Montgomery Controversy

Let's not forget senior RAF figures like Air Marshal Arthur Bomber Harris because of diversion of his strategic bomber force from bouncing rubble in German cities , RAF 2nd Tactical Air Force commander Air Marshal Arthur Conningham ( funny he got along with Montgomery excellently in North Africa and Italian Campaigns between August 1942 - December 1943 and created a reliable air ground cooperation support system. In Alamein he said about Monty "we have a real commander now and we will go all the way together." In Normandy campaign he became angry and bitter against Montgomery , Monty in turn asked Conningham's relief saying "That man is anti army". Montgomery might have exageratted but Conningham had argued and got ugly even towards George Patton in Tunisian Campaign) and his chief antagonist in SHEAF Air Marshal Arthur Teddler who suggested Eidsenhower that relief of Montgomery after Operation Goodwood-that would be a bad effect on morale of troops by the way. Bradley and Patton did not like Teddler either though from their Mediterranean experiences Patton thought he was too air force centric.

That's right. 8th Army was recovering. Advanced and much more effective artillery tactics were introduced. New Sherman and Grant tanks arrived and more was coming. Armor , infantry tactics and cooperation still needed a lot of improvement , restructering / reorganizing and training though. Tuker saw a lot of missed oppurtunities in Tunisian Campaign

Definetely. I am convinced actually he has severe personality ego problems. Even Eisenhower branded him a psychopath once and to earn that praise you must have angered him quite much.

Several American commanders like 82nd US Airborne Division cmdr General Jim Gavin , 18th Airborne Corps cmdr Matthew Ridgway admired and praised Montgomery a lot too. Monty also worked with men much less ego and public attention hunger like 9th US Army cmdr General Simpson and RAF 86th Tactical Air Wing cmdr Vice Air Marshal Harry Broadhurst and he got along with them quite well and efficiently.

He changed his ideas about Free French though after how well they fought during Operation Capri - Rommel's last attack on 8th Army (which was defeated by Montgomery without much trouble) in southern end of his defence line. What he did to Sosabowski was unforgivable almost though.

In both Alamein and Mareth line battles he was quick to adapt , improvise and open to flexibility though. That is why once he was checked he did not discourged or multiplied his losses but seek to solve deadlock in other sectors and avenues and suceeded. In Mareth Line left hook of 13th Corps trapped 8.000 Axis troops despite 1st Italian Army's escape and they abandoned a very good defensive line. Monty improvised it after checked at coast. Same in Wadi Akarit. He was best at breaking through or overwhelming prepared enhanced enemy defense lines either in Alamein , Mareth , Wadi Akarit , Mount Etna , Atlantic Wall , West Wall etc. But yes very lacking in exploitation of breakthough. Though again 21st Army Group did a very good job chasing retreating Germans through France and Low Countries in 1944 summer. Operation Market Garden was a very faulty and reckless business though. Montgomery broke his own rules in Market Garden like through preparation , planning , fighting under artillery air cover range etc. Predictably he failed. And I already explained his failure to close Scheldt.

 

"Canadian soldiers, tired of being cannon fodder"

If you believe Canadians were used as cannon fodder, you should keep in mind that for the majority of the time Canadians were a minority in the 1st Canadian army itself, the perception of them being used as cannon fodder is a result of historians like Terry Copp who only look narrowly, and nationalistically at Canadian divisions. I refer you to "canadian army in normandy failures in high command", which is a good analyses of the deficiencies in leadership, tactics and approach in the Canadian army

 

This is thread is now approaching a point of hysterical laughter - on my part I hasten to add as it is fairly obvious that some posters are not giving my words any credence whatsoever as some are

totally ignoring the fact that I actually took part in WW2 as a wireless operator in a Churchill Tank - served in North Africa and Italy as well as Austria after the fighting had ceased - then on retirement

spent 25 years in an active study of both North African campaigns as well as the Italian….and served alongside the 1st Canadian Division as their heavy assault Tank support - suffice to say that I do

KNOW the difference of an Assault Brigade and an Armoured Brigade at the time of this discussion - which some posters do not- so I shall only respond to a few inconsistencies before leaving this

thread to Tom O'Brien and M.Kenny who are both on the right track as the others appear to be full of the American version of WW2….

