WWII buffs - Monty

I've been reading and re-reading a lot of WWII history about the African and European campaigns lately.

I was never a big fan of Field Marshall B L Montgomery, the British hero and self-described saviour of the West. But really, the more I read about him, the more I think he was a mediocre commander at best, and a top-shelf, completely unmitigated douchebag.

He was cautious when he should have been bold, and irrationally bold when he should have been cautious. He won the first real Allied victory of the war and then proceeded to make sure nobody ever forgot it, while pretty much failing to repeat it.

Monty's biggest campaign of the war was lobbying to get all of the Allied ground forces in Europe put under his command for a single-point attack against Germany. Seriously, why he's seen by history as anything other than a delusional egomaniac is a mystery to me.

Thoughts?

That is completely the opinion I had of him.

That's how I veiw MacArthur as well.

Most of what I know about him is from the movie Patton, so some of that is probably artistic license.

I have read he was a bit of a tool also.

Why was he so elevated? I suspect it was because the British really needed a hero at that time, and that is what they had. When better commanders came along, he already had his "throne".

He seemed to be the polar opposite of Patton.

I do wonder sometimes if many of the military leaders of that time really had any idea what they were doing, or where they just making it up as they went along and maybe getting lucky based on their personality (e.g. Patton, super aggressive). Rommel did seem to be rather smart and have a certain talent for it though (including knowing when it was stupid to continue fighting and getting rid of Hitler).

Appleseed wrote: That's how I veiw MacArthur as well.

Agreed, but MacArthur at least got sent home and met with some substantial tarnishing of his image.

stuart in mn wrote: Most of what I know about him is from the movie Patton, so some of that is probably artistic license.

From what I've been reading, not as much as you might think. Though there was some taken with Patton himself, of course.

Patton was another interesting character. He was sloppy, particularly concerning logistics, but he was tactically brilliant in a way Montgomery never was.

The point about "making it up as they went along" is very valid. Nearly all of these generals had fought at lower ranks in WWI, and struggled to overcome those habits, much the way that WWI generals were still fighting 18th and 19th century strategies and tactics with 20th century weapons. The culture differences were less dramatic, but still very much a force.

The idea of making it up as they went along,made me think of our submarine skippers. At the outset of the war, the skippers were not ready, the tactics did not support the mission and it took a lot of losses for a new batch of younger innovators to come along and develop new approaches that worked. They still had to contend with faulty torpedoes, but having people who are trying to still fight the last war results in a lot of people dead in the current war.

As a side note, for some reason I have always thought that Monty was just the military version of Graham Hill. I think that is just the mustache talking though.

Duke wrote: Though there was some taken with Patton himself, of course.

No kidding, Patton sounded like Elmer Fudd.

Appleseed wrote: That's how I veiw MacArthur as well.

The preening and self-promotion, to be sure, but MacArthur also had several examples of brilliant strategic decisions in his career, too. The concept of "island hopping" in the Pacific campaign is one, so is the Inchon landings in Korea.

As for Monty, wasn't he one of chief architects of Operation Market Garden? That has to go down as one of the bigger strategic blunders of the war.

But how many lives did Mac squander to fulfill his personal promise to the Phillipines?

Tom_Spangler wrote: As for Monty, wasn't he one of chief architects of Operation Market Garden? That has to go down as one of the bigger strategic blunders of the war.

Yes, he was. Rereading A Bridge Too Far over the winter is what prompted me to go back and learn more history of the ETO, starting with the Allied invasions in Northern Africa, into Italy, and finally Normandy.

Market Garden was a perfect example of Montgomery being insanely bold when caution was in order. Drop a string of airborne divisions 60 or 70 miles behind enemy lines on 10 days' notice, ignore tons of intelligence saying the Germans were not as weak as you thought, and then count on an armored column to advance 75 miles up a single road through marshes on both sides and across 5 rivers in less than 4 days to relieve the paratroopers? What could possibly go wrong...

Contrast that with his ridiculously cautious behaviour just a month before Market Garden:

After the huge Allied breakout across northern France and Belgium, when the Germans truly were in a completely disorganized collapse, Monty captured the port of Antwerp.

