Field Marshall Montgomery's reputation

Great Debates
1

Field Marshall Bernard Law Montgomery is probably the best known British military leader of WWII. Despite this, he is not now held in high esteem. In fact, opinions on his abilities are almost completely negative. The popular consensus seems to be that at his best he won a few victories when the odds were overwhelmingly in his favor (El Alamien, Normandy, Sicily) but more often he failed to take advantage of opportunities better men would have taken to victory (Falais, Antwerp, Market-Garden, the Bulge).

I have two questions. First, is Montgomery the victim of American bias? I’d like to hear how he is regarded by British posters. The second question is whether his reputation is undeserved. The man was after all, highly respected by his subordinates, many of his peers, and the British government. Surely, he must have been a better general than his current reputation would indicate. So I have come not to bury Monty but to praise him. Or at least listen to those who would.

2

Charles de Gaulle said of Montgomery:

Here’s another opinion:

It goes on to say that both men drew their strength from the men who served under them. IMHO Patton and Montgomery hated each other because they were so much alike.

3

Montgomery had 600 tanks at the end to Rommel’s 30 or so, and Rommel barely had enough gas to retreat. Montgomery had intelligence so good that he knew Rommel’s orders as soon or earlier than Rommel did. He was unable to finish Rommel’s forces.

He did fine “racing” Patton to Messina when Patton was bucking his orders to protect Mongtomery’s advance. Leading to the argument that his rivalry with Patton made Montgomery much less timid.

His raid at Dieppe was a disaster, probably not his fault, it was a doomed operation, not having the scale and vision of Eisenhower’s Operation Overlord. (I imagine that towards the end of the war when the Germans finally realized the scope of it that they must have been very damn impressed with Eisenhower.)

The best thing you could say about Montgomery was that he was not as bad as the other British generals he replaced, and didn’t lose battles his overwhelming superiority should have gained him quick and decisive victories in. This is in no way meant to disparage the men who served under him, who were great soldiers, and aquitted themselves honorably.

If you want to find something better to say about Montgomery, you could argue that after D-Day that he made steady progress at a slow pace against determined German resistance, may have been facing superior enemy units than his American counterparts, and did well in view of his prior timidness in North Africa.

4

The most common criticism I’ve heard of him as a tactician was that he was too concerned with ‘tidiness’; he liked neat, practical plans and was not at all good at the grand sweeping strategy (was he involved in approving Market Garden? I can’t remember).

5

If I remember A Bridge Too Far, Market Garden was Monty’s idea from start to finish.

6

Dieppe was not an invasion but a large scale raid. Let’s not forget that the “sweeping scale and vision” of Operation Overlord was built on the back of the captured, dead and wounded soldiers participating in Operation Jubilee. Eisenhower had two years to study the failure and build up a more sizable and effective force.

Dieppe was originally planned out by Monty and Mountbatton but Monty was eventually pulled away from the operation. Over the weeks leading to the raid many changes were implemented including a great reduction of air cover and naval bombardment.
Leaving the Soldiers on the beaches hanging in the wind.

I do honestly think there is a great bias on the part of some American’s to downplay some of Monty’s accomplishments and play up his shortfalls. It seems old Rivalries from almost 60 years ago just never die.

7

Montgomery was definitely the man behind Market-Garden, despite it being a very uncharacteristic operation for him. I never really associated him with Dieppe; I always though of that as being more Mountbatten’s operation.

8

Well, can anybody defend his final battles against Rommel in North Africa? Monty didn’t lose battles and he was not a disaster as a general as some make him out, but he did not capitalize on tremendous and overwhelming advantages that he knew he had. War is an awful and ugly business, and I can think of lots worse generals than Monty, but to say he was competent and didn’t commit lots of blunders is damning with faint praise. I can understand his wariness when Rommel still had strength, at least he knew that Rommel was far more resourceful than he, but his overestimation of Rommel at the end was an embarrassment. He should have captured Rommel and all his forces.

If the British want to take pride in WWII, and well they should, they had great soldiers and sailors, and the best damn intelligence in history. (I’d like to give a lot of Enigma credit to the Polish folks too, they had brilliant ideas and were extraordinary. They usually don’t get their fair share.) Not only did the Brits break all the Axis European codes, but their deceptions have lead me never to play poker with a Brit. Without Enigma, the Nazis would have only had one front. Without radar, the British Isles would have fallen. Maybe a day late, but not a dollar short.

The only thing equivilent to the British coup in Enigma were the similar breakthroughs they had in WWI, when not nearly so much was transmitted on radio, and the American success with the Japanese naval codes. As important as Midway was in cutting the war short, even if the battle had gone the other way, it would only have been another year or two for the Japanese Empire. The U.S. had over a hundred carriers at the battle of Okinawa. The UK was within days of collapsing during the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic.

9

Monty was the best of a bad lot; compared to a totally incompetent general like Auchinleck, he was a genius. Bear in mind, before Mongomery, Britain had suffered a string of serious defeats in N Africa, so any wins were a plus. Operation “MARKET GARDEN” showed Monty at his worst-vain, insufferable, and unwilling to admit mistakes. This disaster probably set back the European campaign by 6 months or more. Actually, the Army never got the best talent-the best brains went into the Royal Navy, and the command structure of the British army had not changed since the First world war.
As an aside, one truly great British general was General Slim: he was both an able field commander and an excellent tactician. Unfortunately, the remoteness and obscurity of the treatre he served in (Burma) has made him virtully forgotten.

