Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

  1. #1

    Default Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

    I have just been reading Corelli Barnett's The Desert Generals and he produces an interesting revisionist account on Montgomery, namely all the groundwork was already put in place for his victory against Rommel by Auchinleck prior to the Second Battle of El Alamein. It's a really interesting argument, but do you guys think Montgomery was one of the great wartime generals or just a good self-publicist?

    Personally I think he's a tad over critical, Rommel kicked the British's teeth in 41/42 and was definitely a lot of additional work Montgomery would have done to raise morale even if the defensive plan for Alam el Halfa was already in place.

  2. #2
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

    I have also heard that Archibald Wavell played a massive role in organizing the defense and logistics of Egypt prior to being switched with Harold Alexander.
    When it comes to Bernard Montgomery I usually hear opinions that he was actually pretty good or that he was awful. I don't want to discredit him by saying that he did nothing with his command while he was with 8th Army and want to place him in the middle of the spectrum. I'm sure Harold Alexander also played a role in organizing Egypt and the preparations for Montgomery at the time of 2nd Alamein.

    He was definitely a good self publicist but whether this means that his image is actually only the radiant aura of his true self or if the image conforms to reality is unknown to me. What I do find hilarious is that Americans tend to say that he was awful where as the British tend to treat him like he was the best on the Allied side. Well if we are talking relative here then I would say that Bernard Montgomery was in my opinion better that Eisenhower, Omar Bradley and Mark Clark when they exercised similar ground roles. As much whipping as Montgomery seems to take I don't think that Mark Clark or Omar Bradley could have commanded the ground forces in Normandy very effectively at all. The mistakes committed by the aforementioned Allied generals were so amateurish and bad that they were laughable. With the exception of some operations on the Rhine, Montgomery didn't perform that badly. Though he was very much a turtle type general that would amass huge resources and then advance at a turtle's pace, his only real defining point being that his army was so strong and the enemy army so weak that he was unassailable and could take his time. After all time and resource were on the allied side but some of his slow methods ended up wasting men and time when the moment didn't call for a slow massive blunt object which is how I would describe most of his offensives.

    Assuming Rommel had the men and resources to keep carrying out 5 more suicidal charges he still would not have won at El Alamein. El Alamein was a fortress that could not be assailed for the simple reason of disparity in troop numbers and logistics. The vast expanse of the desert made it impossible for an Italian Army to advance that far and still experience success. Not to mention that Montgomery had been tipped off about Rommel's plan so he literally had nothing to worry about here. I think just about anyone competent could have been in charge of 8th Army and the result would have been the same.
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; April 04, 2016 at 11:15 PM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  3. #3
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

    I was lucky enough to chat to some WDF later SAS chaps in London in the 1990's who said nice things about Wavell. I think Alexander and Monty were both "connected" as was the case with Haig in WWI. Political influence certainly played a part in messing with UK command structures from the very little I know. Monty seems to have been a competent hyper defensive general, keenly aware of his manpower shortages to degree that meant his US allies practically despised him as a coward.

    On a side note I recall a lot of outrage from the UK press about "Saving Private Ryan" as being hopelessly slanted. I thought as a film about US soldiers it was natural they wouldn't talk much about the Royal Navy or other UK elements, and the one disparaging remark about Monty (which caused a lot of ire) reflected accurately US opinions of him expressed by contemporaries.

    Monty was a relentless self publicist, and had a very hard time admitting any kind of error. In Beevor's D Day book he is described as hesitantly moving toward Caen, recoiling at stiff opposition, declaring he would take it pronto ( repeatedly for three weeks) then later rewriting his efforts as masterly inactivity holding down the SS forces opposite to allow the Cotentin Peninsula to be taken by the US (a lot of bosh really).

    Whatever Auchinleck's contribution, Montgomery ran the Alamein campaign competently with an army designed for colonial roles against a mobile modern army lead by an intimidating opponent. IIRC there are more mines in Cyrenaica than anywhere else in the world, I think more even than SE Asia. This reflects Monty's decision to counter mobility with static materiel advantages: the pillboxes and wire he strung over hundreds of miles were part of this also. When Rommel's unlikely drive was stubbed out the move forward was steady by unspectacular; it took a combined arms effort of some brilliance at Tunis to bag Panzer Armee Afrika.