Lumsden was NOT fired in the middle of Alamein for cowardice - but for incompetence in leadership and bellyaching - this decision was taken BEFORE Alam Halpha but he could not be replaced

until Medenine as we had NO ONE fully competent to lead a Corps of three ARMOURED Divisions at that a time… the fact that they had to be used in the main battle of Oct 23 - etc was tough

beans - and was not too unexpected in a major battle for Tank men…IF the critics ever get around to noting the OOB of El Alamein they will note that other Armoured Brigades were deemed

enough - at the time of Battle to handle anything in the Armoured line as well as SIX Churchill Assault Tanks - who proved their worth in that battle as well as in North Africa and Italy- time and time

again...

Air Marshall Coningham was NOT a friend of Monty's but a tail coat hanger of Tedder's - who - shall we say didn't share Monty's philosophy of Army -Air co-operation when Monty moved his HQ

adjacent to Tedder's beach side HQ - what was even worse was the arrival of US Gen. Brereton who then joined in against Monty - even unto Tedders attempt to have Montyy fired inJuly '44 and

Brereton's mis- handling of the Air programme for Ahrnem….and bears much of the blame for that disaster…it should be noted however that shortly before Lumsden was fired the Air trio took off for

Ike's Hq at Algiers - THEN we came up with a British Bliztkrieg which lasted with the co-operation of the new Air Force chappy - Harry Broadhurst

I could go on but I have little time left to educate recalcitrant pupils whose minds are closed except to Hollywood and a Southern Irishman and his widow ...

Cheers

 

"Canadian soldiers, tired of being cannon fodder"

If you believe Canadians were used as cannon fodder, you should keep in mind that for the majority of the time Canadians were a minority in the 1st Canadian army itself, the perception of them being used as cannon fodder is a result of historians like Terry Copp who only look narrowly, and nationalistically at Canadian divisions. I refer you to "canadian army in normandy failures in high command", which is a good analyses of the deficiencies in leadership, tactics and approach in the Canadian army


I don't think there is much dispute that the Canadians were not well led initially, by mostly peacetime and often inexperienced commanders. Countering that, however, was the Canadian reliance on the British military model in terms of doctrine, training, command and staff appointments, equipment, and organization. In any event, with respect to this thread, I'm not entirely sure that the Canadians had much to do with making or breaking Monty's reputation. As for Copp, given the overwhelming volume of British and American commentary on Canadians, we were overdue for a narrow, nationalistic perspective on those events.

 

I don't propose to get involved in all the specifics of the criticisms made of Montgomery's conduct of different battles. I mentioned a few of these, but they have been hashed over in innumerable books, and there are points to be made both pro and con. I think he was generally a very good commander--he won most of his battles, which is more than some others with greater reputations could say. (Kesselring, anyone?) Montgomery was a great organizer and planner, which is half of any battle. But his record was not perfect; whose was? He is as open to legitimate criticism as any other WWII commander. It is all in how you perceive it. To some, any criticism at all of a particular figure is 'bashing,' which is simply wrong. Such an attitude can never produce really accurate history. I greatly admire Churchill as a war leader and as a man, but there is no doubt that some of his actions and decisions were disastrous. I have just been reading about Anzio and the Dodecanese, and I wholly agree with the criticisms made against Churchill in those cases. The same fairness and honesty must apply to Montgomery, as it must to all other men in history. There is a difference between respect or admiration and idol-worship, and the historian must avoid the last.

And I must repeat that those who think that criticism or 'bashing' of Montgomery is solely or mainly an American phenomenon are wrong. Those who think so need to read more of the literature.

 

I assure you I am well read. US criticism of Montgomery is in general highly personal, deeply offensive and in the majority of cases completely bogus. I have never seen that depth of hatred aimed at Monty from a UK based source that I routinely see from US critics.

See this travesty of a book and the praise he gets for his fiction:

http://www.amazon.com/Eisenhower-Montgomery-at-Falaise-Gap/dp/1441597980/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

19 4 & 5 star reviews and the author is claiming Montgomery deliberately made the war longer on Churchill's orders and Eisenhower knew about this plan and persuaded Bradley to falsify orders so he (Bradley)could be blamed for Montgomery's deliberate failure to close the Falaise gap (his 'broken neck' comment) and thus protect the Alliance and cover up for the sneaky Brits. Stark raving mad but it goes down well with US readers.


