Are there other quotes from this press conference in which Bradley claims to have everything under control, or claims that leaving the Ardennes lightly defended was a cunning plan to lure the Germans into attacking? Because the quote you supplied supports neither interpretation.
The degree to which criticism is “personal” or “visceral” is subjective. There’s no way to falsify your claim here.
That was Mr. Miskatonic, not me.
That is your interpretation. Perish the thought you might have a pre-disposition to believe everything one general says…
A fictional story that Montgomery was highly insulting to US troops and Eisenhower during The Bulge was an accepted fact in this thread. I post Monty quotes from the actual Press Conference that show this to be a complete lie:
The American troops isolated and cut off were fighting and holding on to centers of road communication making it extremely difficult for the Germans to move and flow through the gap they had made.
I have spent my military career with the British soldier and I have come to love him with a great love. I have now formed a very great affection and admiration for the American soldier. I salute the brave fighting men of America I never want to fight alongside better soldlers.
Just now I am seelng a great deal of the American soldier. I have tried to feel that I am almost an American soldier myself so that I might take no unsuitable action or offend them in any way…The American soldiers of the United States Seventh Armored Division and the 106th Infantry Division stuck it out and put up a very fine performance. By jove. they stuck it out, those chaps,
And there was the 101st Airborne Division at Bastogne who held out magnificently. The places where these men fought were, I maintain, terrifically important.
…It is team work that pulls you through dangerous times; lt is team work that wins battles; it is victories in battle than win wars. I want to put in a strong plea for Allied solidarity at this vital stage of the war-and you can all help in this greatly.
Nothing must be done by anyone that tends to break down the team spirit of our Allied team: If you try to “get at” the captain of the team you are liable to induce a loss of confidence. and this may spread and have disastrous results.
I would say that anyone who tries to break up the team spirit of the Allies is definitely helping the enemy.
Let me tell you that the captain of our team is General Eisenhower. I am absolutely devoted to Ike. We are the greatest of friends. It grieves me when I see uncomplimentary articles about him in the British press. He bears a great burden, he needs our fullest support, he has a right to expect it and it is up to all of us to see that he gets it.
And so I would ask all of you to lend a hand to stop that sort of thing. Let us all rally round the captain of the team and so help to win the match.
No one objects to healthy and constructive criticism. It is good for us.
But let us have done with destructive criticism that aims a blow at Alliéd solidarity, that tends to break up our team spirit and that therefore helps the enemy.
I have yet to see anyone apologising and admitting they falsely slandered Monty.
Instead we have pettyfogging dictionary-definition arguments about the meaning of individual words/phrases in Bradley’s statement.
The contrast is stark and the underlying prejudice crystal clear. Post the most insulting egregious lies about Monty and you are never asked to reference your calumny. Dare to suggest Bradley might have been a bit devious with his exculpating excuses and we get a stream of ‘he never really said that’ and demands for further context.
It’s not a matter of intepretation, unless you’re suggesting he was speaking in some sort of cipher that only you can decode. He doesn’t refer to the situation as being under control, nor suggest some sort of positive outcome as a result of the light Ardennes defenses (other than gains made elsewhere, which is entirely reasonable). It’s simply an explanation of why the Ardennes was lightly defended.
You’ll have to take that up with Mr. Miskatonic. The difference, for my purposes, was that you supplied the supposedly damning quotes, and he didn’t. Had he claimed that Montgomery insulted the U.S. troops, then provided a quote that did nothing of the sort, I’d have objected to this, but he didn’t.
Further, there’s been no argument about the meaning of individual words or phrases in Bradley’s statement, nor any recourse to the dictionary. I’ve no idea what you’re referring to by this.