    Whatever the criticism Monty never stumbled into a Kasserine Pass. In Sicily Monty's typically slow advance was eclipsed and embarrassed by Patton's dynamite mobility: I think the Nazi's were always impressed with Patton, he may have shown a degree of recklessness but he understood dynamic mobility better than any US general since Grant. Its no insult to Grant to say Patton probably had a better grasp of tactical finesse.

    Monty was slow methodical conservative and vain to the point of making cooperation with allies a bit prickly (there's the famous story of Monty demanding Eisenhower, his superior, not smoke at a meeting: fortunately the King was present and lit one up which was a slap for poor old Monty): for all his faults I've heard he was the most difficult allied general (I forget who Beevor suggested it was, one of the Americans but not Patton: Collins maybe?).
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  4. #4

    Default Re: Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

    It is probably appropriate to distinguish a good leader from a good commander. I find all too often Montgomery would make a tremendous error but then later claim it was what he intended to do all along, for example not taking Caen straight away was to help the Americans capture Cherbourg. He also botched Operation Market Garden, and could have in all honesty took out the Germans before they retreated to Tunis. Compared to say Wavell, or indeed Auchinleck who were both highly professional regular soldiers typical of the late Victorian generation he was a very poor planner.

    However arguably in terms of leadership, perhaps you could see him as that 'messiah', imagery and boosting morale is equally important to good command. The Eighth Army from what I read knew more of the 'Desert Fox' Rommel than their own C-in-C, too often pencil pushing in Cairo, which was a larger problem of the British C3I system. I would argue the foundations were already in place, it just needed that Montgomery type character to get his men 'over the top' so to speak. Anyway, with Ultra and his materiel superiority it would be more difficult to lose El Alamein, but still Monty needed to debunk the myth of the Afrika Korps​, and in the end he was the man to do so.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

    I think most of the bad press he gets is the result of being excessively self-publicist.

    However I wouldn't say he was over-cautious. Market Garden was anything but cautious.

    More likely he actually had a much deeper understanding than the more daring generals of his time that WW2 technologies and tactics could result in a situation changing for the worse faster than anybody could foresee.

    Therefore I would say that his priority was hedging against risks, both in attack and in defense, and this hedging makes some people label him as more prone to defense than offense.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  6. #6

    Default Re: Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

    He pampered to his ego.

    Market Garden was at least partially an attempt to cement his name in history, to be first in Germany; it was hasty, but if it succeeded, the British could have secured all the North Sea ports, and supplied their forces through them. It was a close run thing, where better planning and/or a bit more luck could have made it succeed.

    He was a good commander, not a great general. Outside of hubris, he knew where his responsibilities laid; what he may have needed were subordinates that he had confidence in, in the tradition of cavalry commanders.
    Eats, shoots, and leaves.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Monty was a relentless self publicist, and had a very hard time admitting any kind of error. In Beevor's D Day book he is described as hesitantly moving toward Caen, recoiling at stiff opposition, declaring he would take it pronto ( repeatedly for three weeks) then later rewriting his efforts as masterly inactivity holding down the SS forces opposite to allow the Cotentin Peninsula to be taken by the US (a lot of bosh really).

    Beevor is just plain wrong.
    Mongomery clearly wrote in his D-Day orders that Caen was not to be attacked frontally if the opposition was too strong.
    Example:

    3 British Division


    a) The task of 3 British Division is to capture CAEN and secure a bridgehead over the R ORNE at that place..............................................................................Should the enemy forestall us at CAEN and the defences prove to be strongly organised thus causing us to fail to capture it on D-Day, further direct frontal assaults which may prove costly will not be undertaken without reference to I Corps. In such an event 3 British Division will contain the enemy in CAEN and retain the bulk of its forces disposed for mobile operations inside the covering position. CAEN will be subjected to heavy air bombardment to limit its usefulness and to make its retention a costly business."
    (I Corps Operations Order No. 1, WO 171/258)