10

It’s very hard for anyone to be the victim of bias, when the bias-er has never heard of the bias-ee. Not many on this side of the Atlantic has heard of him. I know about American gebnerals, Japanese commanders, German, and Russians, but not British ground forces.

11

Well, I wouldn’t expect the person in the street to be able to objectively compare Monty, Patton etc, but I think we’re talking more about bias at a more knowledgeable level (historians, politicians etc).

12

Certainly true in general, but I’d say Montgomery is the exception to the rule. If you asked the average American, I’d bet he could name one British general (Montgomery), one German general (Rommel), and one Japanese general (Yamamoto - who was actually an Admiral). I’d guess the Soviets would draw a complete blank.

But Montgomery is fairly well known, even to people who have no real historical knowledge. Why? Because he was in the movies. He was a major character in Patton but he was also mentioned in A Bridge Too Far and Saving Private Ryan; none of which protrayed him favorably. In fact, if I were rewriting my OP, I’d probably ask “how much difference is there between Montgomery’s screen reputation and his real abilities?”

13

Zukov. Arguably the best general in WWII.

14

Yes and the US names from the ETO would probably be Patton and the 3[sup]rd[/sup] Army. This despite the fact that the US 1[sup]st[/sup] Army under Gen. Omar Bradley was the one that landed in Normandy, broke out at St. Lo and then when commanded by Gen. Courtney Hodges was first across the Rhine.

15

Max Hastings is an English historian who trashes Monty pretty thoroughly in “Overlord”.

Carlo D’Este is an American historian who defends Monty in “Decision at Normandy”.

Both, however, say he repeatedly and routinely rewrote his strategy in retrospect. In other words, he lied about his original plans and goals so as not to admit mistakes or incorrect assessments that led to defeat or stalemate on the battlefield.

16

I’ve just been reading a book that contends that Manstein used the same tactic of winning battles in retrospect. Manstein’s high reputation as a military leader supposedly benefitted from his surviving so many of his peers who were killed either during the war or shortly thereafter. Manstein, on the other hand, lived to write his memoirs in which he supposedly “tidied up” his record.

17

Oh goody, a WWII “Who’s the best general?” debate.

My WAG – the best generals were German (innovative, resourceful, fought well despite being outnumbered) second best were Soviet (good but re-defined the term cannon fodder), third equal were British and American, fifth were Japanese.

Best admirals were British (innovative, resourceful, kept the enemy on the back foot despite heavy losses), second were American (good and with stupendous material resources that made them unbeatable), third were Japanese (Yamamoto is hugely overrated), fourth German, fifth Russian (can you name a Soviet admiral?).

The British army suffered from the slaughter of its officer class in WWI. A constant thread of Field Marshal Viscount Allenbrooke’s war diary is the lack of good generals. (Chief of Imperial General Staff (i.e. the army). The diary is a fantastic book, highly recommended). The sacking rate among British generals was very high yet even some previously sacked men (e.g. Neil Ritchie, sometime commander of the Army of the Nile, which became the 8th Army) were re-used later in the war due to the lack of quality available.

The Royal Navy had lost fewer good men and learned a lot from WWI. As a result, it had probably the best senior officer class of any armed service in WWII. It was only when forced to fight the Japanese as well that the strain proved to much and the RN was forced on the defensive.

The US army and navy didn’t have the WWI casualty problems the British army suffered from. The army did suffer from the “not invented here” syndrome, tending to believe it knew all the answers rather than listen to its allies. Operations Torch and Husky (invasions of North Africa and Sicily) were valuable lessons for the US, which were applied in Overlord. The British had learned a lot from Dieppe (which was in 1942, before Torch and Husky). The US army should have listened to the Marines, who, IMHO, were the best Allied soldiers of the war. One of the biggest gains of these operations for the Allies was finding a supreme commander with whom everybody could work– Eisenhower. He was arguably the best commander of the lot in WWII, not for his campaign winning strategies but for getting the best out of his subordinates. Remember, he was the man who kept Patton and Montgomery fighting the Germans and not each other!

Montgomery was the best (with Slim) of a not very good lot. He was cautious, won pretty much all of his battles, was quick thinking when things went wrong (even if he subsequently claimed it all went according to plan), was politically astute and inspired his men. Not a bad record, all things considered.

Patton was different. He was bold, won pretty much all of his battles, was quick thinking when things went wrong, was politically astute and inspired his men. Not a bad record, all things considered.

Not much to choose, is there?

18

“His raid at Dieppe was a disaster, probably not his fault, it was a doomed operation, not having the scale and vision of Eisenhower’s Operation Overlord. (I imagine that towards the end of the war when the Germans finally realized the scope of it that they must have been very damn impressed with Eisenhower.)”

Monty was originally a participant in the planning of Dieppe but it was shelved, Monty assigned to a new post. Only after Monty was long gone was Dieppe re considered.

Overlord was planned and executed by Monty. Originally planned by Morgan, Churchill asked Monty to take a look. Monty was not impressed and Churchill, as well as Eisenhower had him re-plan Overlord.
Monty was also the ground Commander in Overlord until he handed over command to the useless Bradley.

I don’t know how to quote specific sections of people’s comments. :frowning:

19

You resurrect a 14 year old thread to post nonsense? Is school out already?

20

I acknowledged Normandy was an allied victory under Montgomery’s command so I’m not sure what you’re arguing against.

But let’s face facts. The cross-channel invasion was given top priority to the resources of Britain, Canada, and America and had a staff that spent two years planning out the battle. I could have won that battle.

I’m not sure why you feel Bradley was useless but you’re wrong in thinking Montgomery handed over command to him.