I have nothing against FM Montgomery but ....

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
User avatar
Yevgeniy B.
Member
Posts: 3240
Joined: 18 May 2003, 02:35
Location: Wilmette, ILLINOIS USA

I have nothing against FM Montgomery but ....

#1

Post by Yevgeniy B. » 24 Jun 2004, 04:42

Well that old movie "a bridge to far"

after all my friends had seen it i heard comments like:

"british suck"
"because of British, U.S. lost half of 101st airborne"
"Montgomery was stupid"
and the immortal ome: "Montgomery should have been tried for war crimes in Nuremberg along with germans"

some of my friends are polish, and were pissed on Montgomery, even more than on Stalin


well i say that Montgomery was ok, and his marketgarden plan was okay, but his flaw was that he underestimated germans, and he wanted Brits to get to germany before everybosy else.

was it lame or not??

CHRISCHA
Member
Posts: 2477
Joined: 28 Jan 2003, 19:21
Location: England, Kent

#2

Post by CHRISCHA » 24 Jun 2004, 19:14

First I would say some of your freinds are quite foolish, and clearly make statements without really understanding a situation. Unlike you.

Yes, the Germans were underestimated. Yes, it was a bridge too far. Yes some of the equipment was poor. Yes, some of the armoured troops could have been more aggresive. The list could go on.

I suppose what should be remembered is that B L Montgomery wanted to end the war quickly, to avoid extended bloodshed. The British had been fighting for four years, and were fed up with it!

Like all good generals he knew there would be casualties, but he wanted them minimised.

The plan itself was sound. The information and details were poor. The two W-SS divisions were unknown to be in Arnhem/Oosterbeek, and when they were, they were thought to be weak.

The troops on the ground tried to battle their way through to the bridges, but like 'Monty' they weren't prpared to take gambles.

Also remember, do your freinds really believe that an operation such as this would have taken place without the full backing of senior British and American military/politicians?

(By the way, you didn't finish your sentance, "british suck". Suck what?).


User avatar
Yevgeniy B.
Member
Posts: 3240
Joined: 18 May 2003, 02:35
Location: Wilmette, ILLINOIS USA

#3

Post by Yevgeniy B. » 25 Jun 2004, 03:39

CHRISCHA wrote:First I would say some of your freinds are quite foolish, and clearly make statements without really understanding a situation. Unlike you.

Yes, the Germans were underestimated. Yes, it was a bridge too far. Yes some of the equipment was poor. Yes, some of the armoured troops could have been more aggresive. The list could go on.

I suppose what should be remembered is that B L Montgomery wanted to end the war quickly, to avoid extended bloodshed. The British had been fighting for four years, and were fed up with it!

Like all good generals he knew there would be casualties, but he wanted them minimised.

The plan itself was sound. The information and details were poor. The two W-SS divisions were unknown to be in Arnhem/Oosterbeek, and when they were, they were thought to be weak.

The troops on the ground tried to battle their way through to the bridges, but like 'Monty' they weren't prpared to take gambles.

Also remember, do your freinds really believe that an operation such as this would have taken place without the full backing of senior British and American military/politicians?

(By the way, you didn't finish your sentance, "british suck". Suck what?).
suck, i don't know
just suck i guess

User avatar
Gyenes
Member
Posts: 238
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 06:11
Location: United States of America

#4

Post by Gyenes » 25 Jun 2004, 07:14

I feel it is more of people not knowing the situation. Earlier this year in Englisch class we were required to read a book and do a research paper on it, proving something. I choose the task of reading Monty's autobiography. I swear when I said that there was only one person in my class who knew that name or anything about the man. For a minute my teacher just starred at me not having a clue who I just said. Bewildered by the situation I meekly replied, "He is a British General". I knew then what I was up against. Proving something about someone nobody knew anything about.

It is sad. People are judging the man without knowing him. Reading a book by its cover. Well, sorry for that story, just needed to "set" the story.
Now, Montgomery he was a good man really, but like all men he had his faults. Many people accused him of the things you mentioned earlier; slow, a sham, etc., etc.

Now, for the sake of writing I will skip a bit of his childhood stating merly that his father was a preacher and his mother well they didn't get along. She was always telling his siblings, "Go find Bernard and tell him to stop what he is doing."

Monty went to Sandhurst and fought in the Great War where he witnessed the horrours of the trenches and was wounded a few times. Through my reasearch I concluded that this was a pivitoal moment in his life. It set the stage to say. I mean seeing all that he did must have been devistating.

Now, comes the great world war 2. Monty is trying to do all he can to not repeate the first war. He does take alot of critiscm for his moves and his relationship with Patton is well known. Monty was very cautious because he wanted to save lives and avoid blood. However, if the causlties were needed he would not shy away from them.

And using Churchill to finish we find him critisiced by some fellows by his support of Monty and he replied to the effect, "What is the purpose of a General? To win battles. And if he wins then with little bloddshed what more can you ask for?"

I support Monty. for he was a good general perhaps the best since the Iron Duke but no man is perfect we have to admit and he like all have faults.

Now, I will admit Market Garden was a failure there were alot of things going wrong and Monty's famous, "Everything is going according to plan" didn't cut it. They just went a bridge to far.

CHRISCHA
Member
Posts: 2477
Joined: 28 Jan 2003, 19:21
Location: England, Kent

#5

Post by CHRISCHA » 25 Jun 2004, 21:12

Nicely put Gyenes.