Bradley was caught on the hop. He had no idea that attack was coming and he was desperately trying to give the impression he was on top of everything. He was not. He deluded himself that he could command Hodges even though he was completey cut off from any contact with him. Bradley’s Press Conference was not an official SHAEF conference. Montgomery’s was. Bradley was so incensed by the positive reaction to Monty’s conference (take note. Reaction was positive in the United States and if required I can supply the positive US newspaper reports) that he decided he would have to get his (completely unauthorised)version over. Thats is when the real war with Montgomery started and here you are 70 years later still fighting it.
I also note the rather absurd claim that making completely unfounded and unreferenced allegations is acceptable and allows a pass on any criticism.
A point for all to ponder.
Given the trouble caused by the claims Monty was stealing all the credit should we not be checking to see what it was that started all the arguments.
Perhaps…
***Fake ‘BBC’ Hails Montgomery **
LONDON, Jan. 12 -The fake German “BBC station” was back on the air tonight praising Field Marshal Sir Bernard L. Montgomery for “behaving wonderfully” during the uproar that the false station created earlier this weék when it pretended to be the British Broadcasting Corporation.*
And an example of Bradley twisting the truth:
*
12th ARMY GROUP HEADQUARTERS
Jan. 9
. As the hostile attack drove forward in the center, General Bradley Instantly sensed the points at which principal defensive measures should be concentrated. Realizing that the maintenance of communications with his northern flank would be difficult, he turned over to Field ` Marshall Montgomery temporary operational control of the Ninth and that part of the First Army on the north of the penetration while he devoted himself to the southern flank*
In actual fact he went absolutely beserek when Ike transfered Hodges to Montgomery. He even threatened to resign and only backed down when Eisenhower told him he would accept it.
Please note I use verbatim copies of newspaper articles from the NYT or Associated Press Articles. They are period documents not the later revised General’s memoir versions.
Once more: this remains unsupported by the quote you supplied. For a person who’s complaining about others’ lack of evidence, you’re oddly reticent to supply your own.
Never said either of those things; should a person who complains about others’ alleged dishonesty be doing this? I say no.
It’s not acceptable nor does it give a pass; what it is is inobvious. If you supply the evidence that disproves your own claim, or at least doesn’t support it, of course it’ll be noticed more readily.
As I made clear earlier that the interpretation one places on Bradley’s remarks is influenced by where you stand initialy. Given you only enter the fray when a General other than Montgomery is mentioned in les sthan favourable terms then I say you are compromised.
More to the point you have clearly decided to make this a personal issue with me and I have become your target. I will now confine my replies to your post to answering any issues of substance and fact you raise. Given that I have yet to see anything that resembles ‘fact’ and your sole tactic so far seems to consist of ‘prove it beyong all reasonable doubt’ so far I suspect any future interaction will be fleeting.
My cards are on the table.
I have posted more first hand period information here than anyone else in the thread.
The initial knee-jerk poorly referenced Monty-bashers have (wisely) decided not to dispute any of my sources.
Judge me on my content and it may not surprise you to know I will not lose any sleep if you do not decide in my favour.
Have a nice day.
You’re mistaken, I first posted to ask you to support your claim that the majority attitude here was “Monty did everything wrong”, which you were unable to do. That is, I posted to point out that even Montgomery’s critics in this thread conceded that he was competetent-to-good, just not great. The Bradley thing came afterward.
Nothing personal at all, nor have I challenged you to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. You’ve challenged others to support their claims, but feel no need to do so yourself. Odd, that.
Hey, you too. In the future, maybe refrain from making so many unfounded assumptions and indulging in so much prejudice? Just a thought.
Everything I posted is referenced. I stand by everything. You have failed to offer any challenge other than you do not agree.
I was referring more to your beliefs that any criticism of Montgomery is an irrational product of a pro-American bias, that those critical of Montgomery view him as doing “everything wrong”, and that Montgomery is uniquely criticized amongst generals.
But since you’ve made this further claim, I’ll point out that you haven’t referenced your claim that Bradley said that leaving the Ardennes lightly defended was a cunning plan to lure in a German attack.
