Suddenly standards are allowed to slip when it is you who has to support an argument?
None of those comment, even taken as a whole, come close to ‘Monty did everything wrong’.
Not quite true
Thats because you lack the ability to recognise your prejudice.
I would say this reply would be a true reflection of the majority opinion here:
One of Montgomery’s biggest flaws was he left openings for German generals to exploit
He did it in Sicily, he did it in Italy, he did it in Falais, and he did it in Antwerp…
Good job he didn’t let them escape from Germany!
I’d say it is more of a reflection of the chip on your shoulder.
You are really showing the signs of a persecution complex by proxy.
Lot of that going around.
Your argument seems to boil down to this:
-
Anyone who says Montgomery ever made a mistake or was anything less than a genius is a Montgomery hater.
-
The only reason why anyone would hate Montgomery is because they hate everyone who isn’t an American.
Reductio ad absurdum
Anyway I headed you off at the pass.
See my earlier reply"
It
Point 2 seems to be the view of the more reactionary Americans on this board, rather than even a slightly objective view.
Ask yourself this, if Montgomery were really so poor, then why did the US entrust two of the most important operations of the whole war to him, D-day and the crossing of the Rhine? So you really think the US high command would have allowed this if he were as crap as has been suggested? Nope, he would have been put into some other reasonably high profile role but pretty much out of harms way.
He kicked Rommel out of Africa completely, had to come to the assistance of US forces in the process, he reorganised the response to the Battle of the Bulge and turned a piecemeal holding action into a decisive defeat for the Axis.
To this end he used US military, he used US production, he used intelligence advantages, his one major error was Market Garden, or perhaps you can also include the failure to take Caen - however even that was not as bad as it seems since is ground down Axis forces, and tied up their major Armoured divisions and this certainly enabled the US under Patton et al to grab an opportunity - which they did and they made the most of it.
You are wasting your time with rational argument.
The detractors ‘know’ the truth. Why even Private Ryan has the obligatory dig at Monty. This irrational hatred of Montgomery is too deeply ingrained to be reshaped by anything as trivial as facts.
While again, I do not consider Montgomery to be ‘poor’ by any stretch of the imagination, I would point out that he ran that show because the German’s convinced themselves (albeit with a lot of excellent counter-intelligence work) that Patton. It was a very good bit of deception where both played their part well, despite George being unhappy about it.
Oh, I’m sorry, am I being an American bigot again?
Some, but not others. Regardless, none of them say he did everything wrong, it’s the same sort of criticism that can be, and is, applied to every general that ever fought.
No, you couldn’t, unless you’ve a binary view that generals are either entirely flawless or entirely worthless.
Entirely true:
The man’s harshest critic in the thread says Montgomery was competent, but not world-class. BFD. So again I ask what you’re hanging these claims of irrational hatred, doing everything wrong, etc on? Previous discussions on the subject?
I applaud your decison to default to insult. You were never on very firm ground with your factual contributions
You never did provide proof that showed Monty ‘shitting on the US troops’ did you?
You never followed this up either so can I ask how the revelation of a quote from the Press Conference (where Monty is supposed to have insulted US soldiers) that shows Monty **heaping praise ** on the US soldier changed your attitude?
The Cromwell could top 50 mph. in ungoverned state.
Cromwell was never a training tank.
I believe this is a reference to (it is claimed) the Germans ‘fearing’ Patton and holding back troops because they ‘feared’ he was going to lead another invasion.
The problem is there is not a scrap of evidence to show the Germans paid any real attention to Patton. Whilst it is true they were wary of the phantom Army they never fretted over Patton.
Now in case you do not believe non-American me on this matter perhaps you will take notice of Harry Yeid:
A review of Harry Yeide’s book . Fighting Patton: George S. Patton Jr. Through the Eyes of His Enemies. Zenith Press.
there are no indications that German intelligence attached any great significance to these visits. “The notion that Patton could be used to deceive the Germans appears to have arisen from a presumption about German thinking in Washington rather than any evidence that the Germans had a particular interest in the general’s activities,” Yeide writes. To the Germans, he says, Patton was just one of many threats.
