All right boys, the easiest Poll Ever: Was Monty over-rated?

Just wondrin what we all think on the subject...

 

Monty Was a great general! squeaky voiced, utterly ruthless, completed the taking of Normandy way ahead of schedule. had lots on enemies back home, ambitious men that wanted to remove him. Greatly respected by the men that served under him. both in 1940 and im 1944/5.

Any officer that did not come uop to scratch was removed in double quick time, and "Bowler Hatted" His one error was Arnhem, was it worth it?....Oh yes, had it succeeded it would have saved the lives of thousands of young men.

having served under him, I have only praise for this squeaky voiced, ruthless, but but brilliant general. He was the architect of the withdrawal from Dunkirk. The Victory in Africa. The battle of Normandy and onwards, Arrogant, self assured. completely ruthless, never wasted mens lives. all the attributes needed for a great leader of men..
Sapper

 

I have to agree with Sapper on this one. Monty has been a target for sometime, perhaps due to Arnhem, but he was a truly remarkable commander, perhaps somewhat arrogant! Arnhem, in my humble opinion, could well have been his greatest triumph had he been more involved with the operational planning, as he himself said after the war. Without Monty the war may have been far different.

What is perhaps more interesting is why Monty has become such a figure of dislike in certain quarters? Over the last few decades he has been pilloried as a commander and his achievements denied by many. I wonder why this is? Is it due to the natural ability of humans to find fault in those that are successful or is it due to his personality? In comparing him to Rommels popularity, who was at best a good divisional commander, it is difficult to understand why he has become a figure of hate to many.

 

Can anyone recommend any excellent books on Monty?

 

Monty was a one trick general so-to-speak. He was an absolute master of set piece defensive battles. On the offensive he was unimaginative, plodding and, far too cautious. Alamein (offensive portion), Hill 112, Goodwood, Market-Garden, Reichwald and finally, the Rhine crossings all show these symptoms to name but a few of his major offensive actions where he took heavy casualities to accomplish little while letting his opponet slip away intact enough to fight another day.
I cannot fault him as a tenacious defensive general. On the defense there were few in WW II his equal. But, defending doesn't win wars nor, is it the mark of outstanding generalship.

 

When you consider the resources available to him he could hardly avoid being cautious. I rate him as one of the finest generals of the war, its just a shame his personality clashed with others and people were after his position.

 

How can market garden be termed unimaginative?

If it had worked it would have been a masterstroke. Before you argue that it didnt so it was crap per se, think of the intial idea not the actual outcome. It could have easily suceeded by changing minor parts of the airplan or indeed changing the advance into arnhem town centre.

The abilty to be good in defence does not make a good general?

You sure about that? Surely the ability to tie up the enemy and destroy his offensives is a very important part of being a general...

 

I think it was Cornelius Ryan that argued that the plan for MG was good, but there were a lot of factors that made it impossible none of which were faults with the plan (it was put into operation after the rout of some German forces had been reorganised, the radios, the panzers).

 

The major faults are in the air plan. The panzers are irrelevant as had the troops been warned then their equipment allocations could have been revised to face such an enemy as stated by Frost after the war. The major change that needs to be made to make the operation a success is to lift the whole of 1st airborne on day one of the operation. This could have been done using the gliders that were used to lift Allied Airborne HQ and by running two lifts on the first day. As was seen panzers are of limited use in built up area without adequate support. Had the division arrived en masse on day one than it could have advance as a whole to the bridge without the need to hold the drop zones for subsequent waves. But it is possible that with the plan as it was it could have succeeded had they opted for a single thrust into Arnhem rather than advancing on a broad front without an operational reserve to deal with German opposition.

 

I think everybody agrees that Monty had a quick total victory after El Alamein, which he missed. Rommel should never have reached Tunis...

 

Like on one film I saw on him he was introduced as "the most celebrated General of the WW2".

I think 1. he was at the right place at the right time 2. He was the first British general to give a major victory on land (?) 3. He wanted to keep the casualties as low as possible

I think neither Monty or Churchill did right decisions all the time but their charisma gave the boost to the war effort and thus their position is not easily shaken post-war.

Personally I´d have liked to see Monty been given free hands for example in Normandy so it would be interesting to see if he could use the imagination part to outwit the Germans...

