|
|
Forums - Research / WW2 |
This WW2 forum is intended for asking and discussing reference or historical related issues pertaining to WW2 (1939-1945) subjects. |
| Topics | 3360 |
| Messages | 14997 |
|
|
| Subject: | Re: Monty |  |
| Date: | Dec 21, 2004 |
| From: | Alex Hill | |
I think that's a bit of a one sided view Cliff-
Dieppe- I'm not sure about it being Montys' plan- Blame is generally held to lie with Mountbatten and Churchill(a man who was truly tactically inept) and at the time of the landings Monty had been C in C North Africa for a couple of months, so he certainly had very little to do with the execution of the plan.
El Alamein-''Success. "At that point a troop of Boy Scouts could have defeated Rommel"-General Alexander.'' A fairly dubious statement on several counts. Firstly, Alexander had his own reasons to resent Monty, which have more to do with the British class system and a bit of jealousy than any tactical reading of the situation. Secondly, the tricky part in any campaign is putting yourself in the position where it looks easy (speaking from my armchair Generals point of view of course!) Where Monty broke from British practice up to that point was in his resistance of the political pressure to move before he could be sure of his forces superiority. The early period of his command was spent in training and consolidation of resources while the navy and airforce strangled Rommels' supply line. In other words, it loooked easy because he did it right in the first place.
Caen- I'd refer back my answer in the prevoius thread here. Stated objectives always shift. The fact is the Caen battles eroded German strength to a point where the breakout could no longer be resisted. Without this grinding down process the dash to Brussels and Paris would not have happened.
Market Garden- Again I'd refer to my answer in the previous thread. It was a screw up, no doubt about it, but it did almost come off. If it had worked, the potential to save lives would have out weighed the sacrifice. I know that it's easy to say that now when my life isn't on the line, but I think a lot of those living in capivity under the Nazis and subsequently under Soviet occupation would have appreciated the desire for a war ending stratedgy in 1944.
''With the (arguable) exception of El Alemein, he never won a battle or met an objective.''- Normandy landings?
On the broader question of Montys' personality and ego- of course he was an unpleasent man. Look at his background and then at the rank he managed to achieve. He didn't rise through the British army culture of the early part of the last century by being affable, he had to fight an ingrained system of officers -who were all Eton/Harrow/Rugby, Sandhurst Horse Guards- for every bit of credit he could get. Besides, name an officer who was willing to give credit to others and recognise their own mistakes. Patton and Monty would both rather have choked than recognise the others contribution (and Hollywood has always bent history to follow the Patton line), equally, Churchill never admitted his mistakes over Gallipoli, Greece etc, etc, and Mark Clarke never addmitted his incompetence either.
A final note on the reasons the Montys' popularity. All British military and social culture is coloured by the horror of the first war. With the seperation of time is difficult to comprehend quite how appalling and, thanks to the regional formation of regiments, localised the losses were. The effect was that many towns and villages lost their entire fit male population in a matter of a few moments once the order to go 'over the top' was made. At the end of the war the country was near bankcruptcy, the general strike followed and for a while, politically, Britain could have swung to the extreme right or left. The end result was an unwritten, but frequently spoken, social contract between Government and people, that the same thing would never be allowed to happen again. Hence, traditional British officers who directed the campaigns from country houses 20 miles behind the lines and minced about in riding boots when the medals were being handed out became incredibly un-popular. Whilst Patton led from the front, his confidence and manner are one possible reason why he was so unpopular (compared to someone like Ike, who probably could have successfully run for office in the UK) with many in Britain- too much of an aire of Hague and his ilk about him. As much as any factor, Monty made himself popular by being a contrast to those that preceded him. He was cautious with the lives of his men (who were a scarce resource by 1944) and made the effort to visit them on the ground. The caution which led to a lot critisism in the US was the chief asset in his UK popularity.
Al
(Yorkshireman first, British a distant second) |
| |
|
|
|