The same applies to Patton’s role as commander of the fictional U.S. 1st Army Group in Kent, designed to create the impression that the invasion would occur at Calais rather than Normandy. In Yeide’s view, Farago’s assertion that the Germans concentrated on Patton as the general likely to command American forces in the invasion of France is mainly based on a misinterpretation of an entry in the German High Command’s war diary and on a routine Air War Academy paper entitled Invasionsgenerale. In fact, says Yeide, in a copy distributed in February 1944 Patton is “the only senior Allied general in Britain and the Mediterranean not profiled with a brief, one paragraph summary.” Bradley appears and so does Montgomery, but no Patton. Yeide does not rule out his inclusion from a later version now missing, but anyway, such papers were standard products with the all services, from which nothing much can be inferred.
What is significant, however, he notes, is that the German High Command did not identify Patton as the commander of this fake U.S. 1st Army Group until well after they had fallen for the Calais ploy. So Patton’s presence in Kent was not the decisive factor in the German miscalculation.“The Germans did not track Patton’s movements as the key to allied intentions. They never raised his name in the context of worthy strategists.” Hence their intelligence efforts were much more focused on people like Montgomery and Eisenhower, because this was the level on which strategic decisions were made.
‘Can be’ but never is.
Link me to a Bradley knocking thread anywhere.
I never said they ‘feared’ Patton. That is your strawman. The Germans convinced themselves because Patton was an American Commander. Technically it could have been anyone in charge of FUSAG but Patton filled the bill best of his reputation. And yes, he did have a reputation with the Germans - Yeide would have us believe that the German commanders never knew his name.
(For the record I consider Yeide only slightly better than Mosier, so no real credits for quoting him. I consider them both Late-comers to the modern reanalysis of the European theater who were too late to make their mark so they invented a controversy and presented old ideas as new respectively. Yeide could do better for himself writing about specific battles and technical aspects of the war).
First, this isn’t a Montgomery knocking thread, and this very thread contains criticism of, at a mimimum, Patton and Rommel.
Second, poor Bradley seems seldom discussed, but that’s not true of:
Feel free to use the SDMB’s awful search function to drege up more, there’s no shortage of WW2 threads on here, complete with criticism of generals other than Montgomey.
(post shortened)
WOOHOO - D-Day Piper Bill Millin.
What do Scotsmen wear under their kilts? Great Big Brass Balls. Who else would disembark, under fire, onto Juno Beach on D-Day, then march to and across Pegasus Bridge, also under fire, armed with nothing more than a dirk and a bagpipe? :eek:
50th Anniversary interview with Bill Millin -
(Warning - contains bagpipe music.)
That is not what Yeid said. He says the claim the Germans ‘feared’ Patton and paid attention to his movements because they believed he was so good he would be the tip of the Allied spear is mistaken. They took note of the phanton Army because it was an Army. They did not think along the lines ’ Patton is in command, he is the no 1 Allied General thus this must be the No 1 Allied Army’.
Yeid clearly says the Germans were more interested in the movements of Montgomery and Eisenhower because they were the movers and shakers.
That makes no difference to the period documentation he uses. It is either right or wrong. To upset Yeids conclisions you only have to link to the documents that mention Patton in the terms that you believe he deserved. Until such time Yeid’s work stands.
Can I clear up some confusion. You obviously chopped out a bit of your original post and thus it does not quite make sense.
I would point out that he ran that show because the German’s convinced themselves (albeit with a lot of excellent counter-intelligence work) that Patton. It was a very good bit of deception where both played their part well, despite George being unhappy about it.
Are you saying Monty was only given command on D-Day because the person who by ability should have been in charge was Patton?
And where can we read about this reputation?
They are complete non sequiturs, as is your statement that the Scheldt would have been liberated regardless of whether Market-Garden had succeeded, failed or never been conceived. That is a pointless statement and a complete non-issue. What you are arguing, without any supporting evidence and in the face of the historical record is that Market-Garden didn’t delay clearing the Scheldt. This is flatly untrue. The planning and execution of Market-Garden allowed the 15th Army to escape to the north bank of the Scheldt, delayed the clearing of the Scheldt and the opening of Antwerp as a port for supplies for weeks. This isn’t something controversial, this is something agreed upon by all parties involved, including Montgomery himself.
If you are aware that making contact with the first of the defenses on September 8th does not mean that a successful offensive was conducted against it and in fact are aware that operations stalled in the face of the German defenses until October 2nd, why on earth are you claiming that Market-Garden didn’t delay clearing the Scheldt for weeks?
The Patton Rommel thread is pretty anodyne. None of the personal invective you see in this thread. More tellingly in a thread about 2 other Gernerals look what pops up
It seems a sideways swipe is obligatory!