Two awards listed online if anyone fancies looking them up: The National Archives | DocumentsOnline | Search Results=*
His Wiki page has a reference to him nearly being binned from Sandhurst after a sword fight with pokers set his opponent on fire. I found similar statement in Barnett's "The Desert Generals" but no mention of any name At Sandhurst he was a member of a gang that persecuted cadets they disliked; as a climax, Montgomery set light to a cadet's clothes and burned him severely enough for him to be sent to hospital.
From a review of Hamilton's book.: The Full Monty: Montgomery of Alamein 1887-1942, by Nigel Hamilton - Reviews, Books - The Independent School left him ill-educated, uncouth and rebellious. At Sandhurst he tried to prove his masculinity in an act of pyromania. Armed with a poker, he attacked a fellow cadet and held the youth's backside in an open fire until it was so badly burnt that his victim was hospitalised. It would be fascinating if his victim later worked under or above him... or was even sacked by him.
Sounds like standard public school activity to me. But such suggestions about Monty are hardly news, it's not as if there weren't other candidates from his era representing the 'repressed' camp.
My dear Jeff I am indeed sorry that you find so much rancor in my general postings and " laundry" list against your fellow Americans - as I made what I thought was very clear -that my "laundry" list was based on facts - not only as I see them but many of your own historians agree with those facts - which tends to allow me to think that they are truthfull - but I do admit that I am still of the mind that the actions of your General Mark Clark in particular cost me personaly many good friends whom I still grieve as being lost unnecessarily. You also must admit to the truth of that man's actions at - again - particularly San Pietro in Fine which cost the lives of so many Americans of your 36th Division that he should have been fired on the spot by the Commander of the 15th Army group - your friend the British Gen. Harold Alexander. The film of that action has been banned from being shown at your West Point Academy for many years owing to his bad Generalship. I would also agree with you that there were many British Generals who didn't really come close to the mark and I can think of Alan Cunningham - Ritchie - Neame- Anderson - Findlayson-Gordon - Miller - Tedder - Coningham - and I would also include Alexander as being a hero in retreat - i.e Dunkirk and Burma but not strong in dealing with recalcitrant allies as in Tunisia and Italy - it is just as long a "laundry" list as yours - but by the same token- you had many excellent commanders in Allen - Collins - Westmoreland - Gavin -Hueber- just as long a list as your indifferent ones- and so to paraphrase your Jack Nicholson - " you CAN handle the troof " Cheers
From a review of Hamilton's book.: The Full Monty: Montgomery of Alamein 1887-1942, by Nigel Hamilton - Reviews, Books - The Independent It would be fascinating if his victim later worked under or above him... or was even sacked by him. I have the 3 vols that Hamilton wrote on Monty but have yet to read them, although when I first got into reading Military History seriously I did read Moorheads book on him and found it a intresting bio of him........ and it was surprisingly an easy read by that I mean I expected it to be boring but it was just the opposite.Did Monty have his faults without a doubt, could we of done without him be it for his character or tactics in battle.... I think not but that is just my opinon
Tom, You are missing my point entirely. It has nothing to do with the relative merits of one general over the other or their country of origin, but rather, how you couch every discussion where the United States military or it's commanders are concerned. I feel that your wording is strongly indicative of malice that you hold toward the US, which, incidentally, I am a citizen of. Right or wrong, I could reply and make broad generalizations that the 3rd/504th had to sacrifice themselves crossing the Waal because some British general, lets pick Horrocks for the sake of this particular discussion, failed to push his men hard enough, because he was off swanning around and not paying attention to his immediate commander's perfect timetable. I'm not pushing the previous as fact, just providing an example to illustrate my position. As much as would like to, I do not have to time to adequately research every disdainful comment you try to pass off as fact, as I did with your earlier erroneous assertations concering Gen. Lawton J Collins and his actions near Celles on and around 25 Dec 1944, which mainly seemed to focus on the fact that he was an American. Your service to our collective cause during that difficult era is admirable and respected greatly by me. I wish that I could extend the same sentiment to your current comments.