I do hope this is not going to degenerate into me being called a Monty promoter or someone who says he was god. I find that the mere fact you defend him against the smears drives many to treat you the way they treat Montgomery...........

 

Well, m kenny, if you get down into the lower reaches of popular military history you can find anything. I am surprised that the irresponsibiity of such stuff and the stupidity of those who read it surprises you. I can assure you that Montgomery is not the only victim of such sensationalism, nor do American writers have a monopoly of it. I am no worshipper of MacArthur but I found Stanley Weintraub's MacArthur's War (about Korea) so viciously slanted and generally hysterical that I returned it. A recent book by Frank MacLyn about the Burma war alleges that FDR approved an assassination attempt against Chiang Kai Shek--without offering any documentary proof. David Irving's Churchill's War was marketed with Churchill's villainy advertised on the cover blurb. Denis Winter's Haig's War proved to be full of holes, lies, and half-lies. Note that all these men are and were open to legitimate criticism, just like Montgomery. Simply because MacArthur, Haig, Roosevelt, and Churchill were attacked by sensationalists does not mean that they were perfect. As to why such stuff is popular...well, that's no mystery. Trash sells, and always has. Ignorant people want stuff that reinforces their ignorance, and their bigotries too. Good God, look at the literature in English on the First World War, it's in an even worse state than the WWII literature. Australian John Laffin made a whole career writing books with titles like (I kid you not) British Butchers and Bunglers of the First World War. You may think there is too much Monty-bashing, but it pales to what people have been doing to Douglas Haig.

 

A exceptionally fine post that encapsulates my thoughts on a most complex person.

Since I could do no better, I think this is a good place to take my leave on this topic.

Take care everyone.

 

Hear,hear

 

The jury is still out on that one! If it had worked everyone would have claimed the credit. As it was no one.

There is an analysis on ARRSE using the language of internal politics. it uses err "Adult language" which may offend those of a polite disposition or unfamiliar with the military use of expletives. http://www.arrse.co.uk/staff-college-staff-officers/166064-new-mission-verbs.html

Why should there be more blame to be apportioned for Op Market Garden than say Op Atlantic, or the over eager attempts to recover lost ground in the Ardennes. The losses of 13 Para at Bures are as reprehensible.

 

"Canadian soldiers, tired of being cannon fodder"

If you believe Canadians were used as cannon fodder, you should keep in mind that for the majority of the time Canadians were a minority in the 1st Canadian army itself, the perception of them being used as cannon fodder is a result of historians like Terry Copp who only look narrowly, and nationalistically at Canadian divisions. I refer you to "canadian army in normandy failures in high command", which is a good analyses of the deficiencies in leadership, tactics and approach in the Canadian army


I don't think there is much dispute that the Canadians were not well led initially, by mostly peacetime and often inexperienced commanders. Countering that, however, was the Canadian reliance on the British military model in terms of doctrine, training, command and staff appointments, equipment, and organization. In any event, with respect to this thread, I'm not entirely sure that the Canadians had much to do with making or breaking Monty's reputation. As for Copp, given the overwhelming volume of British and American commentary on Canadians, we were overdue for a narrow, nationalistic perspective on those events.


What I mean by narrowly ‘focussing’ on Canadians, is that in many of the Canadian accounts I have read on certain battles/operations, they do not even mention the fact British formations were often operating alongside Canadian, often playing a key role, yet many of these operations are framed exclusively as ’Canadian’. I think this is where the perception of Canadians being used as cannon fodder comes from. It is often not well known that in the “First Canadian Army” there were often more British and Polish formations than Canadian ones. Also your point about them following the british model, the Canadian Corps followed the British model in the first world war, (arguably even more so because it was actually a part of the British army establishment) and all of its officers were inexperienced amateurs, yet the WW1 Canadians corps was one of the most effective formations of the war. Yet many Canadian divisions in the second world war, were simply not as effective, a fact admitted by many of its own officers

 

If you read the text carefully, the author of the opening post was actually talking about someone else: Rommel. Indeed, everything what he said matches Rommel's features.

Monthy was a great chap.

 

I am late in participating in this thread due to the original Post and knowing from experience how These Topics polarize thoughts both for and against.

