitchell used it to its full effect on the younger boy, as kids will do.
Years later, you-know-who is sitting on Mitchell’s court martial. The Gary Cooper movie has MacArthur making flag-waving oratory supporting Mitchell’s right to free speech, totally out of character for both MacArthur and the Army’s mindset of the era. No historical record holds him making any such statements.
In his memoirs, all he himself writes is “I did what I could for Mitchell.” Was that “for” or “to,” Doug?
And a park named after him that led to the writing of a really bizarre song.
So, you know, there’s that.
The building he was born in is in MacArthur Park in Little Rock.
My Father worked on the B-17 in which MacArthur flew about the Pacific. His radio operator had left the long wire trailing antenna unwound on landing. It wrapped around a tree and ripped the radio through the fuselage.
After reading about the Chinese theatre I reckon I should have put General “Vinegar Joe” Stillwell on there too, as like MacArthur he seemed to regard his theatre as more of a personal fiefdom and referred to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek as “The Peanut”.
Not to mention his remaining defense of the Phillipines can be at best called ‘uninspired’. Later on his portion of the island hopping campaign could be also characterized as ‘uninspired’.
When someone talented under his command showed their stuff Dougie found a way to remove them before they could get an ounce of the Glory that was “ALL FOR DOUG!”
His contempt for Australian and NZ troops was bordering on criminal. Once Japan surrendered he did act and treat himself as the King of that nation for many years.
Post WW2 his big victory was Inchon but that seemed more a factor or luck than strategy or skill.
Yeah, biggest jerkass in my book.
No wonder Truman called him “a dumb son of a bitch” in * Plain Speaking. *
With Stalin out of the running, Chiang Kai-shek deserves serious consideration. His blatant corruption, obsessive prioritization of fighting the Communists over the Japanese, and slaughter of non-combatants made even Mao seem palatable by comparison.
Too bad Lavrentiy Beria isn’t a choice. Mass murderer and rapist and Stalin’s right hand man. He probably ranks second only to Himmler as the war’s biggest monster.
To my mind, “jerkass” has a different meaning from “monster”. It means abrasive, egotistical, and personally offensive.
Slapping a shell-shocked soldier about is the actions of a jerkass; having people exceuted on a whim, the actions of a monster.
Stalin introduced him to Roosevelt as “our Himmler”. Although if I had to list Soviet jerkasses I’d be here all day, just ask East Prussians.