Then he promptly went to sleep and threw away the largest single strategic advantage of the post-Overlord theater. He stopped in Antwerp instead of driving about 15 miles farther north to the base of the huge peninsula on the north side of the Scheld River. The peninsula is huge but is only about 2-1/2 miles across at the base. So not only did he decline to cut off approximately 150,000 German troops, he left them in position to prevent the Allies from using Antwerp, probably the largest port in Europe at the time.

It's like he had multiple personalities, or was bipolar.

Duke wrote:

Appleseed wrote: That's how I veiw MacArthur as well.

Agreed, but MacArthur at least got sent home and met with some substantial tarnishing of his image.

At least Mac can claim Inchon. Removes some of the taint of Pelelieu. A lot of people didn't want to go to the Philippines, but Big Doug said he would return. I think one of the most pompous things I've ever seen about MacArthur was the film of him wading ashore. They recorded it many times to get it right.

I freaking love history.

Appleseed wrote: But how many lives did Mac squander to fulfill his personal promise to the Phillipines?

A fair criticism, to be sure. American Caesar is an excellent biography of him. It's a favorable view overall, but it doesn't shy away from his failures, either. The march on the Bonus Army is one of the biggest blights on his legacy, IMO.

I'm surprised that "Ike" let Monty get away with some of the things he did. Churchill wanted Monty to be supreme commander, Roosevelt said "No way. Since we ae footing the bill, Ike would get the job.

iceracer wrote: I'm surprised that "Ike" let Monty get away with some of the things he did. Churchill wanted Monty to be supreme commander, Roosevelt said "No way. Since we ae footing the bill, Ike would get the job.

Politics. England thought they deserved to lead because the had been fighting for so long, and it wasn't as straight forward as we see it. Seeing some of the history, its amazing that we managed to work as well as we did.

Everyone wanted the glory to be the winner.

I have Geoffrey Perrets biography of MacArthur sitting on my bookshelf unread and will be so for at least six more months if I secure a second job tomorrow. The title is 'Old Soldiers Never Die'. I have at home a book from the '90s that I read then. It's titled 'It Never Snows in September'. Operation Market Garden told from the German perspective. It's been two decades but I remember liking it. As for Montgomery? Well I don't know enough to comment other than my fading memory tells me he saved Egypt. 'Desert Rats' and all that jazz. As an addendum on one of those additional free t.v. channels there was a movie with Richard Burton on recently about the Desert Rats if I'm correct. The only clip I watched was Burton saying the injured and dead were to be left behind. Not a very American trait. Sorry Australia if true.

Based on the interest here, if y'all haven't been to the National WWII museum in New Orleans, please add it to your list. It gets bigger every year.

aircooled wrote: I have read he was a bit of a tool also. Why was he so elevated? I suspect it was because the British really needed a hero at that time, and that is what they had. When better commanders came along, he already had his "throne". He seemed to be the polar opposite of Patton. I do wonder sometimes if many of the military leaders of that time really had any idea what they were doing, or where they just making it up as they went along and maybe getting lucky based on their personality (e.g. Patton, super aggressive). Rommel did seem to be rather smart and have a certain talent for it though (including knowing when it was stupid to continue fighting and getting rid of Hitler).

This is generally my opinion of both Montgomery and a number of other generals that either lost or almost lost a battle or lost an opportunity to defeat the enemy. I do have to say in their defense however that the cause in some cases was a lack of information or incorrect information about the situation that caused most of these events to occur the way they did. This occurs even today.

jimbbski wrote: I do have to say in their defense however that the cause in some cases was a lack of information or incorrect information about the situation that caused most of these events to occur the way they did. This occurs even today.

Oh, I absolutely agree. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say. But seriously, at Antwerp, anybody with a basic map could have seen that with less than 20 miles' drive against a very disorganized enemy, they could have isolated a huge piece of land and opened up a strategically critical port.

I recently read Killing Patton and Killing the Rising Sun. Both worthwhile to add for any WWII buff, with interesting views on MacArthur, Patton and even Montgomery.

Monty had a really cool hat.

Ricky Spanish wrote: Monty had a really cool hat.

As they say in Texas, "All hat, no cattle."

Dunno about Monty, but my dad served in the Marianas campaign and was at Pelelieu as a radioman 2nd class on the Savo Island, and although he never really talked about it, he did maintain firmly and repeatedly that MacArthur was a pompous, useless jackass. I understood it to be a widely held opinion among those he served with.

History may be written by the victors, but those who served under them know the truth.

Margie