I cannot recall which books I have read on Montgomery since my youth, as many were borrowed from the Library.
But I hope that my Memory serves me sufficently in what I am about to write and also may prompt some references being quoted, just to prove that my old Grey cells are still functioning.

Monty was responsible for the soldiers under his command in Dunkirk, returning to the UK in pretty much battle order with most if not all their personal Equipment.

He was then instructed to make defences on the South coast, to enable defences against the anticipated Invasion.

The defences were inspected by Churchill himself, who was used to being wined and dined, preferably in a Hotel, after any inspection, but what Monty laid on was a Large tent with normal rations and no Alcohol.

As we probably all know, Monty was a Non Smoker and avid Tea Totaller,who abstained from any alcohol.

This did not go down well with Churchill and from that day a grudge was born by Churchill towards Monty.

Monty was not the first choice as replacement Commander in North Africa, but even Churchill realized after the first choice was killed in a plane Crash on route to North Africa, that Monty was the man for the Job.

The rest is History.

Yes he may have rubbed People up the wrong way on occassions, but this I believe is true of many others in High Command.

Regards
Tom

 

To be fair he probably saved more men at Dunkirk than he may get credit for. It believe it was his idea to drill troops in many exercises before May 10th in moving at night in vehicles. When it all started going wrong many of the BEF withdrawals were conducted at night as this was the easiest time for rear guards to disengage contact with the enemy as the majority of the Germans fighting was undertaken in daylight and they would rest at night giving the BEF the opportunity to withdraw.

 

Andy,

Thanks for that Information. (Mentioning Dunkirk automatically activated you )

Just another plus for Monty.

Regards
Tom

 

I do tend to notice Dunkirk, 1940 and BEF in posts more than anything else!

 

Canuck,

"Most Canadian vets I have spoken to were never much enamoured with Monty. Many for the reasons listed in the piece below and a significant proportion simply found him to be effeminate and condescending to Canadians..."

Have you ever seen any contemporary evidence to back up the feeling that you assert that Canadian troops had against Montgomery (i.e. letters or diaries from 1943-45?). It's great that you have talked to Canadian vets and it would be great to explore the fact that you feel that "most" have not been that enamoured with Monty. It would be interesting to discover whether that was how they felt at the time or whether this has been caused more by the subsequent historical debate.

Regards

Tom

 

Tom
It is another nonsense that the Canadian troops disliked Monty as he thought the world of the 1st Division in their taking over from his 3rd Division at short notice direct from the UK for the invasion of Sicily and their conduct in that

campaign and later actions before Ortona when they were just an ordinary Infantry Division supported by 1st Cdn AB and then 4th Brit AB - and it is my belief that it was Monty who made the suggestion that the 1st Cdn Div be made into an

Assault Division by transferring both 21st and 25th Tank brigades which were equipped with heavy assault type Churchill Tanks from North Africa to join 1st Cdn Div for the assault on the Hitler line with 25th TB and later with the 21st at the

the month long Gothic Line. During many conversations with Canadians at those times I personally never heard a complaint about Monty but is has to be acknowledged that many strange words were heard regarding certain Mountbatten

who STILL to-day raises many Cdn hackles to extraordinary lengths - especially 2nd Div Vets…..my brigade - the 21st TB supported the 1st Cdn Div from Agnani at the top of the Liri Valley all the way until they left Italy for Belgium in

Feburary 1945 and cannot recall any harsh words against Monty...

Cheers

 

Tom

Meant to add that Monty's regard did NOT extend to the 5th Cdn AD as they on landing refused to accept the 7th Br AD's left over vehicles when they landed in Italy in late November 43 to the fury of Monty for dragging their feet until

joining battle in early January '44 - then some idiots getting into a mish mash with the Seaforths of 1st Div on their withdrawal from Ortona just as Monty left for the UK - he made NO bones about telling them to "get lost " in disturbing HIS 1st

Div...

Cheers

 

Another point about Monty is 1940, his 3rd Div did actually launch a counter-attack against the Germans, and his division got back to UK in relatively good order compared to the rest, they were the first ready for action again.

The thing about both Monty and Slim was that they both had the total trust of their troops. Of course the latter also ran what was probably the most successful manouver operation by the allies of the war, after having inflicted very heavy casualties.