    There are anumber of talks/order from Montgomery from early 1944 that clearly lay out his position of covering the American flank as they advanced into France. Claims he 'made it up' afterwards are simply laughable.


    for example:

    7 April 1944:


    "Op Thunderclap"


    "Second British Army
    To assault to the west of the R. Orne and to develop operations to the south and south east, in order to secure airfield sites and to protect the eastern flank of First U.S. Army while the latter is capturing Cherbourg.
    In its subsequent operations the army will pivot on its left and offer a strong front against enemy movement towards the lodgement areas from the east




    The bulk of the bile heaped on Monty is post-war score-settling by lesser Generals.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

    The failiure of Market-Garden was mostly due to sheer bad luck during the first day in Arnhem. Nobody could foresee that Urquhart and Lathbury would be both cut off the HQ for 3 days. That, combined with the radios malfunctioning resulted in the failure of reaching the main bridge in strength.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  9. #9
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

    Quote Originally Posted by humble View Post
    ...
    The bulk of the bile heaped on Monty is post-war score-settling by lesser Generals.
    Indeed, his egomania ensured him a bountiful supply of embittered rivals. Even the earnest and amiable Eisenhower disliked Monty, which says a very great deal.

    The point about Caen is that it was lightly defended on D-Day (the panzer attacks which occurred to west of the city started very late afternoon) so the criticism of Monty as slow was felt by the US to his right to be justified. Practically the entire line of German defences (aside from Omaha obviously, where the fortified command position was within half a kilometre) had their command positions several kilometres back from the beaches, panzer reserves were well back (much to Rommel's chagrin: he had requested they be released to the Normandy sector and been denied) and the naval and air components of the landings were miraculously competent: on the flanks the airborne units had secured all major D Day objectives so conditions were essentially "best case".

    There may have been an organised anti-Monty whitewash from his well-earned enemies but circumstances are consistent with him being a cautious, vain, professionally competent commander, rather than the New Alexander he fancied himself to be.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  10. #10
    Eat Meat Whale Meat
    Technical Staff Citizen Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,812

    Default Re: Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Indeed, his egomania ensured him a bountiful supply of embittered rivals. Even the earnest and amiable Eisenhower disliked Monty, which says a very great deal.

    The point about Caen is that it was lightly defended on D-Day (the panzer attacks which occurred to west of the city started very late afternoon) so the criticism of Monty as slow was felt by the US to his right to be justified. Practically the entire line of German defences (aside from Omaha obviously, where the fortified command position was within half a kilometre) had their command positions several kilometres back from the beaches, panzer reserves were well back (much to Rommel's chagrin: he had requested they be released to the Normandy sector and been denied) and the naval and air components of the landings were miraculously competent: on the flanks the airborne units had secured all major D Day objectives so conditions were essentially "best case".

    There may have been an organised anti-Monty whitewash from his well-earned enemies but circumstances are consistent with him being a cautious, vain, professionally competent commander, rather than the New Alexander he fancied himself to be.
    TBF, one can easily put Montgomery in the same bracket of generalship as Alexander. Neither was as good as Alan Brooke though.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

    Whatever the criticism Monty never stumbled into a Kasserine Pass
    Operation Perch?
    Last edited by Sphere; April 12, 2016 at 12:19 PM.

  12. #12
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sphere View Post
    Operation Perch?
    Perch was a short hard stab, beaten back by a short hard stab and the feeling it could get very bloody. Monty's caution meant not too many men were burned in the operation, and significant forces were drawn into the ongoing fight that essentially depleted the German mobile reserve so there was very little indeed to face Patton's breakout to Brittany.

    Intentional or not, Monty's conduct at Normandy was professional and effective, if a little slower than the US commanders who were less concerned about casualties. The British forces (including Monty) had learned in France (1940) and in the North African campaigns about the dynamic mobility of the German forces, and their ability to cut off and destroy advancing units who hadn't minded their flanks.

    Kasserine Pass was a textbook example of professionals making mincemeat of amateurs. Relatively small Wehrmacht forces on dubious supply lines feinted a retreat into prepared positions where the Yanks were shot up like fish in barrels, something the British hadn't fallen for in years. To their credit the US Army took the defeat on the chin, sacked a lot of dead wood and brought their infantry tactics especially up to scratch.