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002, 15:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

#6

Post by Lord Gort » 26 Jun 2004, 00:07

Seconded.

User avatar
Gyenes
Member
Posts: 238
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 06:11
Location: United States of America

#7

Post by Gyenes » 26 Jun 2004, 03:35

I wasn't expecting that, but thank you.

Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004, 03:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

#8

Post by Polynikes » 03 Jul 2004, 22:01

Gyenes

I support Monty. for he was a good general perhaps the best since the Iron Duke but no man is perfect we have to admit and he like all have faults.

Mot sure I'd go THAT far.

Slim was Britain's best general in WWII.

Allenby in WWI (only because of serious competition).

In the 19th century there was also Roberts.

User avatar
Sturmmann_Fritz
Member
Posts: 794
Joined: 06 May 2003, 21:20
Location: South Carolina

#9

Post by Sturmmann_Fritz » 05 Jul 2004, 23:07

Hello all. I am going to have to argue a little on the subject. Monty of course was a good general, however not the best for the British and if you look into battles such as El Alemaen and Operation Market Garden, you will see that he was still in a WWI frame of mind.

Losing lives was alright by him as long as the objective was reached. Unfortunatly, as I said above, he was in a WWI frame of mind and he made his men do suicidal charges that gained little to no ground. I believe the only reason he won El Alemaen was due to the fact that he greatly outnumberered Rommel and the tiny Afrika Korp.

I know many people will argue with what I have just said and I respect that, but if I were to rate greatest Generals of all history, Montgomerey would not make top 50.

Happy July 4th America and good day to all,

Fritz

User avatar
Sturmmann_Fritz
Member
Posts: 794
Joined: 06 May 2003, 21:20
Location: South Carolina

#10

Post by Sturmmann_Fritz » 05 Jul 2004, 23:08

Polynikes wrote:Gyenes

I support Monty. for he was a good general perhaps the best since the Iron Duke but no man is perfect we have to admit and he like all have faults.

Mot sure I'd go THAT far.

Slim was Britain's best general in WWII.

Allenby in WWI (only because of serious competition).

In the 19th century there was also Roberts.

Who is Slim? I am not familiar with this name, is it a nickname?

thank you,

Fritz

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#11

Post by Andreas » 05 Jul 2004, 23:35

Heretic! Burn him! :)

http://www.burmastar.org.uk/slim.htm

Slim's memorial on Whitehall has exactly the posture of the picture on this site. It is absolutely the best memorial to a British Army officer I know, and it is not just the slouched hat.

Although I am quite partial to the posture of Harris and Dowding on their memorials too, but they are RAF, so they don't count.

CHRISCHA
Member
Posts: 2477
Joined: 28 Jan 2003, 19:21
Location: England, Kent

#12

Post by CHRISCHA » 06 Jul 2004, 10:59

I can never understand the arguement that Montgomery only beat Rommel because he built up more troops and better supplies. Surely this is the sensible thing to do? I know that hearing how the ill equiped under dog beat the 'Hun' would be a better story, but we can't always be reading a second rate novel.

I always think this arguement is rather like hearing how Henry Cooper won a boxing match only because he trained harder and was stronger.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#13

Post by Jon G. » 06 Jul 2004, 12:56

Gyenes wrote:And using Churchill to finish we find him critisiced by some fellows by his support of Monty and he replied to the effect, "What is the purpose of a General? To win battles. And if he wins then with little bloddshed what more can you ask for?"
Montgomery and Churchill weren't exactly the best of mates. Chemistry between them was basically absent, and they had totally differing outlooks on life.

This little dialogue is repeated in Majdajany's book on Cassino:

Mongomery: 'I never smoked, I never drank, I take regular exercise and I am a hundred percent fit'

Churchill: 'I smoke too much, I drink too much, I never exercise, and I am two hundred percent fit'

Churchill was sometimes impatient with Montgomery, as he was impatient with most of his generals - but he respected and acknowledged that Montgomery was practically deified after Alamein.

Montgomery had a much clearer idea of what post war Europe would look like than eg. Eisenhower did.

In large parts of Europe, Montgomery's name is practically synonymous with liberation. Generations who are old enough to remember that certainly haven't forgotten his name!

User avatar
Gyenes
Member
Posts: 238
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 06:11
Location: United States of America

#14

Post by Gyenes » 09 Jul 2004, 20:20

Polynikes wrote:Gyenes

I support Monty. for he was a good general perhaps the best since the Iron Duke but no man is perfect we have to admit and he like all have faults.

Mot sure I'd go THAT far.

Slim was Britain's best general in WWII.

Allenby in WWI (only because of serious competition).

In the 19th century there was also Roberts.
I am sorry if you disagree, but to me it is more of an expression. I try not to "rank" Generals, but sometimes I slip. You may agrue that Slim had was the best, but I do have to say he was in another part of the world and Monty by far had a greater impact on the security of the British isles at its finest hour. I am in no way, however, degrading Slim's influence, he is an excellent and capable General, all I say is that defending the home islands was of great importance.

Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004, 03:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

#15

Post by Polynikes » 10 Jul 2004, 07:07

Shrek

Churchill: 'I smoke too much, I drink too much, I never exercise, and I am two hundred percent fit'

Well Montgomery should've known better than to cross verbal swords with Churchill.

Few bettered him in verbal exchanges.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”