After Normandy battles Monty was aware according to the enigma information that the Germans had little reserves and that´s why he was keen on attacking fast, and that´s one of the reason Arnhem was made. Unfortunately not everything can be predicted.

 

and large scale invasions of the European mainland

[ 04. January 2004, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: redcoat ]

 

Agreed. Ain't hindsight wonderful?!

Regards,
Gordon

 

Here's a slighty different take on this:

Sun Tzu wrote: "To forsee a victory which the ordinary man can forsee is not the acme of skill" 'Disposition' in The Art of War.

In his book "The Path to Leadership," Montgomery writes at length ascribing greatness in military leadership to (as he puts it): " the infinite capacity for taking pains and preparing for forseeable contingencies which is the foundation of success in war." Montgomery also states: "Those who...when they have done everything possible in the way of preparation and when the situation favors boldness, throw their bonnet to the moon."
Anyway, Montgomery's tenor in this book is that nothing should be left to chance, no uncalculated risk should be taken. To strike when opportunity presents itself but one is not prepared should allowed to be missed in favor of striking only when everything is just so.
Montgomery puts a premium of having overwhelming force without regard to his enemy's disposition. Outstanding generalship isn't a popularity contest or commanding an army that greatly overpowers its opponet. Rather, it is the ability to win when these conditions are not present, when the material odds are closer to even or when one is outnumbered that proves the mettle of a great general. Montgomery never fought such a battle.
Rommel did it. Patton and Nimitz did too. O'Conner and Waverll did as well. They merit higher marks than Montgomery for generalship.

 

And wavell and O'Connor were also sent home for not producing the goods.

Regards,
gordon

 

VERY interesting that the 'easiest poll ever' is, I think, the closest-run we've ever had on the Forums.

Exactly 50/50 at this time after 20 votes.....

 

...still a couple of hundred members missing from the final result...

 

During the early days of the invasion we were hugely outnumbered. Monty did not waste lives..How could he? we had been fighting around the World for years, this little Country did not have a huge reserve of men. Indeed, the reserve situation became critical in Normandy, some units were broken up and the men distributed to other units to bring them up to strength.
sapper

 

But to understand why Monty fought like this reveals why he is one of the great generals of the war. Monty unlike his american counterparts had to deal with 2 important factors.

1. Morale - The army he was using in europe was a civilian based army and with the exception of a few units entirely green. It was bound to have week morale. It was also a wasting resouce, something the americans knew nothing about at the time, as seen by the infantry these could not be wasted hence the primary reason for the launching of operation goodwood. he needed to a) keep his infantries morale up and b) protect his infantry from too many casualties. in doing this he used methods which may seem defensive but are actually linked to his ww1 experince where the BEF used whirlwind bombardments to hit at several points in order to puncture holes in the enemy lines. by doing this he hoped to preserve his infantry and exploit what he had lots of - Firepower, be it in the air or artillery. This technique he termed 'Collossal Cracks'

2. Politics - Monty had to be seen as a victor in the war and therefore had to fight in a fashion that would both support a suitable political outcome for the government and keep casualties low. As 21st army group was a wasting asset his methods were entirely understandable given the political limits that were set upon him.

 

Lord Montgomery was without doubt, one of the greatest military leaders of the war. A wonderful general, strategist and field-commander.

However, I voted that he is overrated. Because even if he was VERY good, was not what you'd call sublime or a master military mind. Montgomery WAS NOT a Nelson nor a Malbourough, but he certainly was a Wellington and a Plumer. And I don't see that as a bad thing at all. He did what he hadt to do in the best way possible.

He wanted to prevent becoming a Haig. A victor and a good general who won a war at a tremendous and unecessary high cost that could have been easily avoided.

And 'Market Garden' is indeed a master piece of strategical planning. However, that plan had both, Monty's flaws and virtues; the plan was conceived with a clear, concise mind, with wide strategical view and imagination. But it didn't work because it recquired a svage and intrepid front-commander leading it as well as deeper intelligence and logictical planning.

Montgomery to my view, is a little bit overrated. He deserves a lot of credit, but not as much. Why? Because unfortunately that ammount of fame belongs also to O'Connor, Wavell and Auchinleck.

If we speak about the war in North Africa, Rommel is the man who is TOO MUCH overrated.