    Given the relative experiences of the UK and US in WWI and early WWII their commanders reacted to type. The British had suffered the loss of most of their materiel and nearly 300,000 men at Dunkirk: the threat of another loss of that scale made wholesale commitment of armies to perilous adventures anathema to them, and the application of materiel superiority was the clear path to victory: it worked in WWI where pouring out blood had not.

    Despite an even greater superiority in materiel, the US found themselves in a two front war where the public felt more strongly about the pacific theatre. Courageously choosing Germany First as a policy Roosevelt sought to bring the war to a swift conclusion leaving no stone unturned in the quest for total victory: Army, Navy, the new Air Forces and secret weapons all got massive funding. A small "hard" army (about 80 divisions: US manpower could support a far larger force, albeit to the cost of industry) armed, equipped and supplied to an amazing standard was chosen as the preferred tool (perhaps with memories of WWI caricatures of amateurish US soldiers in mind). In the event the US pride and insistence they were on par with the British and even the Germans was dented at Kasserine but they took the necessary steps (unit comms especially, they needed more radios and the doctrine to use them, but also pretty simple matters of discipline) and made their forces respected by the end of the war.

    Patton crystallised all the positive aspects of the US leadership: bold competitive and prepared to spend blood to take blood. Some parody him as a self publicist but he's really typical of hard-cursing big-talking competitive US generals of the day: MacArthur was the real self serving maverick commander.

    Monty in many was a typical UK commander in his military conduct: effective campaigns exploiting materiel advantage and moving cautiously to save blood. However his rank egotism was disgusting to his fellows and allies alike. There are rumours he was gay: either mud to smear his name or another reason for contemporaries to dislike him.

    Eisenhower was the exception to all the sterotypes, perhaps a staff rather than a field commander he had the communication and negotiation skills to get the US Navy, US Army, Royal Navy, British Army and their various air services to cooperate, and to pick and stick to plans that would work: a freaking miracle, and on only matched on the Axis side by Kesselring (an acknowledged genius). Ike wasn't the first general to make President, but he was probably the first general to deserve it.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  13. #13
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

    A lot of these British generals were extremely similar in their conduct of campaigns and operations. Many of them seemed to follow British doctrine to the letter during the first part of WW2 which was a result of WW1.
    Archibald Wavell, Claude Auchinleck, Harold Alexander and Bernard Montgomery for example were all very similar and more or less operated on the same principles. Bernard Montgomery was not really an exception but he was the one that got loads of recognition for defeating the very propagandized Rommel. I think what set him apart was his egotistical and self aggrandizing or rather eccentric personality. In a lot of ways though Montgomery and his contemporary British generals were more or less clones of the previous generation of ideal generals (the good ones like Allenby). Wavell who started the war as Middle East Commander was quite respected as a senior general and it is no surprise that the guys who took up the role after him sort of modeled themselves after Wavell a bit.
    Honestly I think Wavell, Auchinleck, Montgomery, Alexander, Alanbrooke etc would have done just as good a job at El Alamein. I mean despite their shortcomings in Cyrenaica all of them could have held the fort in Egypt using similar if not the same means.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  14. #14
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    A lot of these British generals were extremely similar in their conduct of campaigns and operations. ...Wavell...
    I'd note Wavell let O'Connor of the leash and although I think he was forbidden from major operations they trumped up a "raid" (which became Operation Compass IIRC) that took Cyrenaica and destroyed an Italian Army.

    He was chased out and savaged by Rommel, but that was after Churchill pinched most of his forces for the stupid adventure in Greece, as well as losing more forces to deal with the brushfires that broke out in the ME when the British were ejected from Greece and Crete. Wavell got the blame for Churchill's meddling and was "promoted" eastwards, not sure how he went in India though.

