Hello all. I am doing a project on Field Marshall Montgomery. I need titles of books by historians that are both positive and negative with regards to his career, etc. Any responses would be greatfully recieved.

Regards,

James

Welcome aboard James,

With regards to the Arnhem operation see...

Arnhem 1944 by Martin Middlebrook

Arnhem by A. D. Carver

You will get more info than on the wargamesdirectory!

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Cheers. I'm really hoping to get a balanced selection of books. I'm particularly interested in Anti-monty rants by Americans.

Basically my task it to look at traditional, British Interpretations of Montgomery, then look at revisionist American sources, and then to synthesise my own view based upon primary evidence, and derived from the previous historiography.

try Carlo D'este, 'Decision in NOrmandy' and Mckee 'Caen Anvil of Victory'...

Do try to get Montys memoirs as it will help you set the historians comments in context.

Check out the old topics on monty too... Plenty of anti-monty sentiment there...

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

There are numerous biographies on the man out there. Try anything by Nigel Hamilton, he wrote a three volume work on him. on his command of the eight army try:

Barrie Pitt 'The Crucible of War: Volume 3 - Montcomary command'

Robin Neillands 'Eight Army'

Also try:

John Keegan (Ed.) 'Churchills Generals'

Correlli Barnett 'The Desert Generals'

Also for comments on him look at the 'Alanbrooke Diaries' edited by Alex Danchev.

Hope these help.

__________________
Thoughts on Military History
Cornish Scale Modellers
Ross' Military Modelling and Art

Many thanks Mahross. Which of these are critical of Montgomery?

I second the Pitt work...

Ross,

can you remember the article Buckley comments on in the WW2 module? I think it is a critical analysis of Montys leadership... Cant remember if it was on the WW2 module or the Normandy module???

Will be emailing 'Bomber' Buckley tonite so will see what sources he recommends...

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Foun this review on two MOnty Books...


Monty: The Battles of Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery, first condensed edition, by Nigel Hamilton. Random House, 201 East 50th Street, New York 10022, 1994, 653 pages, $30.00.

Monty: The Lonely Leader, 1944*1945 by Alistair Horne with David Montgomery. HarperCollins Publishers, 10 East 53d Street, New York 10022, 1994, 381 pages, $25.00.

Nigel Hamilton and Alistair Horne have placed two more entries in the burgeoning library of World War II historiography as we celebrate the Air Force's 50th anniversary. Both authors took as their subject a man who perhaps was the Allies' most controversial general officer. Hamilton's entry is the condensed version of his official three-volume biography of Bernard Montgomery. The other, written by historian Alistair Horne with the assistance of Monty's son David, is an entirely new work.

The condensed version of the official biography is based on personal diaries, notes, letters, interviews, and official messages. In addition, Hamilton had access to all of Montgomery's personal papers, which the field marshal sold to Hamilton's father after the war. This account reveals a vengeful, brilliant, but boastful man who, it seems, could rarely--if ever--get along with his superiors. Nevertheless, his troops adored him. In his preface to this edition, Hamilton captures the essence of Montgomery:

His legacy to the Allied armies endures today: training, rehearsal, and professionalism in the handling of men and women in a democratic cause--guided by the demand for simplicity, clear aims, frontline leadership and care among commanders to preserve human life as far as possible. Often on the border of madness in his determination to see the right military decision prevail, he was venerated by his troops but often maligned by his allies. . . . Arrogant, vain, boastful, boorish, and bigoted, he wanted to win, in his subsequent celebrity, all the battles he had lost as a child. Lacking magnanimity, he went to his grave embattled, lonely and haunted.

Montgomery was all of these things and more.

Hamilton presents a brief overview of Monty's early and later years in this version but quite properly spends nearly the entire book examining the field marshal's conduct during World War II. Perhaps the book's only failing--as is the case with many condensed books--is that at times the story seems somewhat jerky and disconnected due to the brevity of some of the episodes. However, the author did not intend to write a second edition of his masterful three-volume biography; instead, he sought to bring the full story of this interesting character once again into the public eye.

Horne's chronicle of Montgomery concentrates upon perhaps the most important year in the field marshal's life--1944*45--the last year of the war, from the invasion of Normandy to the surrender of the Third Reich in May. Written as a supplement to earlier works, the book carefully analyzes Monty's strategy and tactics. Perhaps this portrait puts the field marshal's unflattering reputation among Americans into a better perspective. It concentrates upon what is perhaps the climactic battle of the western front--the campaign in Normandy. Even the failure to capture Antwerp and the blunder of "A Bridge Too Far" almost become postscripts. Montgomery dominated the Normandy Campaign; as Bedell Smith (Eisenhower's chief of staff and one of Monty's fiercest critics) said, "I don't know if we could have done it without Monty."

Although I was skeptical about the quality of a condensed version of a three-volume study, Hamilton confined the vast majority of this edition to the World War II years of Montgomery's life, producing a credible, readable version of his monumental biography. In contrast, I expected a good historical study from Horne, the master British historian, and he didn't disappoint me. His Monty, like Hamilton's, is an excellent study of the field marshal. Although I recommend them both, if you want a close, critical analysis of the "crusade in Europe," turn first to Horne.

Maj M. J. Petersen, USAF
Maxwell AFB, Alabama

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Found this...

Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett. A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World War.

British Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery "proved to be one of the great field commanders of World War II. He was not a nice person; dogged, conceited, vain, completely sure of his own abilities. . . . He was rigorous and enthusiastic, and exhibited considerable flexibility; he was a first-class trainer; and he understood the mind and stomach of the common soldier."

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Montys Leadership


Talks about Monty and Patton...

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Thanks loads guys, I have noted all your sources down. I am now very keen to find some sources that are critical of Montgomery. I know there are loads of ordinary people out there who criticise him for his tactics, but I really need titles of books of actual historians that are critical of him. Its a key plank of my argument, and if I can't find any then I will have to abandon the whole thing :s

I read the leadership thing about Monty and Patton .. very interesting.

James

Have emailed my old Boss,

He is head of War Studies at a uni in the UK so he should be able to give me some sources that are critical of Montys performance

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

There is Stephen Hart's 'Colossal Cracks: Montgomery and 12st army group' While not critical of monty explains how and why he fought in the way he di. Think that is what your thinking of Red. Harts book is a major revision in the historiography on Monty.

For actually criticism try some of the biographies by the american commanders of the time. They were monty's major adversaries. Also try Marshal of the RAF Tedders biography.

Remeber while criticism are good they are not all accurate. Monty was not that bad a commander. His worst problems was that he was a chauvinist. He is opften criticised for taking a long time in normnady but remeber this Eisenhower and the Joint Chief of Staffs believed the campaign would last 90 days from landings to the liberation of paris. This is about how long it took.

__________________
Thoughts on Military History
Cornish Scale Modellers
Ross' Military Modelling and Art

Good points from Ross, as always!

Bradley would be a good place to start for criticism but take heed of Mahross' warning!

MAhross, think you are rite about 'collosal cracks' but I seem to remember a journal article, possibly a rejoinder to some work on Monty... Then again the old mind may be playing tricks again!

Good point about Normandy, several people argue that the objective of Caen on Day 1 was merely a ruse to make the troops perform as well as possible, typical British operational planning, to give an objective unlikely to be accomplised in order to get your troops to go all out... Bit like Arnhem...

Monty states in his memoirs that his operation were all designed to destroy and wear down the Panzerwaffe in Normandy in order to allow the breakout by the yanks (im paraphrasing here, Monty says it far better and in alot more words). Whether this is true is open to debate when lookin at operations such as Epsom, Goodwood and Totalise...

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

I bought a couple of books on Normandy ops and I think I might have found new stuff on why Monty and Goodwood were misunderstood ( or then again maybe not?). I´ll come back with the author and the book´s name later on.
The author thinks that Monty only wanted to wear down the Germans so I think he´s not an anti-Monty guy.

Anyway, it seems the Goodwood was originally penned by Dempsey and Monty agreed to it.The basic idea was to "save" men by making an armoured thrust. However, the original version was sent to Ike but the new orders on 15th July by Monty, were not. That´s why Ike got wrong impressions on the attack.As well Ike had in a meeting mentioned of the two attacks that would break through the German lines and Monty had not corrected Ike, so he got the wrong impression on what Monty was up to.

As well on 19th July Monty made an announcement on the attack going well ( I don´t have the actual form of his words now ) which hint of a breakthrough even if the actual data from the battleground told a different tale. As well Monty mentioned on BBC the same day that the attack was going well and places that were not taken were captured. This was a big mistake. Maybe a prerecording made public too early (?).

Anyway Ike got pissed because he was not informed of the changes to the attack.As well the information "leaked" that they were going ahead as actually the attack had bogged down on 19th.

These should be in other books and articles I think as the author claims that Goodwood was the best reported attack so far in the war and actually I think accordingly the true figures should be available for men and tank losses in great detail.

I´ll put more here once I have the book with me ( I´m a t work now...)

__________________

Hmmmm... I think I will have a look in MOntys memoirs and see what he has to say...

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

The article was probably the article by Stephen Hart in the Journal of Strategic Studies.

You could also try these:

Richard Lamb 'Montgomery in Europe 1943-1945: Success or Failure?'

Alastair Horne 'The Lonely Leader: Monty 1944-45'

David Irving 'The War Between the Generals: Allied High Command in World War Two'

__________________
Thoughts on Military History
Cornish Scale Modellers
Ross' Military Modelling and Art

The book is Robin Neillands´ "The battle of Normandy 1944".

According to the book on July 18th ( not 19th my mistake ) at 1640 hrs Montgomery sent a message to Alan Brooke at the War Office:

Operations this morninng a complete success.11th Armoured reached Tilly-la-Campagne.7th Armoured passed Demouville and moving on La Hague.Guards Armoured passed Cagny and now in Vimont, 3 Div. moving on Troarn..Have issued a very brief statement for tonight´s 9pm BBC news...situation very promising and it is difficult to see what the enemy can do just at present.Few enemy tanks met so far and no (repeat no) mines.

Oops?

The interesting thing is that mostly the US guys are blamed for making Monty guilty. The book claims that most of the outcry came from the RAF commanders, Coningham and Tedder over the army´s failure to get them that long -promised open ground on the Caen-Falaise plain . Of course all hell broke loose at SHAEF as well though...

__________________