Everything I posted is referenced. I stand by everything. You have failed to offer any challenge other than you do not agree.
Post a substantive matter of fact where you have clear evidence that my claims are wrong. Your personal opinion is not arguable.
Clarification to correct deliberate falsification of my argument.
My belief is that** most **of the transatlantic criticism of Montgomery is irrational and based on incorrect information.
I believe the root of the hatred of Montgomery derived from injured US pride when Hodges Army was placed under Monty’s command when Bradley lost control during the Bulge.
As shown in this very thread most posters have no first hand information at all on the Monty Bulge Press Conference that forms the core of their hostility.
You can’t boast of posting so much first-hand information and referencing everything, then abjectly refuse to reference one of your claims. Not in good conscience, at least.
By way of analogy…Montgomery wrote in his memoirs:
Clearly, Montgomery is suggesting that German agents with SHAEF, likely including Eisenhower himself, sabotaged Market-Garden. I need supply no further evidence for this interpretation. Disagreement with this interpretation is merely evidence of your bias, and can be safely dismissed.
Re-read the thread, then. For every comment about Montgomery’s press conference or opinion of American troops, there’s a dozen about his actions in the field and the choices he made as a general. It is fine to have a pet theory, except when it is unfalsifiable and used as a bludgeon to dismiss valid criticism, as you’ve done in this thread. The first sentence of your first post was:
That says it all, really. You’ve shut down any actual debate, right from the starting gun, with this bit of well poisoning. So, again, maybe re-think your prejudices if you intend to debate, as opposed to lecture.
As shown in “An Army at Dawn” many top generals on both the American & British (and almost always the French) thought the other side were prima donna’s or know nothings. Montgomery cordially despised the Americans (and the favor was returned by many American Generals). Montgomery also had a huge ego, which is something not uncommon in a top General. So, the “hatred” of Montgomery stems from the fact he was a egotist who didn’t care for the Americans.
The British rightly thought as they had shouldered the burden for a extra two+ year and had more combat experience they should be the senior partner. The Americans rightly thought that as they were providing most of the material and troop resources they should be in charge. Both were right. And in fact, as shown in “An Army at Dawn” both did not correctly use the other’s forces when under mixed command.
The British badly needed a hero at that time, and by means of propaganda Monty’s reputation was blown all out of proportion to it’s actual level, and of course this caused some resentment. No genius, but hardly incompetent either. He made mistakes, but he also had some solid victories.
Mind you, the Americans had some generals who had never seen any real combat, so we had bunglers also.
I referenced everything I said. Your inability to face reality is the real problem
Believe what you want. I won’t be wasting my time with endless nit-picking posts endlessly disputing it in the vainglorious hope you will roll over and cry uncle…
Well I agree I have put a brake on the ‘debate’. This however is because I exposed all the false information being posted. Once I started posting the facts then all the haters were wary of getting spanked again. They walked away. No one posting facts here has anything to fear from me. If I am wrong about anything then a clear referenced source pointing out my error will be the end of it.
In the same sense that I “referenced” Montgomery’s belief that Eisenhower was a German agent, you cited a bit of text that didn’t support your claim, then refused to provide any further support.
And people say Monty and Patton had ego problems…
As I said this is not a problem for me. You believe what you want. I can live with it.
Yet, strangely, you expect others to be convinced by “references” of similar quality, and state that failure to take you at your word is “inability to face reality”.
So, in the absence of actual support for your claims about Bradley, I say:
You believe what you want.
Lets get back to some facts.
Eisenhower to Marshall, April 1943. Early impression of Montgomery:
Montgomery is of different caliber from some of the outstanding British leaders you have met. He is unquestionably able, but very conceited. For your most secret and confidential information, I will give you my opinion which is that he is so proud of his successes to date that he will never willingly make a single move until he is absolutely certain of success - in other words, until he has concentrated enough resources so that anybody could practically guarantee the outcome. This may be somewhat unfair to him, but it is the definite impression I received