    I believe Rommel rated Wavell higher than the other British commanders he opposed: although he had respect for Monty as a professional who didn't make blunders he praised Patton highest of all the WAllies. Typically for a German he rated the leader who took a risk with rapid decisive movement: how the German generals hated the "stand and fight" orders from Hitler, it was utterly against their tradition.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  15. #15
    Eat Meat Whale Meat
    Technical Staff Citizen Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,812

    Default Re: Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Perch was a short hard stab, beaten back by a short hard stab and the feeling it could get very bloody. Monty's caution meant not too many men were burned in the operation, and significant forces were drawn into the ongoing fight that essentially depleted the German mobile reserve so there was very little indeed to face Patton's breakout to Brittany.

    Intentional or not, Monty's conduct at Normandy was professional and effective, if a little slower than the US commanders who were less concerned about casualties. The British forces (including Monty) had learned in France (1940) and in the North African campaigns about the dynamic mobility of the German forces, and their ability to cut off and destroy advancing units who hadn't minded their flanks.

    Kasserine Pass was a textbook example of professionals making mincemeat of amateurs. Relatively small Wehrmacht forces on dubious supply lines feinted a retreat into prepared positions where the Yanks were shot up like fish in barrels, something the British hadn't fallen for in years. To their credit the US Army took the defeat on the chin, sacked a lot of dead wood and brought their infantry tactics especially up to scratch.

    Given the relative experiences of the UK and US in WWI and early WWII their commanders reacted to type. The British had suffered the loss of most of their materiel and nearly 300,000 men at Dunkirk: the threat of another loss of that scale made wholesale commitment of armies to perilous adventures anathema to them, and the application of materiel superiority was the clear path to victory: it worked in WWI where pouring out blood had not.

    Despite an even greater superiority in materiel, the US found themselves in a two front war where the public felt more strongly about the pacific theatre. Courageously choosing Germany First as a policy Roosevelt sought to bring the war to a swift conclusion leaving no stone unturned in the quest for total victory: Army, Navy, the new Air Forces and secret weapons all got massive funding. A small "hard" army (about 80 divisions: US manpower could support a far larger force, albeit to the cost of industry) armed, equipped and supplied to an amazing standard was chosen as the preferred tool (perhaps with memories of WWI caricatures of amateurish US soldiers in mind). In the event the US pride and insistence they were on par with the British and even the Germans was dented at Kasserine but they took the necessary steps (unit comms especially, they needed more radios and the doctrine to use them, but also pretty simple matters of discipline) and made their forces respected by the end of the war.

    Patton crystallised all the positive aspects of the US leadership: bold competitive and prepared to spend blood to take blood. Some parody him as a self publicist but he's really typical of hard-cursing big-talking competitive US generals of the day: MacArthur was the real self serving maverick commander.

    Monty in many was a typical UK commander in his military conduct: effective campaigns exploiting materiel advantage and moving cautiously to save blood. However his rank egotism was disgusting to his fellows and allies alike. There are rumours he was gay: either mud to smear his name or another reason for contemporaries to dislike him.

    Eisenhower was the exception to all the sterotypes, perhaps a staff rather than a field commander he had the communication and negotiation skills to get the US Navy, US Army, Royal Navy, British Army and their various air services to cooperate, and to pick and stick to plans that would work: a freaking miracle, and on only matched on the Axis side by Kesselring (an acknowledged genius). Ike wasn't the first general to make President, but he was probably the first general to deserve it.
    And also probably the most underrated US general in WWII: George Marshall. Now there's a man who was an expert at managing very different, and extraordinarily egotistical demands, yet succeed in keeping all of them onside, despite AFAIK not even having the official authority to keep all these egos down. He didn't get the European command because Roosevelt valued him as the only man who could keep the likes of King and MacArthur functional, but his protege Eisenhower, who shared many of the same qualities, did so instead. Without Marshall, Roosevelt might not have been able to continue committing so much to a Germany first strategy.