Jeff- you may be perfectly correct in that I have missed your point in assuming that you were countering my disdain of American Generals and their factual mis-deeds and if that is so then I must truly apologise - as for my malice against ALL Americans - you have surely missed MY point - and can only put this down to your mis- understanding of my use of the English language - so again I would apologise. However I do take exception to your finding my facts on Collins as being erroneous - if you take a good history book and at the time - around the 22nd Dec '44 -when Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery was given command of the Northern sector of the Bulge - you will note that he not only advised but indeed ORDERED Gen. Collins to go into reserve and build a four division attack force ready for the inevitable counter attack at a later date. This order did not suit Fightin' Joe and thus he disobeyed Monty's order - and further perpetrated his error by enticing Gen. Ridgeway to join him in attacking the enemy- so we had two American Corps beating their heads against a brick wall - at the wrong time and thus when the counter attack took place those troops were less than able to sustain the Battle - that was dis-obedience to an Allied superior Commanding officer, in my view of course but perhaps not yours ! The other main fact on Gen. Clark - apart from his dis-obedience at Anzio - which is well documented - is the factual battle of San Pietro en Fine...your own Hollywood mogul John Huston made a film of this Battle showing the appallng massacre of Gen.Walker's 36th (Texas) Division which took them some time to recover ! Our friend in Italy, Gurdejeff has visited that village and can substantiate my words ! Now if those facts - as I see them as well as many of your own historians - are full of malice - it is not of my making. I am not a malicious person and reject your characterisation of me- as I have great respect for you and your voluntary efforts in fighting fires... Cheers
Tom, You are missing my point entirely. It has nothing to do with the relative merits of one general over the other or their country of origin, but rather, how you couch every discussion where the United States military or it's commanders are concerned. I feel that your wording is strongly indicative of malice that you hold toward the US, which, incidentally, I am a citizen of. Right or wrong, I could reply and make broad generalizations that the 3rd/504th had to sacrifice themselves crossing the Waal because some British general, lets pick Horrocks for the sake of this particular discussion, failed to push his men hard enough, because he was off swanning around and not paying attention to his immediate commander's perfect timetable. I'm not pushing the previous as fact, just providing an example to illustrate my position. As much as would like to, I do not have to time to adequately research every disdainful comment you try to pass off as fact, as I did with your earlier erroneous assertations concering Gen. Lawton J Collins and his actions near Celles on and around 25 Dec 1944, which mainly seemed to focus on the fact that he was an American. Your service to our collective cause during that difficult era is admirable and respected greatly by me. I wish that I could extend the same sentiment to your current comments. Southern by the Grace of God, what God?ha,ha ------ Hawking: God did not create the universe + The universe was not created by God but physics says Professor Stephen Hawking in his new book due to be published later this month. The scientist believes that the Big Bang which created the universe was caused by physics in a challenge to traditional religious beliefs. In his book Grand Designs extracts of which have been printed today, the scientist concludes: ‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, Hawking: God did not create the universe
He was made Viscount by a Monarch who is meant to be appointed by God to rule over his/her subjects. Now, if God doesnt exist does that mean that he actually isnt a Viscount? so it would be plain ol Field Marshal!
He was made Viscount by a Monarch who is meant to be appointed by God to rule over his/her subjects. Now, if God doesnt exist does that mean that he actually isnt a Viscount? so it would be plain ol Field Marshal! The plot thickens.
Oh, you of little faith. I always find atheists interesting - for people who dont believe in religion they spend an awful lot of time discussing it.
Oh, you of little faith. I always find atheists interesting - for people who dont believe in religion they spend an awful lot of time discussing it. I to am a non believer, however, so I could argue my case coherently with others I went and got myself a degree in Theological History and Ancient History. To debate seriously and factually you must have some understanding of both the protagonistist or antagonists point of view in this case the Atheists and the believer/creationist. off track I know,but this thread has more junctions than the M1.lol
Oh, you of little faith. I always find atheists interesting - for people who dont believe in religion they spend an awful lot of time discussing it. Quite often, we have it forced on us... this thread has more junctions than the M1 I see your M1 & raise it with an M6. Visual representation of this thread: Trying rather tenuously to drag it back to Monty - His dad was a Vicar, and his family do seem to have been more than a little religious.