  16. #16
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

    Quote Originally Posted by pannonian View Post
    And also probably the most underrated US general in WWII: George Marshall. Now there's a man who was an expert at managing very different, and extraordinarily egotistical demands, yet succeed in keeping all of them onside, despite AFAIK not even having the official authority to keep all these egos down. He didn't get the European command because Roosevelt valued him as the only man who could keep the likes of King and MacArthur functional, but his protege Eisenhower, who shared many of the same qualities, did so instead. Without Marshall, Roosevelt might not have been able to continue committing so much to a Germany first strategy.
    I don't know that much about Marshall, thanks for that. So he is a sort of "super Ike", coordinating Pacific and European theatres? Crikey if he had to deal with Eisenhower's problems and that crank MacArthur he must've had the patience of a Saint. Do you know about his relationship with Nimitz? the little I know of Nimitz is he is one of the three or four true military geniuses of the war.

    To my mind the true brilliance of the US military leadership in WWII was the expert management of all facets of the war, and responding at materiel and doctrinal and technical levels as appropriate: this is largely true of the UK as well, who brought I think a more competent military tradition to start with, but a willingness to engage in new fangled war at every turn. The Wehrmacht commanders are rightly lauded for tactical excellence with limited resources, but Rommel and other Germans looked in awe on Overlord.

    I think the last one worth mentioning is Churchill. He couldn't help himself tinkering tactically and strategically: his idea to plonk the Royal Navy into the Baltic in 1939 was idiocy, and his notion of the "soft underbelly" disproved at Gallipoli in 1915 remained a hobby horse until 1944. Nevertheless he galvanised the British establishment by crude effrontery and boundless optimism, and overcame near toxic inter-service (and intra-service) rivalry at least as virulent as the US had (probably all the more so because the UK services were generally older and larger). In a fight to the death you need a manic alcoholic prepared to approve (or refuse) anything, rather than a subtle gentleman politician. I think Churchill, over his career, was a mad cruel bigoted racist partisan dog, but he was the right mad cruel bigoted racist partisan dog for the fight with Hitler.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  17. #17
    Eat Meat Whale Meat
    Technical Staff Citizen Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,812

    Default Re: Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    I don't know that much about Marshall, thanks for that. So he is a sort of "super Ike", coordinating Pacific and European theatres? Crikey if he had to deal with Eisenhower's problems and that crank MacArthur he must've had the patience of a Saint. Do you know about his relationship with Nimitz? the little I know of Nimitz is he is one of the three or four true military geniuses of the war.

    To my mind the true brilliance of the US military leadership in WWII was the expert management of all facets of the war, and responding at materiel and doctrinal and technical levels as appropriate: this is largely true of the UK as well, who brought I think a more competent military tradition to start with, but a willingness to engage in new fangled war at every turn. The Wehrmacht commanders are rightly lauded for tactical excellence with limited resources, but Rommel and other Germans looked in awe on Overlord.

    I think the last one worth mentioning is Churchill. He couldn't help himself tinkering tactically and strategically: his idea to plonk the Royal Navy into the Baltic in 1939 was idiocy, and his notion of the "soft underbelly" disproved at Gallipoli in 1915 remained a hobby horse until 1944. Nevertheless he galvanised the British establishment by crude effrontery and boundless optimism, and overcame near toxic inter-service (and intra-service) rivalry at least as virulent as the US had (probably all the more so because the UK services were generally older and larger). In a fight to the death you need a manic alcoholic prepared to approve (or refuse) anything, rather than a subtle gentleman politician. I think Churchill, over his career, was a mad cruel bigoted racist partisan dog, but he was the right mad cruel bigoted racist partisan dog for the fight with Hitler.
    Marshall was nominally only the Army chief of staff, while the joint chiefs of staff was chaired by someone else. However, Marshall was the only person in the joint chiefs who was liked and respected by everyone, so Roosevelt relied on him to keep everyone from tearing each others' throats out in pursuit of resources and prestige. From what I've read, the egos in the Pacific theatre made the likes of Montgomery and Patton look cooperative. King in particular was considered cantankerous even by the standards of his peers, while MacArthur barely even acknowledged the US president as his superior.

  18. #18
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Bernard Montgomery - 'military messiah'?

    In a lot of ways Marshal was seen as the Wavell/Alanbrooke for the Americans. He was extremely influential in the US military so I'm not surprised that Eisenhower and Bradley tried to style themselves after him.
    They even considered sending Marshal to command the European theatre but since Marshal was considered invaluable for FDR they gave the job to Ike instead.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •